Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:91
Date: 2015-02-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Public health
Concepts: Health and safety
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 12 February 2015 1. Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Criteria — Legal basis used for the adoption of a similar measure — Irrelevant 2. Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Criteria — Existence of a specific legal basis — Directive 2013/51 — Adoption on the basis of the specific provisions of Article 31 EA (Art. 192(1) TFEU; Arts 30 EA and 31 EA; Council Directive 2013/51) 3. EAEC — Protection of health — Establishment of uniform safety standards — Directive 2013/51 — Breach of the principle of legal certainty — None (EAEC Treaty, Title II, Chapter 3; Council Directive 98/83 and 2013/51) 4. European Union — Institutions — Obligations — Obligation of sincere cooperation — Infringement — None (Art. 13(2) TEU; Arts 30 EA and 31 EA; Council Directive 2013/51) 1. In the context of the system of the EU’s competencies, the choice of legal basis for a measure must rest on objective factors that are amenable to judicial review; these include the purpose and content of that measure. The legal basis which has been used for the adoption of other European Union measures which might, in certain cases, display similar characteristics is irrelevant in that regard, as the legal basis for a measure must be determined having regard to its purpose and content. (see paras 29, 30) 2. If the Treaties contain a more specific provision that is capable of constituting the legal basis for the measure in question, the measure must be founded on that provision. In that regard, as regards the adoption of Directive 2013/51, Article 31 EA constitutes a more specific legal basis for protecting the health of populations against radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption than the general legal basis resulting from Article 192(1) TFEU. In fact, first, the purpose pursued by that directive corresponds to the purpose of a basic standard within the meaning of Article 30 EA, which aims to protect the health of the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. Second, as regards the content of that directive, it lays down the parametric values and frequencies and methods for monitoring radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. The content of the directive therefore also corresponds to the content of a basic standard within the meaning of Article 30 EA which, in accordance with points (a) and (b) of the second paragraph of that article, in respect of the ionising radiation, sets maximum permissible doses compatible with adequate safety and the maximum permissible levels of exposure and contamination. (see paras 32, 33, 36, 37) 3. The principle of legal certainty — which is one of the general principles of EU law — requires that rules of law be clear and precise and predictable in their effect, so that interested parties can ascertain their position in situations and legal relationships governed by EU law. In the field of the protection of the health of the general public, guaranteed by the provisions of Chapter 3 of Title II of the EAEC Treaty, there is no contradiction in the relationship between Directive 2013/51 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption and Directive 98/83 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. In fact, first, the two directives set the same parametric values. Second, in relation to Directive 98/83 which concerns, in general, the quality of water intended for human consumption, Directive 2013/51 is a lex specialis with regard to the protection of human health against the dangers of radioactive substances in such waters. In that regard, the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali is applicable even if the lex generalis and the lex specialis emanate from the same institution. It follows that, in the event of any inconsistency between the schemes established by those two directives, the provisions of Directive 2013/51 supersede those of Directive 98/83, as expressly confirmed by recital 5 in the preamble to Directive 2013/51, so that no breach of the principle of legal certainty can result from that. (see paras 45, 46, 49-51) 4. Mutual sincere cooperation, which the institutions are to practise under Article 13(2) TEU, is exercised within the limits of the powers conferred by the Treaties on each institution. The obligation resulting from Article 13(2) TEU is therefore not such as to change those powers. In that regard, since, to adopt Directive 2013/51 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption, the Council relied on an appropriate legal basis, namely Article 31 EA, it cannot be maintained that it infringed the principle of sincere cooperation. In particular, the procedure followed for the adoption of a measure solely as a result of the choice made by the framers of the treaties and not from an infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation whereas the powers that Parliament and the Council derive from Articles 30 EA and 31 EA cannot be limited or extended, respectively, under that principle, as regards their role in the legislative procedure. (see paras 57-60, 62)