Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:451
Date: 2002-07-11
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws;Pollution
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: France

summary of the measures taken by the French Republic pursuant to Article 7 of the Directive. 59. While observing that the Commission itself acknowledges that the Circular of 18 May 1990, annexed to the defence, includes an objective, expressed as a figure, for pollution reduction that covers the entire territory for the period from 1985 to 1995, the defendant explains that if there was no overall schedule or overall objective, then that was because objectives and programmes have to be determined by assessing each watercourse individually. The main provision of the French programme in actual fact consisted in the juxtaposition of thousands of work schedules designed to meet locally defined objectives and embodying as many practical arrangements. 60. As regards the Commission's observation that the programme is not directed at any specific substance, the French Government explains that the dangerous substances liable to be discharged into the water, the impact of such discharges into the water, the need, if at all, to carry out additional work and the timetable for completion of such work are all determined upon consideration of the order to grant authorisation to the individual facility concerned. 61. In particular, the French Government emphasises that the fundamental part of its action involves the criteria governing the issue of authorisations to classified facilities, authorisations which are issued by prefectorial decision, on the basis of the quality objectives for the waters into which substances are to be discharged. According to the French Government, those objectives determine all the measures taken by French local authorities with a view to reducing industrial pollution. 62. The French Government therefore explains that, since what is involved is application of the Directive in a manner that is locally relevant, identifying substances and carrying out work to reduce discharges of those substances, there is no benefit in identifying a particular substance at national level. In so far as the programme concerned is, above all, the juxtaposition of a large number of local programmes, the Commission should be taking account of the link that exists between the French rules governing classified facilities and the national programme for combating pollution. 63. Secondly, the Commission conducts a more detailed analysis of the various measures contained in that national programme to assess whether those measures, either as a whole or separately, are such as to constitute programmes to reduce pollution by dangerous substances in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive. It explains that that programme has been described as consisting of five separate parts, namely sectoral programmes, local programmes to recycle the main types of industrial waste, measures relating to diffuse sources (spent batteries and accumulators, dry-cleaning of textiles), quality objectives and measures relating to accidents. 64. As regards the sectoral programmes, the Commission considers that they are no more than a description of the legal framework applicable (or even just contemplated), resulting from national legislation relating to facilities classified for the purpose of environmental protection, and do not contain any specific arrangements or objectives to reduce pollution by the dangerous substances referred to in List II or for those of the 99 priority substances which are relevant in the national context for France, or any implementation deadlines. 65. The applicant points out that the Directive makes a clear distinction between prior authorisation and pollution reduction programmes and that it makes no provision whatsoever for the adoption of either of those instruments instead of the other. In its view, it cannot be argued that the programmes in question can make redundant the prior authorisation system, the setting up of which is a specific requirement of the Directive. The Commission explains that the pollution reduction programmes are designed to make arrangements as far as possible for such reduction to a level lower than that existing when they were drawn up and implemented and to achieve this within a reasonable time-scale to be specified by the competent authorities. From that point of view, the Commission considers it self-evident that, vital though it is, a prior authorisation system for discharges of dangerous substances cannot be considered to make redundant the programmes mentioned in Article 7 of the Directive. 66. The Commission therefore concludes that the part of the national programme concerning sectoral programmes cannot constitute a reduction programme for the purpose of that provision. 67. It similarly criticises the local reduction programmes mentioned by the defendant. 68. Indeed, according to the Commission, the letter from the French authorities of 30 July 1993 which refers to methodology problems, the limitations of the approach consisting in pollution reduction programmes implemented on a substance-by-substance basis and the introduction of minimum national discharge rules by the Order of 1 March 1993 would suggest that the local reduction programmes have not, in fact, been carried out, if they were ever commenced in the first place. 69. The Commission infers from the above that the local recycling programmes have not been set up to deal specifically with pollution by all the relevant substances in List II. 70. The French Government considers that the Commission's argument is incorrect and reflects its poor understanding of that mechanism. It explains that the local programme concerns reference to the orders granting authorisation issued in accordance with the body of rules governing classified facilities, the characteristics of which, described on several occasions by the French authorities, were such as to provide the answers to the Commission's questions concerning the local focus and time-scale of the French programme, the implementation of the measures listed, the failure to deal specifically with the dangerous substances and the absence of any timetable. 