Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:94
Date: 2018-02-22
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Poland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 22 February 2018 1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Adjustment because of a change in EU law — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50, Art. 13(1) and Annex XI; Council Directive 1999/30, Art. 5 and Annex III) 2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Consideration of events which took place after the delivery of the reasoned opinion — Conditions — Facts of the same kind and constituting the same conduct as those referred to originally (Art. 258 TFEU) 3. Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Limit values for the protection of human health — Exceeded — Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50, Art. 13(1), first para., and Annex XI) 4. Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Exceedance of the air quality limit values — Obligation to draw up a plan to remedy this — Finding of failure to comply — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50, Art. 23(1), second para.) 5. Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Exceedance of the air quality limit values — Obligation to draw up a plan to remedy this — Time-limit — Setting of an excessively long period — Not permissible — Failure to fulfil obligations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50, Art. 23(1)) 6. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 44-46) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 47-49) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 61, 62) 4. Air quality plans may be adopted only on the basis of the balance between the aim of minimising the risk of pollution and the various opposing public and private interests. Therefore, the fact that a Member State exceeds the limit values for PM10 concentrations in ambient air is not in itself sufficient to find that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. In this regard, it follows from that provision that, while Member States have a degree of discretion in deciding which measures to adopt, those measures must, in any event, ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is as short as possible. In those circumstances, it is necessary to ascertain on the basis of a case-by-case analysis whether the plans drawn up by the Member State concerned comply with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50. (see paras 93-96) 5. A Member State having adopted air quality plans, in order to put an end to exceedances of the limit values for PM10 concentrations in ambient air, which fix time-limits of ten, or 14 years, after the date on which those exceedances were recorded, fails to fulfil its obligation under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. In that regard, whereas it is true that difficulties arising from the socio-economic and financial challenge of the major technical investments to be carried out by the Member State to end those exceedances are factors which may be taken into account in the context of the balance between the aim of minimising the risk of pollution and the various opposing public and private interests, it remains that such difficulties, which are not exceptional, such as to rule out the possibility of having set shorter periods. It follows that such an argument cannot, in itself, justify such long periods for putting an end to those exceedances in the light of the requirement seeking to ensure that the exceedance period is as short as possible. (see paras 99-102) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 120)