Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2023:210
Date: 2023-03-16
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Provisions governing the Institutions;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

summary of the complaints, cannot be subject to such strict requirements of precision as those imposed at the second stage of the pre-litigation procedure, namely the reasoned opinion. (11) 55. That is all the more true in the case of the procedure under Article 260(2) TFEU. This is because the Member States, by way of the Treaty of Lisbon, abolished the requirement for a reasoned opinion in that procedure, in order to simplify it. (12) It would be incompatible with such simplification to impose more stringent requirements on the proof of an infringement to be provided in the letter of formal notice. 56. Moreover, the production of fresh evidence by which the Commission illustrates the grounds of complaint set out in the pre-litigation procedure does not alter the subject matter of the dispute. (13) Rather, the Court has ruled in procedures under Article 258 TFEU that the subject matter of an action for a supposedly continuing infringement may extend to events which took place after the reasoned opinion, provided that they are of the same kind as the events to which the opinion referred and constitute the same conduct. (14) 57. This should apply mutatis mutandis in the context of Article 260(2) TFEU, for the simple reason that, in that procedure, the Commission is not normally required to prove the infringement only at a given point in time, namely upon expiry of the time limit in the letter of formal notice. Rather, the imposition of a periodic penalty payment requires that the Commission also prove that the infringement has persisted until the Court’s judgment. (15) However, evidence of that might not yet exist at the time of the letter of formal notice. 58. Therefore, under Article 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Commission and the Member State may in any event produce new evidence – in the present case, for example, evidence of the exceedance of the limit values in the years 2017 to 2020 – in the application initiating proceedings and in the defence and, where a party gives reasons for the delay in submitting such evidence, also in the reply and the rejoinder and, exceptionally, after the close of the written procedure. (16) The Commission need only ensure that evidence which it submits after the letter of formal notice does not broaden the subject matter of the dispute. 59. However, the subject matter of the second plea in law is already apparent with sufficient precision from the letter of formal notice: the Commission alleges that, since the judgment of 5 April 2017, Bulgaria has failed to comply with the obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive to ensure that air quality plans are established which set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. New evidence proving the existence of that obligation or casting doubt on the quality of those plans does not broaden the subject matter of the dispute. 60. Moreover, in its letter of formal notice, the Commission already referred to other evidence in addition to the exceedances in 2015 and 2016, namely, in particular, the information provided by Bulgaria that most of the measures notified had not yet been adopted, and the – in the Commission’s view, insufficient – scope of the measures already adopted. 61. If that submission is correct, it could, in conjunction with the determinable trend in 2015 and 2016, prove that Bulgaria continued to be required to establish air quality plans and that the Bulgarian air quality plans did not meet the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. By contrast, uncertainty as regards the continued exceedance of the limit values should not be sufficient to rebut that submission. Otherwise, it would be practically impossible for such obligations to be enforced, because neither the Commission at the time of an invitation to submit observations nor the Court at the time of its judgment (17) has up-to-date measurements. Rather, they must always rely on values from the past. Moreover, Member States could undermine the enforcement of their obligations under Article 23 merely by stopping air quality sampling or delaying the transmission of readings where such readings are an essential prerequisite for establishing the obligation. 62. Therefore, the Commission sufficiently set out the alleged infringement in its letter of formal notice of 9 November 2018. 3. Interim conclusion 63. Consequently, the action is admissible in so far as the Commission alleges that Bulgaria continues to fail to comply with its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive to ensure that air quality plans are established which set out measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. By contrast, the submission relating to the plea in law alleging exceedance of the limit values is inadmissible. B. Compliance with the judgment of 5 April 2017 64. Following the statements regarding admissibility, the subject matter of the present dispute is limited to the question as to whether Bulgaria has complied with its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive since the judgment of 5 April 2017. 