Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:242
Date: 2025-04-03
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Bulgaria

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 (*) ( Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Consumer protection – Directive 2009/54/EC – Article 8(2) – Prohibition on marketing natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description – Article 7(2)(b) – Article 9(4)(c) – Labelling requirements – Mandatory information – Name of the spring – Incorrect transposition ) In Case C‑462/23, ACTION for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU, brought on 24 July 2023, European Commission, represented by N. Nikolova and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents, applicant, v Republic of Bulgaria, represented by T. Mitova, S. Ruseva and R. Stoyanov, acting as Agents, defendant, THE COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of T. von Danwitz, Vice-President of the Court, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, A. Kumin and I. Ziemele (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following Judgment 1 By its action, the European Commission asks the Court to hold that: – by failing to prohibit the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description, – by failing to require that the labels of natural mineral waters and spring waters indicate the name of the spring, and – by allowing the use of the term ‘spring water’ for water that does not satisfy the conditions for using that term, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2), Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (OJ 2009 L 164, p. 45). Legal context European Union law 2 Recitals 5, 7 and 9 in the preamble to Directive 2009/54 state: ‘(5) The primary purposes of any rules on natural mineral waters should be to protect the health of consumers, to prevent consumers from being misled and to ensure fair trading. … (7) Care should be taken to ensure that natural mineral waters retain at the marketing stage those characteristics which enabled them to be recognised as such. … … (9) The inclusion of the statement of the analytical composition of a natural mineral water should be compulsory in order to ensure that consumers are informed.’ 3 Article 1(1) of that directive provides: ‘This Directive concerns waters extracted from the ground of a Member State and recognised by the responsible authority of that Member State as natural mineral waters satisfying the provisions of Annex I, Section I.’ 4 Article 7(2) of that directive provides: ‘Labels on natural mineral waters shall also give the following mandatory information: … (b) the place where the spring is exploited and the name of the spring; …’ 5 Article 8 of that directive is worded as follows: ‘1. The name of a locality, hamlet or place may occur in the wording of a trade description provided that it refers to a natural mineral water the spring of which is exploited at the place indicated by that description and provided that it is not misleading as regards the place of exploitation of the spring. 2. It shall be prohibited to market natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description. 3. When the labels or inscriptions on the containers in which the natural mineral waters are offered for sale include a trade description different from the name of the spring or the place of its exploitation, that place of exploitation or the name of the spring shall be indicated in letters at least one and a half times the height and width of the largest of the letters used for that trade description. The first subparagraph shall apply, mutatis mutandis and with the same intention as regards the importance attributed to the name of the spring or the place of its exploitation, with regard to the trade description used in advertising, in whatsoever form, relating to natural mineral waters.’ 6 Article 9(4) of Directive 2009/54 provides as follows: ‘The term “spring water” shall be reserved for a water which is intended for human consumption in its natural state, and bottled at source, which: … (c) satisfies the labelling requirements of Article 7(2), points (b) and (c), and Article 8; …’ 7 Annex I to that directive includes a Part I, entitled ‘Definition’, which provides, in point 1: ‘“Natural mineral water” means microbiologically wholesome water, within the meaning of Article 5, originating in an underground water table or deposit and emerging from a spring tapped at one or more natural or bore exits. …’ Bulgarian law The 2004 order 8 Article 22(3) of the Naredba za iziskvaniyata kam butiliranite naturalni mineralni, izvorni i trapezni vodi, prednaznacheni za piteyni tseli (Order on the requirements applicable to bottled natural mineral, spring and table water intended as beverages, DV No 68 of 3 August 2004) (‘the 2004 order’) is worded as follows: ‘Subject to the requirements of the [Naredba za iziskvaniyata za etiketiraneto i predstavyaneto na hranite (Order on the requirements for labelling and presentation of foodstuffs, DV No 62 of 28 July 2000)] … the labelling on sales packaging of natural mineral water shall also include the following mandatory information: 1. the name of the water exit and indication of the mineral water deposit in accordance with the certificate referred to in Article 5; 2. the name of the place where the natural mineral water is bottled; …’ 9 Article 23 of that order provides: ‘(1) The trade description (trade name) of a natural mineral water may contain the name of a locality or hamlet linked to the location of the water exit and deposit, provided that that it is not misleading as to the place of exploitation of the water exit. (2) It shall be prohibited to market natural mineral water from one and the same water exit under more than one trade description.’ 10 Article 26(3) of that order provides that, pursuant to the Order on the requirements for labelling and presentation of foodstuffs, the labelling of sales packaging of spring water must also include the mandatory information relating to the name of the water exit in accordance with the authorisation to extract water issued and to the name of the place where the spring water is bottled. 