Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2005:334
Date: 2005-06-02
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws;Pollution
Concepts: General;Environment;Defences
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Ireland

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment — Water pollution — Directive 76/464 — No period set for transposition — Consequence — Obligation on Member States to comply with a reasonable period for implementation (Council Directive 76/464) 2. Environment — Water pollution — Directive 76/464 — Obligation to establish specific programmes with a view to reducing pollution caused by certain dangerous substances — Scope — Concept of a programme (Council Directive 76/464, Art. 7, and Annex, List II) 3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination by the Court as to the soundness of the action — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation at the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) 4. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure — Justification based on the fixing of objectives more ambitious than those pursued by the directive — Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) 1. While Directive 76/464 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community does not, in contrast to normal practice, set out any period for its transposition, that does not mean that the Member States are free to adopt measures for its implementation within periods which they alone consider to be adequate. A directive, the transposition of which could remain suspended indefinitely, would be rendered meaningless and entirely ineffective. Furthermore, the purpose of Directive 76/464, namely to eliminate or reduce water pollution, requires that it be transposed within a reasonable period of time. (see paras 31, 33) 2. The programmes which Member States are required to establish under Article 7 of Directive 76/464 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community must be specific, that is to say, they must embody a comprehensive and coherent approach, providing practical and coordinated arrangements covering the entire national territory for the reduction of pollution caused by any of the substances in List II of the annex to that directive which is relevant in the particular context of each Member State, in accordance with the quality objectives fixed by those programmes for the waters affected. The concept of a ‘programme’ thus implies a series of coordinated, integrated and comprehensive measures. A national measure which, for a particular substance, does not encompass all surface waters in the country, inasmuch as canals are not affected by the quality objectives established by that measure, cannot therefore be regarded as being a programme within the terms of Article 7 of the directive. (see paras 38, 41) 3. Within the framework of an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in that Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes. (see para. 40) 4. The fact that a Member State claims that it has set itself more ambitious objectives than those pursued by a given directive does not relieve that Member State of its obligation to comply, at the very least, with the requirements laid down in that directive. (see para. 53)