65. According to that provision, where, in certain zones or agglomerations, the levels of pollutants in ambient air exceed any limit value, Member States are to ensure that air quality plans are established for those zones and agglomerations setting out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. 66. The reference date which must be used for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 260(2) TFEU is that of the expiry of the period prescribed in the invitation to submit observations issued under that provision. (18) In the present case, that period ended on 9 February 2019 (see Section 1). 67. When examining the imposition of a lump sum and/or a penalty payment under Article 260(2) TFEU, the situation on the date of the decision of the Court in the present proceedings is also relevant. In particular, the imposition of a penalty payment is justified only in so far as the failure to comply with the earlier judgment of the Court persists (see Section 2). (19) 1. Compliance with the judgment of 5 April 2017 on expiry of the period prescribed 68. As at 9 February 2019, Bulgaria had not yet complied with the obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, as established in the judgment of 5 April 2017, to ensure the establishment of air quality plans setting out measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. (a) Continuing existence of the obligation under Article 23 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive 69. As the Commission did not refer to any exceedances since the judgment of 5 April 2017 in its letter of formal notice, there might be reason to doubt whether the obligation under Article 23 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive continued to exist on 9 February 2019. However, irrespective of the indirect indications pointing to that obligation that were contained in the letter of formal notice, (20) it is now beyond dispute that the limit values were exceeded continuously until 2020 in all zones and agglomerations covered by the present case. (21) Therefore, as at 9 February 2019, Bulgaria was required to ensure that air quality plans that met the requirements of Article 23 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive were established. 70. The fact that, in its letter of formal notice of 9 November 2018, the Commission relied only on the 2015 and 2016 measurements does not preclude the 2017 to 2020 measurements from being taken into account as evidence of Bulgaria’s obligation to establish air quality plans. The use of those later measurements does not serve formally to establish an infringement of the limit values under Article 13 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, but is merely evidence of the asserted obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) in relation to the air quality plans. (22) 71. The judgments concerning infringement of the Ambient Air Quality Directive which were delivered under Article 258 TFEU confirm that it is possible to produce that type of evidence. This is because, even in the pre-litigation procedure under Article 258 TFEU, the Commission, when laying down the relevant time limit in the reasoned opinion, does not yet have readings that would prove that the limit values will still be exceeded when it expires. (23) This is because, under Article 27(2) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, the Member States are not required to notify it of those measurements until nine months after the end of the year in question. Nevertheless, the Court has established, on the basis of figures submitted at a later stage, an exceedance as at the relevant date (24) and a failure to comply with the obligation to establish adequate air quality plans. (25) (b) Failure to fulfil the obligation under Article 23 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive 72. As the Commission correctly states, the exceedance of the limit values until 2020 is at the same time a strong indication that the air quality plans in place on 9 February 2019 were not sufficient to keep the exceedance period as short as possible. (26) 73. However, the Court has held in settled case-law that air quality plans may be adopted only on the basis of the balance between the aim of minimising the risk of pollution and the various opposing public and private interests. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain on the basis of a case-by-case analysis whether the air quality plans drawn up by the Member State concerned comply with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. (27) 74. While Member States have a degree of discretion in deciding which measures to adopt, those measures must, in any event, ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is kept as short as possible; (28) under no circumstances may it be extended indefinitely. (29) 75. In its judgment of 5 April 2017, the Court had already found that Bulgaria had failed to comply with that obligation in respect of PM10 concentrations until 2014 inclusive. (30) This does not mean, however, that, following that judgment, Bulgaria could no longer submit a plan in order to comply with its obligations under Article 23 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Rather, it is in the very nature of the procedure under Article 260 TFEU that the Member State concerned can (and must) take measures which, although usually too late to prevent the infringement, at least put an end to it. Accordingly, the late transposition of a directive cannot remedy the failure to comply with the time limit, but can eliminate the cause for infringement proceedings. 