Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:862
Date: 2016-11-10
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Bulgaria

summary, with regard to the second plea in law, it must be stated that Bulgaria failed, from 11 June 2010 to 11 September 2014 generally and persistently in all the country’s agglomerations and zones, to comply with its obligation under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 to establish and implement air quality plans pursuant to Section A of Annex XV to reduce air pollution by PM10, so that the exceedance period for the limit values under Article 13(1) and Annex XI could be kept as short as possible. V – Costs 120. Under Article 138(1) 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. Since the Commission has essentially been successful, Bulgaria must be ordered to pay the costs. 121. However, under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which intervene in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. Consequently, Poland must bear its own costs. VI – Conclusion 122. I therefore propose that the Court should rule as follows: (1) The Republic of Bulgaria failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) in conjunction with Annex XI 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 in respect of PM10 from 2007 to 2013 generally and persistently in all the country’s agglomerations and zones. (2) The Republic of Bulgaria failed, from 11 June 2010 to 11 September 2014 generally and persistently in all the country’s agglomerations and zones, to comply with its obligation under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 to establish and implement air quality plans pursuant to Section A of Annex XV to reduce air pollution by PM10, so that the exceedance period for the limit values under Article 13(1) and Annex XI could be kept as short as possible. (3) The application is dismissed as to the remainder. (4) The Republic of Bulgaria is ordered to pay the costs, except for the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland, which are to be borne by the Republic of Poland. 1 Original language: German. 2 OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1. 3 Air quality in Europe — 2015 report, EEA Report No 5/2015, p. 22. 4 WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution — REVIHAAP Project, Technical Report (2013), p. 35. 5 WHO, Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease (2016), http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250141/1/9789241511353-eng.pdf, p. 40. 6 WHO, Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease (2016), http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250141/1/9789241511353-eng.pdf, p. 98. 7 WHO, Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease (2016), http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250141/1/9789241511353-eng.pdf, pp. 65 to 67. 8 Spatial assessment of PM10 and ozone concentrations in Europe (2005), EEA Technical report No 1/2009, p. 20. 9 OJ 2005 L 157, p. 29. 10 OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41. 11 OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55. 12 See, for example, judgments in Commission v Belgium (C‑221/03, EU:C:2005:573, paragraphs 36 and 38), and Commission v Cyprus ( C‑340/10, EU:C:2012:143, paragraph 21). 13 Judgments in Commission v Germany (C‑387/99, EU:C:2004:235, paragraph 42), and Commission v Ireland (C‑494/01, EU:C:2005:250, paragraph 28). 14 Judgments in Commission v Ireland (C‑494/01, EU:C:2005:250, paragraphs 170, 171, 184 and 193); Commission v Italy (C‑135/05, EU:C:2007:250, paragraph 45); and Commission v Italy (C‑196/13, EU:C:2014:2407, paragraph 33). 15 Judgments in Commission v Ireland (C‑494/01, EU:C:2005:250, paragraph 37), and Commission v Italy (C‑196/13, EU:C:2014:2407, paragraph 33). 16 See, for example, judgments in Commission v Belgium (C‑395/13, EU:C:2014:2347, paragraph 39), and Commission v Portugal (C‑398/14, EU:C:2016:61, paragraph 49). 17 Judgments in Commission v Italy, ‘San Rocco’ (C‑365/97, EU:C:1999:544, paragraph 36); Commission v France (C‑492/08, EU:C:2010:348, paragraph 31); and Commission v Poland (C‑281/11, EU:C:2013:855, paragraph 37). 18 Judgment in Commission v Bulgaria, ‘Kaliakra’ (C‑141/14, EU:C:2016:8, paragraph 83). See, with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling, judgment in Gruber (C‑570/13, EU:C:2015:231, paragraphs 26 to 28). 19 See, with regard to the consequences for the admissibility of the action, judgments in Commission v Luxembourg (C‑23/05, EU:C:2005:660, paragraph 7), and Commission v Romania (C‑104/15, EU:C:2016:581, paragraph 35, but see also paragraphs 36 and 37). 20 Judgments in Commission v Greece (C‑475/01, EU:C:2004:585, paragraph 20), and Commission v Czech Republic (C‑37/11, EU:C:2012:640, paragraph 49). 21 That is in particular how I understand the judgment cited by Bulgaria in Kortas (C‑319/97, EU:C:1999:272, paragraph 36). See also judgment in Commission v Spain (C‑560/08, EU:C:2011:835, paragraph 75). 22 See judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraphs 45 and 47). 23 Judgments in Commission v Slovenia (C‑365/10, EU:C:2011:183, paragraph 24); Commission v Sweden (C‑479/10, EU:C:2011:287, paragraphs 13 to 16); and Commission v Portugal (C‑34/11, EU:C:2012:712, paragraph 52). See also the judgment of the EFTA Court of 2 October 2015 in EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway (E-7/15, EFTA Court Reports 2015, 568, paragraphs 33 to 36). 24 Judgment in Commission v Italy (C‑68/11, EU:C:2012:815, paragraphs 41 and 59 to 66). 25 See judgments in Francovich and Others (C‑6/90 and C‑9/90, EU:C:1991:428, paragraph 35); Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame (C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 31); and Fuß (C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 45). 26 Judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraph 43). 27 Judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraphs 44 and 45). 28 Judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraph 48). 29 Judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraph 44). 30 See, for example, judgment in Fuß (C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraphs 51 and 52). 31 Judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraph 30). 32 See also the judgment of the EFTA Court of 2 October 2015 in EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway (E-7/15, EFTA Court Reports 2015, 568, paragraph 36). 33 Judgment in ClientEarth (C‑404/13, EU:C:2014:2382, paragraph 57). 34 Judgment in Janecek (C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 45). 35 Judgment in Janecek (C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 46). 36 See to that effect, with regard to the review of serious interferences with privacy and the right to protection of personal data, judgments in Digital Rights Ireland and Others (C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, EU:C:2014:238, paragraph 48), and Schrems (C‑362/14, EU:C:2015:650, paragraph 78). 37 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3). 38 See, for example, judgments in Commission v Italy, ‘San Rocco’ (C‑365/97, EU:C:1999:544, paragraph 68); Commission v Greece (C‑420/02, EU:C:2004:727, paragraph 22); Commission v Italy (C‑297/08, EU:C:2010:115, paragraph 97); Commission v Greece (C‑677/13, EU:C:2014:2433, paragraph 78); Commission v Slovenia (C‑140/14, EU:C:2015:501, paragraph 69), and Commission v Romania (C‑104/15, EU:C:2016:581, paragraph 81).