Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:963
Date: 2023-12-07
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Pollution
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - inadmissible
Origin: Hungary

summary of the pleas in law submitted. It follows that any application made by the Commission under Article 258 TFEU must not only indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is called upon to rule, but also contain, in a sufficiently clear and precise manner, the essential points of law and of fact on which each of those complaints is based, the failure to comply with those requirements entailing, as the case may be, the inadmissibility of that application or the complaint concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 December 2009, Commission v United Kingdom, C‑390/07, EU:C:2009:765, paragraph 339 and the case-law cited). 59 In the present case, it must be stated that, as regards the present complaint, the Commission does not put forward any legal or factual arguments capable of meeting those requirements, but limits itself, in essence, to referring to the findings and assessments which appear in the reasoned opinion. 60 Accordingly, the fourth complaint must be rejected as inadmissible. 61 Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be declared that: – by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the agglomerations of Békés, of Dabas, of Dunavarsány, of Hódmezővásárhely, of Keszthely, of Kéthely, of Kiskunhalas, of Köröm, of Marcali, of Mezőtúr, of Nagykőrös, of Pilisvörösvár, of Soltvadkert, of Szécsény, of Szentendre, of Szentes, of Szigetszentmiklós, of Tököl, of Tolna, of Veresegyház, of Zalaegerszeg and of Zalakaros are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and connections to those systems, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 10 of Directive 91/271; – by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in the agglomerations of Békés, of Dabas, of Dunavarsány, of Hódmezővásárhely, of Keszthely, of Kéthely, of Kiskunhalas, of Köröm, of Marcali, of Mezőtúr, of Nagykőrös, of Pilisvörösvár, of Soltvadkert, of Szécsény, of Szentendre, of Szentes, of Szigetszentmiklós, of Tököl, of Tolna, of Veresegyház, of Zalaegerszeg and of Zalakaros, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 91/271; – by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in the agglomerations of Keszthely, of Kéthely, of Marcali, of Zalaegerszeg and of Zalakaros, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271. Costs 62 Under Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties are to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the Court may order one party, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay a proportion of the other party’s costs. 63 In the present case, since Hungary has essentially been unsuccessful, it must pay three quarters of the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs. The Commission is to bear one quarter of its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the agglomerations of Békés, of Dabas, of Dunavarsány, of Hódmezővásárhely, of Keszthely, of Kéthely, of Kiskunhalas, of Köröm, of Marcali, of Mezőtúr, of Nagykőrös, of Pilisvörösvár, of Soltvadkert, of Szécsény, of Szentendre, of Szentes, of Szigetszentmiklós, of Tököl, of Tolna, of Veresegyház, of Zalaegerszeg and of Zalakaros are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and connections to those systems, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment; 2. Declares that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in the agglomerations of Békés, of Dabas, of Dunavarsány, of Hódmezővásárhely, of Keszthely, of Kéthely, of Kiskunhalas, of Köröm, of Marcali, of Mezőtúr, of Nagykőrös, of Pilisvörösvár, of Soltvadkert, of Szécsény, of Szentendre, of Szentes, of Szigetszentmiklós, of Tököl, of Tolna, of Veresegyház, of Zalaegerszeg and of Zalakaros, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 91/271; 3. Declares that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in the agglomerations of Keszthely, of Kéthely, of Marcali, of Zalaegerszeg and of Zalakaros, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271; 4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 5. Orders Hungary to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the Commission’s costs; 6. Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Hungarian.