71. As regards the measures relating to diffuse sources, the defendant does not dispute that although those sources cannot be identified and dealt with by means of the rules governing classified facilities, they are for the most part caught, if only entirely incidentally, not to say contingently, by general rules on the manufacture of products or on waste management, which clearly does not correspond to the concept of the programme as provided for in the Directive but, rather, at best, to the concept of measures which may be included in a programme for the purpose of Article 7(4) of the Directive, a provision relied on, for that matter, by the French Government in that context. 72. Similarly, measures relating to accidents cannot constitute a programme. 73. Thirdly, the Commission examines the other measures which, the defendant claims, are designed to implement Article 7 of the Directive. 74. The Commission notes in particular that although the Order of 1 March 1993 indeed does lay down discharge standards for the 99 priority substances contained in List II, it by definition covers only point sources, not diffuse sources. Furthermore, of all the point sources, the order applied only to those originating in facilities that were classified as being subject to authorisation, that is to say it applied only to 65 000 of the 550 000 French classified facilities. Lastly, and in any event, the Commission points out, as I have stated above, that the order in question was annulled by the Conseil d'État on 21 October 1996, meaning that the Directive could not even be transposed retroactively. 75. In that regard the French Government contends that the body of rules governing authorisation of classified facilities covers facilities which present serious risks or drawbacks in terms of inconvenience for the neighbourhood and in terms of public health and safety, agriculture, nature conservation and environmental protection, which includes the aquatic environment, or preservation of beauty spots and monuments. It therefore concludes that, by definition, the concept of the classified facility includes fixed facilities which are liable to discharge the substances in Lists I and II and adds that, where it appears that a facility not subject to authorisation presents serious risks or drawbacks, on account of substances discharged into the aquatic environment for example, the relevant préfet may lay down requirements as to the discharge values to be observed or indeed may suspend the operation of that facility altogether. 76. The Commission replies that the method by which the task of specifying emission standards for dangerous substances falls to the préfet in each of his decisions to authorise a particular facility does not constitute a programme as provided for in Article 7 of the Directive since it is based on ad hoc measures for each of the substances at issue with no overall framework that lays down quality objectives concerning the various watercourses or areas of water. The Commission points out in this connection that it follows from paragraph 58 of the abovementioned judgment in Commission v Germany that neither general rules nor ad hoc measures adopted by a Member State which, though comprising a wide range of water-protection standards, none the less do not lay down quality objectives relating to a given watercourse or area of water can be deemed to constitute a programme within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive. 77. As regards the long-term action programmes of the respective financial bodies of the six river authorities, in respect of which there was nothing, in the Commission's view, to suggest that they included any arrangements that provided for practical objectives to reduce pollution by List II substances or implementation deadlines, the French Republic draws attention to the importance of those programmes in terms of quantity, claiming that they cover all the drainage basins of metropolitan France and make up the financial part of the programme to eliminate pollution from the waters into which the dangerous substances referred to by the Directive are discharged and, in general, all forms of industrial pollution. 78. The work prescribed under the orders granting authorisation to classified facilities was financed in that way and those financial bodies within the river authorities earmarked substantial funds for the completion of such work. 79. However, the French Republic does concede that whilst the action of those authorities may contribute to the implementation of the programmes mentioned by the Directive, it cannot in any event be a substitute for those programmes. 80. The French Government none the less considers itself to have fulfilled its obligations under the Directive and to have established a programme as provided for in the Directive. 81. It explains in that regard that the fundamental component of that programme is the link made with the issuing, by prefectorial decision, of authorisations to classified facilities on the basis of the quality objectives for the waters into which the substances concerned are to be discharged, and that each decision incorporates a schedule of work to be carried out by the manufacturer concerned at the same time as a new order is adopted authorising the continued operation of the facility. In order to facilitate the implementation of that mechanism, first, funding for the work designed to eliminate pollution, which became essential as a result of the orders granting authorisation to discharge, was available through the programmes set up by the water authorities and, secondly, sectoral rules applying at all times and covering the whole of France existed for the purpose of reducing comprehensively pollution by certain types of waste. Those rules, implemented by means of the orders granting authorisation, constituted national measures which applied to highly polluting sectors. 