11 Under Article 26(4) of that order: ‘The labelling of spring water shall also be subject to the requirements of Articles 23 and 24.’ 12 Under paragraph 1(4) of the additional provisions of the 2004 order the notion of ‘water exit’ is defined as follows: ‘“Water exit” is a collection system for groundwater intended for water extraction and comprising surface installations. The different types of points of exit of groundwater are those listed in Article 89(1) of the [Naredba No 1 ot 2007 g. za prouchvane, polzvane i opazvane na podzemnite vodi (Order No 1 of 2007 on the exploration, use and conservation of groundwater, DV No 87 of 30 October 2007; ‘Order No 1 of 2007’)].’ 13 Under paragraph 1(5) of those additional provisions the notion of ‘mineral water deposit’ is defined as follows: ‘“Mineral water deposit” is a body of groundwater composed of mineral water.’ Order No 1 of 2007 14 Article 89(1) of Order No 1 of 2007 provides: ‘Depending on their placement in the body of groundwater, collection systems for groundwater are as follows: 1. vertical: (a) bore exits; (b) dug exits; (c) combined exits (dug and bore); 2. horizontal; (a) drains; (b) tunnels; 3. horizontal radiant drain exits; 4. spring catchments; 5. specifically designed collection systems; (a) inclined bore exits; (b) combined exits (dug and bore) with fitting of several inclined bore exits from the bottom of the exit; (c) bore exits with multiple felling chambers.’ Water Act 15 Under paragraph 1 of the additional provisions of the Zakon za vodite (Water Act, DV No 67 of 27 July 1999) the following is provided in subparagraphs 61 and 98: ‘61. “body of groundwater” is a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers, characterised by a certain state of the groundwater. … 98. “mineral water deposit” is a body of groundwater or part thereof containing mineral water the composition and chemical properties of which are uniform.’ Pre-litigation procedure 16 On 2 July 2020, the Commission sent the Republic of Bulgaria a letter of formal notice on the two grounds that: (i) by failing to prohibit the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description, the legislation of that Member State did not comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, and (ii) by failing to require that the labels of natural mineral waters and spring waters indicate the name of the spring, that legislation of that Member State did not comply with the requirements of Article 7(2)(b) and of Article 9(4)(c) of that directive. 17 The Republic of Bulgaria replied by letter of 29 September 2020, in which it undertook to communicate to the Commission, before 30 October 2020, measures aimed at correctly transposing Directive 2009/54. On 24 November 2020, the Bulgarian authorities submitted to the Commission a draft order relating to the requirements applicable to bottled mineral, spring and table water intended as beverages. 18 Following the examination of the measures communicated, on 23 September 2021 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Bulgaria, setting out a time limit for bringing the Bulgarian legislation into compliance, fixed at two months from receipt of that opinion. In that reasoned opinion, it complained that that Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2), Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54, by still failing to transpose that directive correctly into Bulgarian law, in particular, the notion of ‘spring’ as interpreted in the judgment of 24 June 2015, Hotel Sava Rogaška (C‑207/14, ‘the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška’, EU:C:2015:414). 19 Following an extension of the time limit for lodging a response until 21 January 2022, on 17 January 2022, the Republic of Bulgaria communicated its position on the reasoned opinion to the Commission and put forward a revised draft order relating to the requirements applicable to bottled mineral, spring and table water intended as beverages. In the course of subsequent exchanges, after the Commission had indicated to that Member State that the measures envisaged were insufficient, the Republic of Bulgaria undertook, in particular, to amend its legislation on foodstuffs. 20 In view of that Member State’s failure to adopt additional measures to transpose Directive 2009/54 correctly, on 24 July 2023 the Commission brought the present action. The action 21 The Commission puts forward two complaints in support of its action, alleging infringement of: (i) Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, and (ii) Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of that directive. Admissibility 22 Although the Republic of Bulgaria did not raise an objection of inadmissibility of the present action, it nevertheless states that, during the pre-litigation procedure, it did, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, provide the Commission with a number of pieces of draft legislation aimed at amending the national rules in force, which reproduced the exact wording of Directive 2009/54, as interpreted in the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, all of which were found to be insufficient. According to that Member State, that fact, in reality, highlights the difficulties created by the lack of definitions of fundamental notions used in Directive 2009/54, some of which are, moreover, inconsistent with those having a similar meaning and used elsewhere in EU legal instruments. 23 In that context, the Republic of Bulgaria, which maintains it was the only one asked to define those same notions in its national law, without having received specific indications as to their content, highlights the role of the Commission, as an institution entrusted with the power to initiate legislation, namely, to take measures aimed at bringing clarity to EU law when an update of the existing legal framework is required. It states that, in the present case, the adoption of new national provisions was delayed precisely in order to await the agreement of the Commission to the approach envisaged. Yet, three months after notification of the most recent measures were sent to it, the Commission brought the present action, without engaging in any additional consultation. 