Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2019:824
Date: 2019-10-03
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Pollution
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

summary, it can be stated that the national courts must be able to review the assessment of the effectiveness of action programmes and the decision whether or not to take additional measures or reinforced actions at least in respect of manifest errors and whether the competent authorities have respected the limits of their discretion as well as procedural requirements, in particular the obligation to state reasons, and have examined all the relevant aspects. V. Conclusion 109. I therefore propose that the Court answer the request for a preliminary ruling as follows: (1) A public water supplier, an individual and a municipality as a public body may, in principle, rely on Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources in so far as they are concerned by nitrate pollution of groundwater, for example because they are subject to interference with the use of their own wells for legitimate abstraction of drinking water. (2) The measures to implement Directive 91/676 must seek to prevent or eliminate a nitrate level of more than 50 mg/l in groundwater if the discharge of nitrogen compounds from agricultural sources makes a significant contribution to the pollution. (3) Member States must effectively review every four years whether the existing action programmes to implement Directive 91/676 are sufficient for preventing or eliminating a nitrate level of more than 50 mg/l in groundwater and take all necessary additional measures or reinforced actions if it is apparent that this is not the case. (4) The national courts must be able to review the assessment of the effectiveness of action programmes and the decision whether or not to take additional measures or reinforced actions at least in respect of manifest errors and whether the competent authorities have respected the limits of their discretion as well as procedural requirements, in particular the obligation to state reasons, and have examined all the relevant aspects. 1 Original language: German. 2 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40). 3 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1). 4 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency, Germany) (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/faqs-zu-nitrat-im-grund-trinkwasser#textpart-4). 5 Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32), as amended by Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1787 of 6 October 2015 amending Annexes II and III to Council Directive 98/83 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 2015 L 260, p. 6). 6 Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters of 1998 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4), approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1). 7 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1), as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014 (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 32). 8 Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19), as amended by Commission Directive 2014/80/EU of 20 June 2014 (OJ 2014 L 182, p. 52). 9 See, to that effect, judgments of 16 December 1976, Rewe-Zentralfinanz and Rewe-Zentral (33/76, EU:C:1976:188, paragraph 5); of 27 June 2013, Agrokonsulting (C‑93/12, EU:C:2013:432, paragraphs 35 and 36); and of 22 February 2018, INEOS Köln (C‑572/16, EU:C:2018:100, paragraph 42). 10 Judgments of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 66); of 25 July 2008, Janecek (C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 37); of 8 November 2016, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK (C‑243/15, EU:C:2016:838, paragraph 44); and of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation (C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 34). 11 See, to that effect, judgments of 25 July 2008, Janecek (C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 39), and of 26 May 2011, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C‑165/09 to C‑167/09, EU:C:2011:348, paragraph 100). 12 Judgments of 25 July 2008, Janecek (C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 37); of 26 May 2011, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C‑165/09 to C‑167/09, EU:C:2011:348, paragraph 94); and of 19 November 2014, ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraph 55). 13 See also judgment of 29 April 1999, Standley and Others (C‑293/97, EU:C:1999:215, paragraph 34). 14 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 (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56), as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 114). 15 Judgment of 1 June 2017 (C‑529/15, EU:C:2017:419, paragraphs 47 to 49). 16 Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 26). 17 See judgment of 29 April 1999, Standley and Others (C‑293/97, EU:C:1999:215, paragraph 34). 18 See, by way of illustration, my Opinion in Craeynest (C‑723/17, EU:C:2019:168, point 68 et seq., in particular point 85). 19 Judgment of 26 May 2011, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C‑165/09 to C‑167/09, EU:C:2011:348, paragraphs 94 and 99 to 103). 20 Judgment of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation (C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 46). 