82. The French Government adds that the provisions of Article 7(1) and (4) of the Directive clearly show that the authorisation system under which emission standards are laid down and calculated on the basis of quality objectives for water must constitute a key element in programmes for eliminating pollution. It also challenges the Commission's interpretation of paragraph 28 of the judgment, cited above, in Commission v Germany. 83. It is apparent from the foregoing considerations that there are two parts to the disagreement between the Commission and the defendant. First, they have different conceptions of the scope of the obligations laid down by the Directive and, secondly, they consequently disagree as to whether the defendant has fulfilled those obligations. 84. As regards the first point, the two parties are at odds over the scope of Article 7 of the Directive which, it should be borne in mind, reads as follows: 1. In order to reduce pollution of the waters referred to in Article 1 by the substances within List II, Member States shall establish programmes in the implementation of which they shall apply in particular the methods referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3. 2. All discharges into the waters referred to in Article 1 which are liable to contain any of the substances within List II shall require prior authorisation by the competent authority in the Member State concerned, in which emission standards shall be laid down. Such standards shall be based on the quality objectives, which shall be fixed as provided for in paragraph 3. 3. The programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall include quality objectives for water; these shall be laid down in accordance with Council Directives, where they exist. 4. The programmes may also include specific provisions governing the composition and use of substances or groups of substances and products and shall take into account the latest economically feasible technical developments. 5. The programmes shall set deadlines for their implementation. 6. Summaries of the programmes and the results of their implementation shall be communicated to the Commission. 7. The Commission, together with the Member States, shall arrange for regular comparisons of the programmes in order to ensure sufficient coordination in their implementation. If it sees fit, it shall submit relevant proposals to the Council to this end. 85. It is indisputable, in my view, from those provisions that the essential obligation of the Member States is to draw up programmes. Such programmes include objectives and are implemented by means of a system of authorisation. Such authorisations are granted by reference to the objective specified previously. 86. It therefore follows clearly from the wording of that article that authorisation systems are no more than a tool for setting up a programme and that a Member State cannot therefore claim to have fulfilled its obligations by mere virtue of its having established such a system. 87. What is more, the defendant does not arrive at a different conclusion in its arguments relating to that article. It points out that authorisation systems are a key element in reduction programmes and that the very use in Article 7(1) of the expression in particular in itself shows that other measures may be involved in those programmes. The optional nature of such measures was, again, apparent from the use of the word may in Article 7(4). 88. It must be pointed out, however, that although authorisation systems are a key element in reduction programmes, this by no means implies that those programmes have to be confined to a system of authorisation. 89. This is, moreover, expressly shown by Article 7(3) of the Directive which, unlike Article 7(4), does not set out an option, providing instead that the programmes referred to in Article 7(1) are to include quality objectives for water. It necessarily follows that such programmes cannot merely be a system of authorisation. 90. That conclusion also applies to the interpretation of case-law. 91. Indeed, it follows from the judgment in Commission v Germany, cited above, that under Article 7 of the Directive the Member States are required, inter alia, to adopt programmes which include both water quality objectives and a requirement that any discharge of substances in List II be subject to prior authorisation laying down emission standards calculated on the basis of those quality objectives. (12) 92. In the French Government's view, the Court had accordingly confirmed the central, if not almost exclusive, nature of the provisions relating to the authorisation mechanism within the programmes, which was inconsistent with the Commission's argument that the programmes are separate from the system of prior authorisation. 93. Indeed, the defendant submits that the clause introduced by which include and that introduced by a requirement that ... be subject ... both qualify the concept of the programme. It argues that that paragraph should therefore be regarded as a definition of the programmes under Article 7 of the Directive which must, in essence, require that any discharge of substances in List II be subject to authorisation, and, therefore, as confirmation that the French programme exists. 94. As illustrated in the Court's use of the expression both Y and Y, the fact remains that the Court held the establishment of a system of authorisation and the establishment of a programme to be two different matters entirely and that consequently it is insufficient for a Member State to lay down provisions for one of those mechanisms in order automatically to obtain the other and thereby fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Directive. 95. The fact that the defendant's reasoning in terms of the scope of that provision does not stand up to examination still does not point to any failure to fulfil obligations. I should like to explain here in this second point of my analysis that it is necessary to ascertain whether or not the various measures which have been established by the French authorities and are mentioned above do, all the same, constitute a programme for the purpose of the Directive. 