76. However, as at 9 February 2019, Bulgaria had not yet taken the necessary measures to put an end to the infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive established in the judgment of 5 April 2017. 77. This is because, at that time, at least not all the necessary national measures which are part of Bulgaria’s strategy to comply with the judgment of 5 April 2017 had been adopted. Those measures consist, in particular, of national programmes to improve air quality and to replace certain heating systems, as well as regulations on the design of solid fuel stoves and on fuel quality. Since Bulgaria, in its response to the Commission’s letter of formal notice, regarded those measures as being essential for compliance with the judgment of 5 April 2017, it must be assumed that the air quality plans were incomplete without those measures. 78. There is therefore no need for a substantive examination of those measures or the local air quality plans, nor for a discussion of the expected time frame for compliance with the limit values. (c) Interim conclusion 79. It must therefore be concluded that, as at 9 February 2019, Bulgaria had failed fully to comply with the judgment of 5 April 2017 with regard to its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. 2. Current situation 80. The current situation must be examined in order to be able to decide on the imposition of a penalty payment. Although that matter cannot be definitively assessed because not all readings for the current year are available, the air quality plans adopted in the meantime and the latest readings contain important indications. It is true that most of those plans and readings were not the subject of the invitation to submit observations of 9 November 2018. Nevertheless, their consideration does not alter the subject matter of the dispute. (31) Rather, they constitute new evidence that shows the extent to which that subject matter has become devoid of purpose in the meantime. (32) (a) Non-compliance with the limit values 81. At the Court’s request, Bulgaria provided the latest figures for 2021 immediately before the hearing. As those figures are still provisional, however, they cannot be of decisive importance in the present proceedings. (33) Nevertheless, subject to their finalisation, they cannot be ignored in the assessment as to whether the infringement persists. 82. As regards the readings, the annual limit value was already exceeded in 2020 only in the agglomeration BG0002 – Plovdiv, at a sampling point in the city of Plovdiv itself. However, according to the provisional figures for 2021, that limit value was eventually complied with. 83. By contrast, the daily limit values in 2020 were still exceeded too frequently in all the zones and agglomerations at issue, more specifically in Sofia, Asenovgrad, Plovdiv, Vidin, Montana, Gorna Oryahovica, Pernik, Smolyan, Haskovo, Pazardzhik and Burgas. According to the provisional figures for 2021, there continued to be too many exceedances in most of those places. 84. However, according to those figures, the daily limit values were exceeded on fewer than 35 days in 2021 in Pernik and the other municipalities of BG0006 – South-East Bulgaria, in Haskovo, Pazardzhik and Burgas (for the second time since 2019). In that respect, Bulgaria appears to have relied for the first time on the assertion that some of the exceedances established were attributable to contributions from natural sources and were therefore not to be considered as exceedances of limit values in accordance with Article 20(2) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. 85. It is true that it cannot be ruled out that the improvement in those zones is only temporary in nature. However, if the figures for 2021 are confirmed, it can no longer be established, at least on the basis of the information available today, that air quality plans must continue to be drawn up there. (b) Information on the effect of the measures under Section A of Annex XV to the Ambient Air Quality Directive 86. In so far as the daily limit values were still exceeded too frequently in 2021, the question arises as to whether the air quality plans adopted in the meantime nevertheless meet the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. 87. An assessment of that question presupposes, in particular, that the plans incorporate the information listed in Section A of Annex XV to the Ambient Air Quality Directive. The information in question documents, inter alia, the origin of the pollution (points 5 and 6), an analysis of possible measures for improvement of air quality (point 6) and the measures adopted and implemented (points 7 to 9), including a timetable and an estimate of the improvement in air quality to be achieved (point 8). 