24 In that regard, inasmuch as the Republic of Bulgaria’s arguments should be understood as relating to an alleged infringement by the Commission of its obligation of sincere cooperation in bringing the present action, the Court finds that, apart from the fact that the Commission is not empowered to determine conclusively, by statements of its position in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, the rights and duties of a Member State or to afford that State guarantees concerning the compatibility of a given line of conduct with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 March 2003, Commission v Germany, C‑135/01, EU:C:2003:171, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited), it is apparent from the file lodged with the Court that, in the present case, the Republic of Bulgaria, in any event, did not allege in that procedure that it had difficulties of interpretation of notions used in Directive 2009/54, as it alleges in the present action. 25 Therefore, it cannot be argued that the Commission engendered any uncertainty in that Member State as to the extent of its obligations or that it prevented it from putting an end to the alleged infringement (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 March 2003, Commission v Germany, C‑135/01, EU:C:2003:171, paragraph 23). 26 Moreover, according to the Court’s settled case-law, it is for the Commission to determine whether it is expedient to take action against a Member State and what provisions, in its view, the Member State has infringed, and to choose the time at which it will bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations; the considerations which determine its choice cannot affect the admissibility of the action. In that regard, while the bringing and continuation of infringement proceedings is a matter for the Commission in its entire discretion, it is for the Court to consider whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations as alleged, without its being part of its role to take a view on the Commission’s exercise of its discretion (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 March 2021, Commission v Hungary (Excise duty on cigarettes), C‑856/19, EU:C:2021:253, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited). 27 It follows that the Republic of Bulgaria’s allegations are not such as to call into question the admissibility of the present action. Substance The first complaint: infringement of Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54 – Arguments of the parties 28 The Commission submits that Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, read in conjunction with Article 9(4)(c) thereof, prohibits the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description, as per the interpretation given by the Court in the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, namely natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same underground water table or one and the same underground deposit and which, at all natural or bore exits for that water, possess identical characteristics. 29 However, the prohibition laid down in Article 23(2) and in Article 26(4) of the 2004 order, provisions which transpose that rule into the Bulgarian legal order, has a different scope, since it does not refer to the ‘spring’ but rather to the ‘water exit’, as defined in paragraph 1(4) of the additional provisions of the 2004 order and in Article 89(1) of Order No 1 of 2007. Thus, according to Article 23(2) and Article 26(4) of the 2004 order, that prohibition covers the marketing under more than one trade description of natural mineral water or spring water from one and the same spring extracted from one and the same ‘collection systems for groundwater intended for water extraction’. In those circumstances, by its very nature, the national rules in question regards each water exit as a separate spring and, consequently, water from one and the same spring may be given different trade descriptions. 30 The Republic of Bulgaria observes that Directive 2009/54 does not define the term ‘spring’, and nor, in its view, is it defined in the Court’s case-law, which does not enable a determination to be made as to what exactly is meant by the body of groundwater having to be categorised as a ‘spring’ for the purposes of that directive. It follows that the Member States are free not only to define that term in their national law, but also to use the existing national provisions in order to attain the objectives fixed by that directive. 31 In that context, the Republic of Bulgaria states that, in Bulgarian, the word ‘spring’ is exactly equivalent to a spring having an installation enabling that spring to be exploited, from which natural mineral water or spring water from one or more natural or bore springs is exploited. Hence, the provision of information on the ‘spring’, understood thusly, enables consumers to identify the exact origin of the water concerned and to distinguish one natural mineral water from another natural mineral water according to the place of exploitation of the spring. 32 Therefore, Articles 23 and 26 of the 2004 order enable attainment of both the objective of Directive 2009/54 as a whole and the specific objective pursued by Article 8 of that directive. Moreover, the prohibition laid down in those articles reflects the requirement that the natural mineral water must display identical characteristics at all exits of that water in order to be considered as being from one and the same spring. In that regard, account was taken of the fact that, in Bulgaria, water from one and the same water table or one and the same deposit and which comes out of the surface at a number of different natural or bore exits display, due to the distance separating them, different characteristics and that the Commission has, moreover, failed to establish that the application of those national provisions has undermined the objectives of Directive 2009/54. – Findings of the Court 33 Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, it is prohibited to market natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description. 