96. It is apparent from the case-law (13) that the programmes to be established under Article 7 of the Directive must embody a comprehensive and coherent approach, covering the entire national territory of each Member State and providing practical and coordinated arrangements for the reduction of pollution caused by any of the substances in List II which is relevant in the particular context of the Member State concerned, in accordance with the quality objectives fixed by those programmes for the waters affected. They differ, therefore, both from general purification programmes and from bundles of ad hoc measures designed to reduce water pollution. 97. However, it must be noted, as the documents before the Court show, that I am dealing specifically with such a bundle of measures in these proceedings. 98. Indeed, the Commission's observations indicate that the French authorities communicated to it, as measures transposing the Directive, a broad range of information from amongst which it appears difficult to distinguish a comprehensive set of programmes as referred to in the case-law. 99. Besides, whilst the defendant, as I have shown above, challenges the Commission's arguments regarding any number of specific matters, it does not, however, succeed in demonstrating that it has set up a comprehensive and coherent programme to reduce pollution by all the priority substances in any of the waters affected. 100. It itself concedes that the mechanism is essentially made up of a juxtaposition of thousands of work schedules designed to meet locally defined objectives and embodying as many practical arrangements, which would account for the absence of any overall schedule or, where appropriate, overall objective. 101. It should therefore be concluded that, according to the French authorities' own description, the measures they adopted do not meet the conditions listed in that case-law. 102. On the contrary, those measures are presented as ad hoc measures, not comprehensive and coherent programmes for pollution reduction, based on studies of the waters affected and setting quality objectives. (14) 103. This is apparent not only in view of the abovementioned assertion by the French authorities but also from the fact that the main focus of the programmes in question, as those authorities point out, is the authorisation mechanism operating at local level. 104. After all, the defendant points to the various characteristics of the authorisation system in order to highlight its central role as regards implementing a bundle of measures, some specifically concerning the reduction of pollution by dangerous substances, which includes timetabling factors and takes as its basis consideration of the condition of the local waters as opposed to one standard national value. 105. The system of authorisation covered all the relevant facilities since, under the relevant Law, all facilities which were liable to discharge the substances concerned were regarded as classified facilities. Moreover, authorisations were issued, where necessary, together with a schedule requiring that the necessary work be completed in order to achieve the quality objectives laid down in respect of the waters concerned. 106. Furthermore, ad hoc measures imposed at prefectorial level and sectoral measures applying, where appropriate, to specific substances together made up the mechanism. 107. The defendant considers itself to have thus rebutted the Commission's criticisms in particular as regards the geographical scope of the French measures, the failure to refer in those measures to specific substances or even the extent to which those measures have actually been implemented. 108. However, it must be observed that such a mechanism, by its very nature, cannot constitute a programme. Authorisations are, after all, granted on the basis of various considerations relating to the local situation, not on the basis of comprehensive arrangements focused on reducing pollution in each watercourse by priority substances, which are defined from an overall perspective. 109. Even if they covered the entire territory and all the relevant facilities, thousands of local measures cannot compensate for the absence of comprehensive arrangements. This point is illustrated perfectly by diffuse sources in that they are unlikely to be caught by a system of authorisation. Another perfect illustration of that point is found in the Circular of 18 May 1990, annexed to the defence, which itself mentions the piecemeal nature of the steps taken thus far and in which respect the Commission points out that the circular does not cover all the substances at issue and that it does no more than request that a programme be drawn up. Those criticisms are not rebutted by the defendant. 110. It is apparent from the foregoing that, as the Commission has pointed out, inasmuch as they are focused on the issue of authorisations, the French rules meet a requirement other than the requirement to draw up a pollution reduction programme, given that the authorisation system actually prescribed by the Directive is separate from the obligation to establish programmes including water quality objectives. Therefore, it would be incorrect to consider the French Government as having fulfilled its obligations under the Directive on the ground that a system of prior authorisation had been set up. 111. Accordingly, the breach of obligations under Article 7 of the Directive is also established by virtue of the fact that the French authorities have failed to establish programmes within the meaning of that provision. The complaint concerning the failure to notify programmes 112. The Commission complains that the French Republic has also infringed Article 7 of the Directive by having failed to communicate summaries of the programmes and the results of their implementation. It draws attention to the particular importance in these circumstances of that obligation to communicate since such communication has to enable the Commission, in accordance with Article 7(7), together with the Member States, to arrange for regular comparisons of the programmes in order to ensure sufficient coordination in their implementation and, if it sees fit, to submit relevant proposals to the Council to that end. 113. The Commission points out that a large number of documents were not communicated to it within the appropriate time and that the information it received was not presented in a format that lent itself to comparison with the programmes of other Member States, a measure provided for in the Directive. 