88. In particular, in the absence of an estimate of the improvement of air quality planned and of the expected time required to attain those objectives in accordance with point 8(c) of Section A of Annex XV to the Ambient Air Quality Directive, it is hardly possible to assess whether, on the basis of the plan, the period has remained as short as possible. This is because, without knowledge of the measures required for compliance with the limit values, it is also not possible to assess whether a faster implementation is reasonable. The Court has also already held that that information is of central importance. (34) 89. Therefore, the absence of that information necessarily forms part of the infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive which the Court found in the judgment of 5 April 2017. (35) 90. Accordingly, the Commission alleged, both in the letter of formal notice (36) and in the court proceedings, that that information was not present. 91. However, it did not address the local air quality plans. 92. In infringement proceedings, however, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled and to place before the Court the information needed for it to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled. In so doing, the Commission may not rely on any presumption. (37) That also applies in a procedure under Article 260 TFEU. (38) For this reason alone, an allegation that the air quality plans of a Member State are incomplete requires that the Commission examine all plans of the Member State concerned in that regard, that is to say, not only the national measures but also the local plans based on them. 93. Furthermore, as the Bulgarian Government has stated in response to a request from the Court, it is possible to consult the plans of the various municipalities on the internet. It can be seen that, prima facie, they do indeed contain the information listed in Section A of Annex XV to the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Moreover, it does not appear impossible that certain Commission services are aware of this or may have even played a role in ensuring that the plans meet those requirements, since the establishment of the plans appears to have been supported with EU funds. 94. Therefore, the Commission did not sufficiently set out the allegation that Bulgaria’s air quality plans do not contain the information required under Section A of Annex XV to the Ambient Air Quality Directive. (c) Suitability of the Bulgarian measures for bringing about compliance with the limit values 95. The Commission’s failure to address the local air quality plans also undermines its criticism of the suitability of the Bulgarian measures for bringing about compliance with the limit values. This criticism also essentially targets only the national measures. 96. However, the extent to which those national measures comply with the judgment of 5 April 2017 can be assessed only if they are examined together with the local plans. This is because the local plans build on those measures and implement them in practice. In particular, it is only on the basis of the local plans that it is possible to assess whether the measures provided for at local level, together with the national measures, are sufficient to bring about compliance with the limit values, and, if so, the point in time by which they will be complied with. Only with that information can there be a meaningful discussion as to whether additional measures are required at the national level. 97. Since the Commission does not deal with such local estimates, its criticism of the suitability of the national measures lacks the necessary basis. 98. Its argument must therefore be rejected in that respect also. (d) Exceedance period 99. As the Commission does not dispute the forecasts of the local plans, it must be assumed that the plans available – as submitted by Bulgaria as a whole – allow the forecast of compliance with the limit values in the entirety of Bulgaria by 2024. 100. Accordingly, it remains to be clarified whether, if the limit values are complied with by 2024, the exceedance period would be kept as short as possible. Since that question must be assessed in the context of compliance with the judgment of 5 April 2017, the decade of exceedance prior to that judgment is thus disregarded. 101. However, even proceeding from 5 April 2017, the limit values pursuant to the objectives of the Bulgarian measures are still not complied with for a period of almost seven years. 102. It is true that that period is long. However, given the Member States’ leeway in balancing the conflicting interests, (39) that circumstance is not sufficient to prove an infringement. This is shown in particular by Article 22(2) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Under that provision, the deadline for compliance with the limit values for PM10 could be extended from 1 January 2005 to 11 June 2011, subject to certain conditions. This was a similarly long period of additional non-compliance with the limit values, which the EU legislature accepted. 