34 As regards, in the first place, the alleged disregard of the scope of the notion of ‘spring’ referred to in that provision, it should be borne in mind at the outset that, in paragraph 45 of the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, the Court held that the notion of ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ contained in Article 8(2) of that directive refers to a natural mineral water which is drawn from one or more natural or bore exits, and which originates in one and the same underground water table or in one and the same underground deposit, where, at all those natural or bore exits, that water has identical characteristics, pursuant to the criteria specified in Annex I to Directive 2009/54, that remain stable within the limits of natural fluctuation. 35 In order to reach that conclusion, the Court explicitly considered that the notion of a ‘spring’ cannot be equated with the notion of an ‘exit’, since the wording set out in Section I, point 1, first paragraph, of Annex I to Directive 2009/54 expressly states that the water emerging from a spring may be tapped ‘at one or more natural or bore exits’. The Court thus held that, for the purposes of determining whether or not such water is a natural mineral water ‘from one and the same spring’ within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, it is irrelevant whether it is tapped at one exit or several exits (judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, paragraph 30). 36 The Court stated that that interpretation is not only supported by the general scheme of Directive 2009/54, an overall reading of which confirms the predominant role afforded to the characteristics of natural mineral waters in the application of that directive, but also that it is the only one capable of ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued thereby, in view of the wording of recitals 5, 7 and 9 thereof. Since the trade description of a natural mineral water is necessarily associated with the characteristics of that water, consumers would be misled and unable to make an informed choice on the basis of the potential properties of a natural mineral water in terms of the protection of human health if it were possible to market natural mineral waters with the same provenance and the same characteristics under different trade descriptions (see, to that effect, judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, paragraphs 36 and 39 to 41). 37 In the present case, it is apparent from the file lodged with the Court that Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54 was transposed into Bulgarian law by Article 23(2) of the 2004 order, which prohibits the marketing under more than one trade description of natural mineral water from one and the same ‘water exit’, which notion is defined in paragraph 1(4) of the additional provisions of that order as ‘collection systems for groundwater intended for water extraction and comprising surface installations’, which comes under Article 89(1) of Order No 1 of 2007. 38 In view of their content, the Court finds that those national provisions, which merely prohibit the marketing under more than one trade description only of natural mineral water tapped from one and the same exit, are at odds with the wording of Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, as interpreted by the Court in the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, explicitly ruling out, in paragraph 30 thereof, any equivalence between the notions of ‘spring’ and ‘exit’. 39 Those national provisions also disregard the objectives pursued by that directive, set out in recital 5 thereof. As observed by the Commission, inasmuch as those provisions refer to each ‘collection system … intended for the tapping of water’ as a separate spring, the water tapped using those collection systems may be given distinct trade descriptions, even though the possibility cannot be ruled out that the water from those different exits may actually be water having the same origin and the same characteristics. However, as the Court explicitly held in paragraph 41 of the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, in that scenario consumers would be misled and unable to make an informed choice on the basis of the potential properties of a natural mineral water in terms of the protection of human health. 40 As regards the Republic of Bulgaria’s line of argument relating to the alleged geological and hydrological particularities of that country and the insufficiency of the evidence adduced by the Commission, the Court notes that that complaint relates to the manner in which Directive 2009/54 has been transposed into Bulgarian law and not the application of the rules transposing it. Hence, it is not necessary, in order to demonstrate that the transposition of that directive is insufficient or inadequate, to make out proof of the actual effects of the national rules adopted for that transposition, since it is the provisions themselves which reveal the insufficiency or incorrectness of the transposition (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2024, Commission v Slovakia (Professional qualifications), C‑773/22, EU:C:2024:645, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited). 41 As regards the line of argument summarised in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the present judgment, in view of the very wording of Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54, read together with the definition of ‘natural mineral water’ contained in Section I, point 1, first paragraph, of Annex I thereto, the Republic of Bulgaria may not rely on an alleged lack of definition of the notions used in that directive in order to justify its infringement, especially since, as observed in paragraphs 34 to 36 of the present judgment, the Court has had the opportunity previously to clarify the interpretation of those same provisions in the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, which was, moreover, delivered over six years before the expiry of the time limit set out in the reasoned opinion. 42 Consequently, the first complaint put forward by the Commission, in so far as it refers to the prohibition on marketing natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description, must be upheld. 