114. The French Republic maintains that it has communicated a substantial amount of information to the Commission, if only most recently in the annex to its defence. The French Government does not deny that the manner in which the documents forwarded to the Commission during the pre-litigation procedure were presented could have made it difficult to grasp the reasoning underlying its strategy for transposing the Directive. It therefore considers it necessary to re-examine those documents in order to show that the measures set out in the various items of correspondence indeed had been notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 7(6) of the Directive. 115. Lastly, while accepting that failure to communicate measures to the Commission was inevitable in view of the highly decentralised nature of the programme, the French Government none the less submits that the French authorities are occupied in the drawing up of instruments with a view to improving the supply of information and communication to the Commission of the results obtained. 116. However, the fact remains on any view that the measures adopted by the French authorities did not constitute a programme for the purposes of the Directive, as I have already established. It necessarily follows that those authorities could not have communicated such a programme to the Commission, regardless, moreover, of the information they forwarded to the Commission. 117. It must therefore follow that the failure to fulfil obligations is established in this respect too. 118. I shall therefore, purely in the alternative, proceed to examine in greater detail the arguments of the parties in that regard. 119. On a number of occasions, the Commission dwells on the shortcomings of the information it received from the French authorities. 120. Thus, for instance, it observes that the specific results ensuing from implementation of the national programme were never communicated to it. As regards the sectoral programmes, to which the defendant refers, the Commission points out that it never received any notification of their results in terms of pollution reduction, nor any information on how they were developing in the light of technical developments and changes in the legal framework. Nor had it been informed as to whether the 10 industrial sectors covered by those programmes were the only ones to discharge the 99 priority substances relevant in the national context for France. 121. As regards the local programmes to recycle the main types of industrial waste, the Commission points out that it did not receive notification of any laws, regulations or administrative measures forming the basis of such programmes, even though the legal framework appears to have developed. 122. The Commission adds that the documents communicated by the French Government as regards those local programmes are very vague. It dwells on the fact that the defendant has not provided a single example of one such programme, not even in summary form, which, it argues, is indeed sufficient to determine that Article 7(6) of the Directive has been infringed, and that no items of correspondence from the French authorities establish that those programmes have in fact been implemented. 123. The applicant raises similar complaints with regard to the measures concerning diffuse sources. 124. As to the system of prior authorisation for discharges, the Commission observes that it did not receive notification of the Order of 25 April 1995 supplementing the Order of 1 March 1993. This was also true of the results of the inventory of substances discharged into the water, any reference to which, it claims, in the end was not contained in any correspondence sent by the French Government, and consequently there was no proof of the inventory's completion. Similarly, the Commission maintains that it did not receive any notification of the legal framework for the long-term action programmes of the respective financial bodies of the six river authorities. 125. The Commission adds that the fact that the French Government failed to refer to the various aspects contained in the report communicated on 26 November 1996 on the implementation of the Directive as a programme in any event constitutes a failure to fulfil the obligation under Article 7(6) of the Directive; that obligation is separate from the obligation under Article 13(1) resulting from the amendment laid down by Council Directive 91/692/EEC. 126. It also points out that that report comprises unexplained, substantive inconsistencies as compared with the previous items of correspondence sent by the French Government, which likewise concern the implementation of the Directive, in that, it claims, reference is no longer made in that report to any national programme or local recycling programmes, or to the measures concerning diffuse sources and accidents. On the contrary, it made references merely to a programme with no identifying features and to a programme relating to the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, a copy of which was not received by the Commission either. 127. The Commission states that the Circular of 18 May 1990, also mentioned in the 1996 report, was not communicated to it. 128. The defendant, also in this respect, points to the essential nature of orders granting authorisation vis-à-vis its pollution reduction programme. 129. In that regard, the French Government first of all makes it clear that it indeed did notify the method it applied to the Commission, in particular in the reply to the letter of formal notice and in subsequent documentation, and that, rather than containing a summary of a new programme, the report of 26 November 1996 did no more than set out the broad outline of the French programme, the essential focus of which, that is to say that work should be carried out in classified facilities in the event that the discharges from such facilities do not meet the water quality objectives laid down at local level, had been determined right at the outset. 