Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:136
Date: 2017-02-16
Language of the case: Hungarian
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 13 July 2017 1. Environment — Provisions of primary law — ‘Polluter pays’ principle — Article 191(2) TFEU — Possibility of individuals relying on Article 191(2) TFEU in order to exclude the application of national legislation in an area for which there is no EU legislation that specifically covers the situation in question — No such possibility (Arts 191(2) TFEU and 192 TFEU) 2. Environment — Prevention and remedying of environmental damage — Environmental liability — Directive 2004/35 — National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the operators of that land without it being necessary to establish a causal link between the conduct of the owners and the damage established — Whether permissible — Conditions (Arts 191 TFEU and 193 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/35) 3. Environment — Prevention and remedying of environmental damage — Environmental liability — Directive 2004/35 — National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the operators of that land — National legislation enabling the competent authority to impose a fine on owners that have been held jointly liable — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 193 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/35, Art. 16) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 37) 2. The provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, read in the light of Articles 191 TFEU and 193 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, to the extent that the situation in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35 — this being a matter for the referring court to determine — such provisions do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which identifies another category of persons who, in addition to those using the land on which unlawful pollution was produced, share joint liability for the environmental damage, namely the owners of that land, without it being necessary to establish a causal link between the conduct of the owners and the damage established, provided that such legislation complies with the general principles of EU law, all relevant provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties and of the acts of secondary law of the European Union. (see para. 63, operative part 1) 3. Article 16 of Directive 2004/35 and Article 193 TFEU must be interpreted, to the extent that the situation at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35, as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the owners of land on which unlawful pollution has been produced are not only held to be jointly liable, alongside the persons using that land, for such environmental damage, but may also have fines imposed on them by the competent national authority, provided that such legislation is appropriate for the purpose of contributing to the attainment of the objective of more stringent protection and that the methods for determining the amount of the fine do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, this being a matter for the national court to establish. (see para. 68, operative part 2)