43 In the second place, in so far as that complaint also alleges that there is no prohibition on marketing natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description, the Court notes that, under Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54, the prohibition laid down in Article 8(2) of that directive also applies to the marketing of that category of bottled water. 44 However, as is apparent from the file lodged with the Court, since that rule was transposed into Bulgarian law in Article 26(4) of the 2004 order, which provides that ‘the labelling of spring water shall also be subject to the requirements of Articles 23 and 24’, given the scope of Article 23(2) of that order, as referred to in paragraph 37 of the present judgment, and for reasons similar to those set out in the preceding paragraphs, that first complaint, in so far as it relates to the marketing of that type of water, must also be upheld. The second complaint: infringement of Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54 – Arguments of the parties 45 The Commission submits that the mandatory labelling rules for natural mineral water laid down in Articles 22 and 26 of the 2004 order omit the obligation to include the name of the spring on the labelling of those products. 46 In that regard, the Commission observes, in the first place, that Article 22(3)(1) of that order, which transposes Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54 into the Bulgarian legal order, requires that the labelling of a packaging unit of natural mineral water contain ‘the name of the water exit and indication of the mineral water deposit in accordance with the certificate referred to in Article 5’. Yet neither the obligation to state the ‘water exit’, which paragraph 1(4) of the additional provisions of the 2004 order defines as ‘collection systems for groundwater intended for water extraction’, nor the obligation to state the ‘mineral water deposit’, which paragraph 1(5) of those additional provisions defines as ‘a body of groundwater composed of mineral water’, satisfies the requirement laid down in Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54. 47 In the second place, according to the Commission, given that the Bulgarian provisions do not provide for any labelling requirements that comply with Article 7(2)(b) and Article 8 of that directive, those provisions authorise, contrary to Article 9(4)(c) of that directive, transposed into the Bulgarian legal order by Article 26(3)(1) of the 2004 order, the marketing as ‘spring water’ of water that does not satisfy the requirements of those articles. 48 The Republic of Bulgaria contends that, by introducing Article 22(3)(1) and Article 26(3)(1) of the 2004 order into its national law, it took the view that, in order to inform consumers, it was sufficient to indicate the spring from whence the water originated, understood as being the spring with installations permitting its exploitation, on the natural mineral water and spring water labels. As is apparent from paragraph 33 of the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, the name of the spring and the indication of the place of exploitation could be used autonomously for that purpose. In any event, it is apparent from the List of natural mineral waters recognised by Member States (OJ 2013 C 315, p. 1), namely the part containing the list of natural mineral waters recognised by the Republic of Bulgaria, that the headings ‘Name of source’ and ‘Place of exploitation’ contain the same names, with the result that the indication of one of them would ensure that information was provided to consumers. – Findings of the Court 49 As regards, in the first place, the labelling requirements under Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54, it follows from the very wording of that provision that the labelling of natural mineral water must comprise, by way of mandatory information, the place where the spring is exploited and the name of the spring. 50 In that context, it should be borne in mind that the Court has held previously that the notion of a natural mineral water ‘spring’ within the meaning of that directive cannot be equated with the notion of ‘underground water table or deposit’, since the wording of the definition of ‘natural mineral water’ set out in Section I, point 1, first paragraph, of Annex I to Directive 2009/54 draws a clear distinction between those two notions; nor, as observed in paragraph 35 of the present judgment, can it be equated with the notion of an ‘exit’ either, since the wording expressly states that the water emerging from a spring may be tapped ‘at one or more natural or bore exits’ (see, to that effect, judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, paragraphs 29 and 30). 51 However, as is apparent from the file lodged with the Court, Article 22(3)(1) of the 2004 order, read in conjunction with paragraph 1(4) and (5) of the additional provisions of that order, which transposes Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54 into Bulgarian law, whilst imposing the obligation to have the labelling on natural mineral water packaging include the name of the ‘water exit’, understood to mean the ‘collection systems … intended for water extraction’, as well as the indication of the ‘mineral water deposit’, understood, in essence, to mean the ‘body of groundwater composed of mineral water’, does not provide that the labelling of the products in question must include the ‘name of the spring’. 52 Moreover, as is apparent from paragraph 50 of the present judgment, since that latter notion necessarily has a scope distinct from that of ‘water exit’ and ‘water deposit’, the Court finds that the Republic of Bulgaria has transposed Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54 incorrectly. 53 The arguments put forward by that Member State are not such as to call that assessment into question. 