Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:487
Date: 2008-09-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Pollution
Concepts: General;Defences
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Ireland

summary of the complaints. The Commission can therefore, in the reasoned opinion, set out in detail the complaints which it has already made more generally in the letter of formal notice (see Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraph 26, and Case C‑152/05 Commission v Germany, paragraph 10). 18 It must be held that the letter of formal notice met the degree of precision required by the case-law, since the identification of the failure to fulfil obligations and its classification as being likely to constitute an infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive were sufficient to allow Ireland to present its defence, the reasoned opinion subsequently detailing the complaints which had already been advanced earlier. 19 Consequently, the argument submitted by Ireland in relation to the alteration of the nature of the complaint cannot be upheld. 20 Next, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-168/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8227, paragraph 24, and Case C-433/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-6985, paragraph 32). 21 In the present case, it is common ground that, upon the expiry of the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion, the Letterkenny agglomeration did not have a system for secondary treatment of collected urban waste water which allowed for complete treatment at all times of the year of all the discharges of that water. 22 In those circumstances, the Commission’s action must be held to be well founded in relation to the Letterkenny agglomeration. The Howth agglomeration Arguments of the parties 23 Ireland submits that, on account of works already carried out, the p.e. has been reduced to a level between 12 000 and 15 000, following the connection of sections of the peninsula to the waste water treatment plant at Ringsend through the Sutton Pumping Station. In addition, according to Ireland, the works in progress will very shortly reduce the residual p.e. to 9 000, well below the threshold of 15 000 laid down in Article 4(1) of the Directive. Ireland also takes the view that that part of the Howth catchment area is not an ‘agglomeration’ for the purposes of Article 4(1). Although it agrees with the Commission that agglomerations cannot be artificially split so as to avoid the requirements of the Directive, Ireland does not consider that the very specific circumstances which have arisen in the area in question, as a result of the progressive implementation of the Dublin Bay Project, the objective of which is to treat all collected discharges of urban waste water, constitute ‘agglomeration splitting’. 24 The Commission argues that the reasoning underpinning Ireland’s proposition with regard to the Howth agglomeration is not clear. It disputes the argument that the part of the agglomeration from where the untreated discharges of urban waste water now come should not be considered part of that agglomeration. In that regard, the Commission, first, notes that it is Ireland itself which identified IE31, Howth, as an agglomeration for the purposes of reports sent to the Commission. It then asserts that the concept of agglomeration refers to an area sufficiently concentrated for urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water treatment plant. The concept therefore also includes those areas which are sufficiently concentrated but where a collecting system for urban waste water is not yet in place. The Commission takes the view that the existence of an agglomeration is independent both of the existence of a collecting system for urban waste water and of the presence of a treatment plant for that water. Thus, a collecting system cannot be used to define the limits of an agglomeration. According to the Commission, to proceed in that way would be absurd. 25 In any event, the Commission submits that, even if Ireland’s argument on the issue of splitting the Howth agglomeration were to be upheld, it is clear that, on expiry of the time-limit prescribed in the reasoned opinion, Ireland had not put in place the measures necessary for treating all the urban waste water to be conducted from Howth to Ringsend. Findings of the Court 26 As regards the need, relied on by Ireland, to redefine the Howth agglomeration, it should be pointed out that Ireland itself, for the purposes of the application of the Directive, defined the agglomeration of IE31, Howth, as an agglomeration having a p.e. of 43 584 and, in any event, it has not provided, in the present case, any convincing evidence or argument to justify a finding that the area from which the as yet untreated urban waste water comes should no longer be considered to form part of that agglomeration. 27 In those circumstances it must be held that, upon the expiry of the time-limit prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the Howth agglomeration did not have a system for secondary treatment of collected urban waste water enabling all the discharges of that water to be treated. 28 Therefore, the Commission’s action must be held to be well founded in so far as it concerns the Howth agglomeration. The Bray, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore, County Waterford agglomerations 29 As regards the agglomerations of Bray, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore, County Waterford, Ireland admits, in essence, the alleged failure to fulfil its obligations, while setting out the reasons for the delay in the implementation of various projects and highlighting the significant works already carried out. 30 In that regard, it is sufficient to point out that, according to settled case-law, a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or circumstances prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive (see, inter alia, Case C-235/04 Commission v Spain [2007] ECR I-5415, paragraph 55). 31 In addition, according to further settled case-law, Member States cannot plead internal circumstances or practical difficulties to justify non-compliance with obligations arising from rules of Community law (see, inter alia, Case C-89/03 Commission v Luxembourg [2003] ECR I-11659, paragraph 5). 32 In the present case, the parties agree that the measures necessary to ensure the complete implementation of the Directive in the context of secondary treatment of urban waste water from the agglomerations of Bray, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore, County Waterford had not been adopted on expiry of the time-limit prescribed in the reasoned opinion. 33 In those circumstances, the Commission’s action must be held to be well founded with regard to those agglomerations. 34 Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to the Directive by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of the Directive. Costs 35 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the Commission applied for costs against Ireland and as Ireland has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive; 2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.