103. Moreover, the option of the abovementioned deadline extension was granted to all Member States, irrespective of their respective starting position and economic capacity. However, it is clear that compliance with the limit values for PM10 is particularly challenging in Bulgaria due to its existing heating practices. Moreover, overcoming that challenge entails significant costs, which burden Bulgaria more than other Member States due to its economic situation. 104. A period of almost seven years until compliance with the limit values for PM10 is therefore not manifestly excessive, at least in the case of Bulgaria. 105. It is true that this does not rule out the possibility that the limit values could be complied with more quickly in certain cases – or perhaps even nationwide. That possibility is supported in particular by the Commission’s criticism that certain national measures, for example the solid fuel standards or their enforcement, were introduced relatively late. Bulgaria has not countered this criticism. 106. However, although a faster introduction of those measures would most likely have improved air quality, the Commission did not demonstrate that this alone would have been sufficient to bring about compliance with the limit values sooner. Rather, a finding that the period of exceedance of the limit values has not remained ‘as short as possible’ would require a specific review relating to the respective local air quality plans. As a general rule, it would also be necessary to check the balancing of the conflicting interests, which would likewise be possible only on the basis of the local air quality plans. This is because only those plans can show why certain measures were not implemented earlier at the respective location. Since the Commission does not discuss those plans, the Court cannot therefore find that the exceedance period will be too long in certain cases or even overall. (e) Interim conclusion 107. It follows that the Commission’s submissions are not sufficient to establish that, to date, Bulgaria has failed to comply with the judgment of 5 April 2017 with regard to its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. C. Penalty payment and lump sum 108. On the basis of the findings to date, there is no reason to impose a penalty payment. (40) Nor does a lump sum on account of the insufficient compliance with the judgment as at 9 February 2019 seem logical to me, as Bulgaria should instead invest the scarce resources in air quality improvement. VI. Costs 109. Pursuant to Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties are to bear their own costs where – as is the case here – each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. VII. Conclusion 110. I therefore propose that the Court should: (1) declare that, as at 9 February 2019, the Republic of Bulgaria had failed fully to comply with the judgment of 5 April 2017 with regard to its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; (2) dismiss the action as to the remainder; (3) order the European Commission and the Republic of Bulgaria to bear their own costs. 1 Original language: German. 2 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1). 3 Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41). 4 Judgment of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 75). 5 Judgment of 12 November 2019, Commission v Ireland (Derrybrien Wind Farm) (C‑261/18, EU:C:2019:955, paragraph 123). 6 Order of 13 September 2000, Commission v Netherlands (C‑341/97, EU:C:2000:434, paragraph 18); and judgments of 15 February 2001, Commission v France (C‑230/99, EU:C:2001:100, paragraph 32); of 27 October 2005, Commission v Luxembourg (C‑23/05, EU:C:2005:660, paragraph 7); and of 5 December 2019, Commission v Spain (Waste management plans) (C‑642/18, EU:C:2019:1051, paragraphs 17 and 18). 7 Judgment of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraph 64). 8 Judgments of 2 December 2014, Commission v Italy (C‑196/13, EU:C:2014:2407, paragraph 32), and of 4 July 2018, Commission v Slovakia (C‑626/16, EU:C:2018:525, paragraph 35). 9 P. 6 of the invitation to submit observations: ‘До момента обаче на Комисията не са представени нови планове по член 23 от Директива 2008/50/ЕО, които да показват значително подобрение на общата политика за намаляване и управление на замърсяването на въздуха с ПЧ10.’ 10 P. 6 of the invitation to submit observations: ‘Комисията отбелязва, че до момента, след решението по дело С-488/15, са представени много малко нови мерки (които не са представени и оценени по време на процедурата по член 258 от ДФЕС) и почти всички все още не са изпълнени (приемане на Национална програма за качеството на въздуха, промени в Закона за чистотата на атмосферния въздух).’ 11 Judgments of 28 March 1985, Commission v Italy (274/83, EU:C:1985:148, paragraph 21); of 8 April 2008, Commission v Italy (C‑337/05, EU:C:2008:203, paragraph 23); and of 26 April 2018, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑97/17, EU:C:2018:285, paragraph 19). 12 See, in that regard, my Opinion in Commission v Slovakia (C‑626/16, EU:C:2018:4, points 39 to 46). 