130. Relying on the judgment in Commission v Germany, cited above,(15) the French Government submits that it did not see fit to notify every analysis of the discharges concerned and every decision requiring that work be carried out because the essential objective involved in communicating programmes to the Commission was to arrange for comparisons of the programmes implemented for the purpose of sharing experiences or facilitating the drawing up of future Community rules. In its view therefore, it is more the link between the combating of water pollution and the authorisation system for classified facilities, rather than the details of every works project undertaken, that seems relevant as far as the comparison provided for under Article 7(7) of the Directive is concerned. 131. It is, after all, clear in the French Government's view that the Commission is not requesting notification of every analysis made of the discharges concerned or notification of all the work projects required to be undertaken inasmuch as the main objective involved in communicating programmes to the Commission is, ultimately, to achieve the most effective system possible as a result of the Member States' contributions. 132. As regards the failure to notify local programmes, the French authorities maintain that such programmes are covered by the mechanism contained in the second part of the reply to the letter of formal notice and that their legal basis, Article 68 of the order concerning discharges from classified facilities, has indeed been communicated to the Commission. They emphasise that this is not a matter concerning documents that should have been communicated to the Commission; what is involved is, rather, a term describing the means by which recourse may be had to orders granting authorisation. 133. The defendant therefore considers that it has communicated a national programme, its description clearly presenting the major principles thereof: application at local level by means of the rules on classified facilities in connection with the locally defined quality objectives, part-financing of the work by the water authorities and sectoral measures or measures on a product-by-product basis for the minority of cases where the discharges do not issue from classified facilities. It therefore considers it incorrect to describe the 1996 report as a summary of an entirely new programme that has never been notified when the report in actual fact merely sets out the broad outline of the French programme and presents the first recorded results. 134. The defendant considers itself to have demonstrated that the abovementioned inventory has been successfully completed and communicated in the form of a summary to the Commission. 135. Finally, it submits that the Circular of 18 May 1990 was informally communicated to the Commission by fax on 27 June 2000 and was, in any event, annexed to the defence. 136. It should, however, be pointed out that, for the purpose of establishing whether there has been an infringement, only the information communicated prior to expiry of the period prescribed by the reasoned opinion is to be taken into account. (16) Furthermore, information communicated in a purely informal manner cannot be regarded as the notification of measures transposing a directive. 137. The defendant adds that, in its view, it seems contradictory to require notification of the circular relating to the inventory and at the same time to maintain that that inventory does not constitute a programme for the purposes of the Directive. However, the Commission rightly responds that, in the absence of such notification, it cannot possibly assess whether the substance of the circular meets the criteria of a programme under the Directive. 138. In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that the French Republic does not answer all the criticisms raised by the Commission. Furthermore, and in particular, it itself accepts, as I have already shown, that, owing to the different terminology used as well as the highly decentralised nature of its programme, there was room for improvement in terms of supplying information to the Commission and that steps must be taken to remedy that situation. 139. Accordingly, the failure to fulfil obligations is in any event established. Conclusion 140. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should: - declare that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction programmes including quality objectives for the 99 dangerous substances listed in the annex to the application and by failing to communicate to the Commission summaries of those programmes and the results of their implementation, contrary to Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; - order the French Republic to pay the costs. 1: - Original language: French. 2: - OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23. 3: - See Commission v Greece (Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95 [1998] ECR I-3343); Commission v Luxembourg (Case C-206/96 [1998] ECR I-3401); Commission v Italy (Case C-285/96 [1998] ECR I-5935); Commission v Spain (Case C-214/96 [1998] ECR I-7661); Commission v Belgium (Case C-207/97 [1999] ECR I-275); Commission v Germany (Case C-184/97 [1999] ECR I-7837); Commission v Greece (Case C-384/97 [2000] ECR I-3823); Commission v Portugal (Case C-261/98 [2000] ECR I-5905) and Commission v Netherlands (Case C-152/98 [2001] ECR I-3463). 4: - OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48. 5: - Paragraphs 33 to 36 thereof. 6: - JORF, 18 December 1964, p. 11258. 7: - JORF, 20 July 1976, p. 4320. 8: - JORF, 4 January 1992, p. 2946. 9: - JORF, 28 March 1993, p. 5283. 10: - Paragraph 34 thereof. 11: - At paragraph 56. 12: - Paragraph 28 thereof. 13: - Commission v Belgium, cited above, at paragraphs 39 to 41. 14: - Commission v Belgium, cited above, at paragraph 45. 15: - Paragraphs 31 and 32 thereof. 16: - Case C-119/00 Commission v Luxembourg [2001] ECR I-4795.