21 Judgments of 19 January 1982, Becker (8/81, EU:C:1982:7, paragraph 25); of 24 January 2012, Dominguez (C‑282/10, EU:C:2012:33, paragraph 33); and of 6 November 2018, Bauer and Willmeroth (C‑569/16 and C‑570/16, EU:C:2018:871, paragraph 70). 22 Judgments of 24 October 1996, Kraaijeveld and Others (C‑72/95, EU:C:1996:404, paragraph 56); of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 66); of 25 July 2008, Janecek (C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 46); of 26 May 2011, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C‑165/09 to C‑167/09, EU:C:2011:348, paragraphs 100 to 103); of 5 September 2012, Rahman and Others (C‑83/11, EU:C:2012:519, paragraph 25); and of 8 November 2016, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK (C‑243/15, EU:C:2016:838, paragraph 44). 23 Judgments of 2 October 2003, Commission v Netherlands (C‑322/00, EU:C:2003:532, paragraph 113), and of 4 September 2014, Commission v France (C‑237/12, EU:C:2014:2152, paragraph 129). 24 Judgments of 29 April 1999, Standley and Others (C‑293/97, EU:C:1999:215, paragraph 30); of 8 September 2005, Commission v Spain (C‑416/02, EU:C:2005:511, paragraph 69); and of 22 September 2005, Commission v Belgium (C‑221/03, EU:C:2005:573, paragraph 84). 25 Judgments of 29 April 1999, Standley and Others (C‑293/97, EU:C:1999:215, paragraph 35), and of 22 September 2005, Commission v Belgium (C‑221/03, EU:C:2005:573, paragraph 87). 26 Judgment of 22 September 2005, Commission v Belgium (C‑221/03, EU:C:2005:573, paragraph 86). 27 As is shown by the link with Article 3(1) and is confirmed in particular by the English and French versions of Annex I A, point 2, the ‘und’ [‘and’] in the German version is to be understood as meaning ‘falls’ [‘if’]. 28 See above, points 46 to 50. 29 According to a report by the Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft of the Republic of Austria, Grundwasseralter in Österreich — mittlere Verweilzeiten in ausgewählten Grundwasserkörpern (as at December 2015, https://www.bmnt.gv.at/wasser/wasserqualitaet/grundwasseralter.html), groundwater is retained in the affected areas in the main proceedings in some cases between 11 and 25 years on average, in others even between 25 and 50 years. 30 Judgments of 2 October 2003, Commission v Netherlands (C‑322/00, EU:C:2003:532, paragraph 166), and of 21 June 2018, Commission v Germany (C‑543/16, not published, EU:C:2018:481, paragraph 53). 31 The reference in the German version to Article 5 as a whole is manifestly incorrect. 32 Judgment of 21 June 2018, Commission v Germany (C‑543/16, not published, EU:C:2018:481, paragraph 61). 33 Judgment of 21 June 2018, Commission v Germany (C‑543/16, not published, EU:C:2018:481, paragraphs 63 and 64). 34 See footnote 29. 35 C‑723/17, EU:C:2019:168, point 41 et seq. See, in particular, judgments of 21 January 1999, Upjohn (C‑120/97, EU:C:1999:14, paragraph 35), and of 9 June 2005, HLH Warenvertrieb and Orthica (C‑211/03, C‑299/03 and C‑316/03 to C‑318/03, EU:C:2005:370, paragraph 76). 36 Judgments of 29 April 1999, Standley and Others (C‑293/97, EU:C:1999:215, paragraphs 37 and 39); of 2 October 2003, Commission v Netherlands (C‑322/00, EU:C:2003:532, paragraph 46); of 27 June 2002, Commission v France (C‑258/00, EU:C:2002:400, paragraph 53); and of 4 September 2014, Commission v France (C‑237/12, EU:C:2014:2152, paragraph 30). 37 See my Opinion in Craeynest (C‑723/17, EU:C:2019:168, points 47, 48 and 53 et seq.). 38 Judgments of 27 June 2002, Commission v France (C‑258/00, EU:C:2002:400, paragraph 53); of 2 October 2003, Commission v Netherlands (C‑322/00, EU:C:2003:532, paragraph 46); and of 4 September 2014, Commission v France (C‑237/12, EU:C:2014:2152, paragraph 30). 39 Judgments of 4 September 2014, Commission v France (C‑237/12, EU:C:2014:2152, paragraph 30); see also judgment of 2 October 2003, Commission v Netherlands (C‑322/00, EU:C:2003:532, paragraph 45). 40 My Opinion in Craeynest (C‑723/17, EU:C:2019:168, point 39). 41 Judgments of 21 January 1999, Upjohn (C‑120/97, EU:C:1999:14, paragraph 35), and of 9 June 2005, HLH Warenvertrieb and Orthica (C‑211/03, C‑299/03 and C‑316/03 to C‑318/03, EU:C:2005:370, paragraph 76). See the detailed statements in my Opinion in Craeynest (C‑723/17, EU:C:2019:168, points 38 to 51). 42 Judgments of 9 March 2010, ERG and Others (C‑379/08 and C‑380/08, EU:C:2010:127, paragraph 61); of 22 November 2012, M. (C‑277/11, EU:C:2012:744, paragraph 88); of 18 July 2013, FIFA v Commission (C‑204/11 P, EU:C:2013:477, paragraph 20, and C‑205/11 P, EU:C:2013:478, paragraph 21); of 5 November 2014, Mukarubega (C‑166/13, EU:C:2014:2336, paragraph 48); and of 11 December 2014, Boudjlida (C‑249/13, EU:C:2014:2431, paragraph 38). 43 See, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2018, Commission v Germany (C‑543/16, not published, EU:C:2018:481, paragraphs 67 and 68). 44 Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft of the Republic of Austria, EU Nitratrichtlinie 91/676/EWG — Österreichischer Bericht 2016, pp. 58 and 59. 45 Cited in footnote 44, pp. 40 and 41. 46 Judgment of 12 March 2002, Omega Air and Others (C‑27/00 and C‑122/00, EU:C:2002:161, paragraph 72). 47 Judgment of 22 November 2007, Spain v Lenzing (C-525/04 P, EU:C:2007:698, paragraph 60). 48 Judgment of 14 June 2018, Lubrizol France v Council (C-223/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:442, paragraph 39).