13 See, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2005, Commission v Ireland (C‑494/01, EU:C:2005:250, paragraph 38). 14 Judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 43); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 66); of 3 June 2021, Commission v Germany (Limit values – NO2) (C‑635/18, not published, EU:C:2021:437, paragraph 55); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraph 61). 15 See judgments of 9 December 2008, Commission v France (C‑121/07, EU:C:2008:695, paragraph 27); of 7 July 2009, Commission v Greece (C‑369/07, EU:C:2009:428, paragraph 59); of 17 November 2011, Commission v Italy (C‑496/09, EU:C:2011:740, paragraph 42); of 11 December 2012, Commission v Spain (C‑610/10, EU:C:2012:781, paragraph 96); and of 28 November 2013, Commission v Luxembourg (C‑576/11, EU:C:2013:773, paragraph 43). 16 See judgments of 10 November 2016, Commission v Greece (C‑504/14, EU:C:2016:847, paragraphs 20 to 26), and of 14 November 2018, Commission v Greece (C‑93/17, EU:C:2018:903, paragraph 37). 17 See judgment of 17 October 2013, Commission v Belgium (C‑533/11, EU:C:2013:659, paragraphs 65 and 74). 18 Judgments of 11 December 2012, Commission v Spain (C‑610/10, EU:C:2012:781, paragraph 67), and of 22 February 2018, Commission v Greece (C‑328/16, EU:C:2018:98, paragraph 49). 19 Judgments of 9 December 2008, Commission v France (C‑121/07, EU:C:2008:695, paragraph 27); of 7 July 2009, Commission v Greece (C‑369/07, EU:C:2009:428, paragraph 59); of 17 November 2011, Commission v Italy (C‑496/09, EU:C:2011:740, paragraph 42); of 11 December 2012, Commission v Spain (C‑610/10, EU:C:2012:781, paragraph 96); and of 28 November 2013, Commission v Luxembourg (C‑576/11, EU:C:2013:773, paragraph 43). 20 See points 60 and 61 above. 21 Tables 1 and 2 of the Commission’s application and Annexes B.3 and B.4 to Bulgaria’s response. 22 Regarding the production of evidence, see points 56 to 58 above. 23 Judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 26); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 21); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraph 24). 24 In particular, judgment of 3 June 2021, Commission v Germany (Limit values – NO2) (C‑635/18, not published, EU:C:2021:437, paragraphs 47 to 58), as well as judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 71); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 72); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraph 65). 25 In particular, judgment of 3 June 2021, Commission v Germany (Limit values – NO2) (C‑635/18, not published, EU:C:2021:437, paragraph 144), as well as judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 115); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 138); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraph 134). 26 See judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 115); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 145); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraphs 136 and 137). 27 Judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraphs 106, 107 and 108); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraphs 134, 135 and 137); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraphs 130, 131 and 133). 28 Judgments of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 109); of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 136); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraph 132). 29 Judgment of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 154). 30 Judgment of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 117). 31 See points 56 to 58 above. 32 See, to that effect, judgment of 4 March 2021, Commission v United Kingdom (Limit values – NO2) (C‑664/18, not published, EU:C:2021:171, paragraphs 81 to 84). 33 Judgment of 3 June 2021, Commission v Germany (Limit values – NO2) (C‑635/18, not published, EU:C:2021:437, paragraph 59). 34 Judgments of 4 March 2021, Commission v United Kingdom (Limit values – NO2) (C‑664/18, not published, EU:C:2021:171, paragraph 146); of 3 June 2021, Commission v Germany (Limit values – NO2) (C‑635/18, not published, EU:C:2021:437, paragraph 147); and of 12 May 2022, Commission v Bulgaria (Limit values – SO2) (C‑730/19, not published, EU:C:2022:382, paragraph 139). See also my Opinion in Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2016:862, point 113). See also judgment of 10 November 2020, Commission v Italy (Limit values for PM10) (C‑644/18, EU:C:2020:895, paragraph 141). 35 Judgment of 5 April 2017, Commission v Bulgaria (C‑488/15, EU:C:2017:267, paragraph 103). 36 Introduction to Section 3 and, in particular, Section 3.2. 37 Judgments of 25 May 1982, Commission v Netherlands (96/81, EU:C:1982:192, paragraph 6); of 26 April 2005, Commission v Ireland (C‑494/01, EU:C:2005:250, paragraph 41); and of 17 December 2020, Commission v Hungary (Reception of applicants for international protection) (C‑808/18, EU:C:2020:1029, paragraph 112). 38 Judgment of 17 September 2015, Commission v Italy (C‑367/14, not published, EU:C:2015:611) 39 See point 73 above. 40 See judgment of 17 October 2013, Commission v Belgium (C‑533/11, EU:C:2013:659, paragraph 64).