54 First, contrary to the contentions of the Republic of Bulgaria, it cannot be inferred from the use of the word ‘or’ in paragraph 33 of the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška that it is sufficient, in order to comply with the requirements of Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54, to indicate on the labels of natural mineral water either the place where the spring is exploited or its name. 55 It is true that, in paragraph 33 of the judgment in Hotel Sava Rogaška, the Court held that the overall purpose of Article 8 of Directive 2009/54 is to ensure that, in each case, the name of the spring or the indication of the place of exploitation of a natural mineral water enables consumers, when making a purchase, to identify unequivocally the provenance of the water in question and to distinguish a given natural mineral water from any other natural mineral water on the basis of that name or indication. However, such an identification can be ensured in all cases only if those indications, enabling alternatively or jointly to identify unequivocally that provenance, are both present on the label. 56 In any event, it is apparent from the very wording of paragraph 33 of that judgment that the clarification set out therein relates not to Article 7(2)(b) of that directive but to Article 8 thereof. It in no way calls into question the clear wording of Article 7(2)(b), since the Court also expressly states, in paragraph 34 of that judgment, that the importance of the role afforded to the name of the spring and the place of exploitation in the identification of a natural mineral water is also apparent from that latter provision, which requires labels on natural mineral waters to indicate the place where the spring is exploited and the name of the spring. 57 Secondly, as regards the Republic of Bulgaria’s line of argument to the effect that the name of the spring and the place of exploitation are, in practice, identical in that Member State, with the result that consumers are sufficiently informed if only one of them is present on the labels concerned, the Court notes that such identical characteristics, even if established, do not in any event relieve a Member State of its specific obligation under Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54 to provide in its national law for the obligation to include the name of the spring on the labelling of the products in question. Thus, even if there is not currently a real distinction in that Member State between the name of the spring and the indication of its place of exploitation, it is nevertheless required to effect an adequate transposition of Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54. 58 In that context, it should be noted that, in accordance with settled case-law, the provisions of a directive must be implemented with unquestionable binding force, and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty (judgment of 20 June 2024, Commission v Bulgaria (Protection of special areas of conservation), C‑85/22, EU:C:2024:535, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited), so as to guarantee that all persons in the European Union should know in all circumstances what their rights and duties are. (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 October 2011, Commission v Poland, C‑362/10, EU:C:2011:703, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). 59 In the second place, the Commission submits, in essence, that the national rules at issue allow for the use of the term ‘spring water’ for water that does not satisfy the relevant requirements. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54 provides that the term ‘spring water’ is reserved for water intended for human consumption in its natural state and bottled at source, which satisfies the labelling requirements laid down in Article 7(2)(b) and (c) and also Article 8 of that directive. Thus, it follows from the wording of Article 9(4)(c) that the labelling requirements for natural mineral water, such as set out, inter alia, in Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2009/54, are also applicable to spring water which, where they are not satisfied, may not be marketed as such. 60 It is apparent from the file lodged with the Court that Article 26(3)(1) of the 2004 order, which transposes that rule into Bulgarian law, merely requires that labelling of spring water include the name of the ‘water exit’, namely, in accordance with paragraph 1(4) of the additional provisions of that order, the ‘collection system … intended for the tapping of water’, without containing any reference to the obligation to state therein the ‘name of the spring’ whereas, as observed in paragraph 52 above, those notions are not the same thing. 61 In those circumstances, the Court finds, in line with the Commission’s submissions, that the Republic of Bulgaria allows the marketing, as spring water, of water that does not satisfy the labelling requirements referred to in Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54, even though that article does not allow for any derogations from those requirements. 62 It follows that the second complaint must be rejected. 63 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that: – by failing to prohibit the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description; – by failing to require that the labels of natural mineral waters and spring waters indicate the name of the spring; and – by allowing the use of the term ‘spring water’ for water that does not satisfy the conditions for using that term; the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2), Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54. Costs 64 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, 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 asked for costs against the Republic of Bulgaria, which has failed in its submissions, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, – by failing to prohibit the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description; – by failing to require that the labels of natural mineral waters and spring waters indicate the name of the spring; and – by allowing the use of the term ‘spring water’ for water that does not satisfy the conditions for using that term; the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2), Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters; 2. Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Bulgarian.