Special Report EU‑funding of urban 
waste water treatment 
plants in the Danube river 
basin: further efforts  
needed in helping 
Member States to achieve 
EU waste water policy 
objectivesEN 2015  NO 02
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
Print ISBN 978-92-872-2409-5 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/511796 QJ-AB-15-006-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-2423-1 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/362321 QJ-AB-15-006-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-2434-7 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/181876 QJ-AB-15-006-EN-E
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of Figure 1, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.
Printed in Luxembourg
EU‑funding of urban 
waste water treatment 
plants in the Danube river 
basin: further efforts  
needed in helping 
Member States to achieve 
EU waste water policy 
objectives
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2015  NO 02
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II — headed by ECA Member Henri Grethen — which specialises 
in structural policies, transport and energy spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member George Pufan, supported 
by Patrick Weldon, head of private office; Mircea Radulescu, attaché of private office; Alain Vansilliette, head of unit; 
Marion Colonerus, team leader; Zuzana Gullova, auditor; Attila Horvay-Kovacs, auditor; Jean-François Hynderick, auditor; 
Dana Moraru, auditor; Radka Papouskova, auditor; Tomasz Plebanowicz, auditor and Olivier Prigent, auditor.
From left to right:  Mircea Radulescu, Alain Vansilliette, Olivier Prigent, George Pufan, 
Zuzana Gullova, Patrick Weldon, Attila Horvay-Kovacs and Tomasz Plebanowicz

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary
I–VII  Executive summary
1–11  Introduction
1–7 Background
8 –11  EU co‑financing of waste water ‑related infrastructure
12–17  Audit scope and approach
18–105  Observations
18–33  Compliance with the deadlines of the urban waste water treatment directive
21–29  Member States generally met the deadlines specified in the urban waste water treatment directive for the 
collection but not for the treatment of waste water
30–31  The Commission only has partial information on the situation in agglomerations below 2 000 p.e.
32–33  The Commission is following up situations of non‑compliance in three of the four Member States visited
34–44 Use of EU funds available under the 2007–13 programme period
36–41  Not all the funding available under the 2007–13 operational programmes taken up
42–44  Targets for output and result indicators were mostly not achieved by the end of 2013
45–88  Effectiveness of EU co‑financed urban waste water treatment plants
46–71  Performance of urban waste water treatment plants
72–88  Use of the sludge produced by urban waste water treatment plants
89–105  Financial sustainability of the EU co‑financed urban waste water treatment plants
95–99  Waste water tariffs charged to users allowed full recovery of costs in only 11 % of cases
100–101  Waste water tariffs were below the affordability level mentioned by the Commission in 92 % of cases where 
costs were only partially recovered
102–105  Financial reserves insufficient to ensure renewal of the infrastructure
04 Contents
10 6 –119  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Urban waste water treatment environment
 Annex II — List of waste water treatment plants examined
 Annex III  — Deadlines for the implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Glossary
Agglomeration : Area where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for urban 
waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water treatment plant or to a final discharge point.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5): Quantity of oxygen consumed by micro -organisms to eliminate 
biodegradable organic and mineral matter contained in water. BOD5 is conventionally used to measure oxygen 
consumption in terms of mg O2/l after 5 days. The higher the BOD5 value, the greater the consumption of oxygen by 
micro -organisms and the greater the pollution.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) : Quantity of oxygen consumed to oxidise, by chemical means, the organic and 
mineral matter present in water. This parameter is expressed in mg O2/l.
Cohesion Fund : The Cohesion Fund aims at strengthening economic and social cohesion within the European 
Union by financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita gross national product 
of less than 90 % of the EU average.
Effluent : Treated waste water discharged into water bodies.
European Regional Development Fund : The European Regional Development Fund aims at reinforcing economic 
and social cohesion within the European Union by redressing the main regional imbalances through financial 
support for the creation of infrastructure and productive job -creating investment, mainly for businesses.
Eutrophication : The enrichment of water by nutrients especially compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, causing 
an accelerated growth of algae leading to the reduction of water oxygen levels and to the disappearance of native 
aquatic plants, fish and other aquatic animal life.
Ex ante  conditionalities : In the context of the preparation of operational programmes receiving co -financing from 
the European Structural and Investment Funds in the 2014–20 programme period Member States have to assess 
whether pre -defined ex ante  conditionalities are fulfilled. In case they are not fulfilled action plans need to be 
prepared to ensure fulfilment by 31.12.2016.
Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre‑Accession (ISPA) : Financial instrument (first year of operation: 2000) 
that assisted the candidate countries in the preparation for accession. It provided assistance for infrastructure 
projects in the EU priority fields of environment and transport. After accession (2004 for 10 countries and 2007 for 
two countries) ISPA projects became Cohesion Fund projects.
More stringent treatment/tertiary treatment of waste water : As required by the Directive it is the biological/
chemical phase applied where necessary to reduce the concentration levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) 
in treated waste waters prior to their discharge into receiving waters at risk of eutrophication.
Normal areas : Water body or section of water body not at risk of eutrophication.
06 Glossary
Operational programme : An operational programme sets out a Member State’s priorities and specific objectives 
and how the funding (EU and national public and private co -financing) will be used during a given period (generally 
7 years) to finance projects. These projects must contribute to achieving a certain number of objectives specified at 
the level of the priority axis of the operational programme. Programmes exist for each of the funds in the Cohesion 
area (i.e European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Social Fund). An operational 
programme is prepared by the Member State and has to be approved by the Commission before any payments from 
the EU budget can be made. They can only be modified during the period covered if both parties agree.
Polluter pays principle : Principle set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 191(2)). 
With regard to waste water this implies that dischargers of waste water should pay for the pollution caused 
(examples: households pay for the treatment service via the waste water price, waste water treatment plants pay 
a pollution fee).
Population equivalent (p.e.) : Quantitative expression of the pollution load of waste water in terms of the number 
of ‘equivalent’ people that would create a waste of the same strength. One p.e. corresponds to the pollution load 
of sewage generated by one inhabitant and represents the organic biodegradable load having a 5 -day biochemical 
oxygen demand of 60 g of oxygen per day.
Primary treatment : Mechanical phase involving the initial separation from waste water of large sewage particles.
Programme period : The multiannual framework within which Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund expenditure is 
planned and implemented.
River basin : Area of land from which all surface run -off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, 
lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.
Secondary treatment : Biological phase involving the treatment of waste water to eliminate biodegradable organic 
pollutants.
Self‑checks : In this report, (i) checks carried out regularly by an operator, in the framework of the daily operation of 
an urban waste water treatment plant, to monitor the quality of the discharged waste water and the content of the 
sludge and (ii) checks carried out by industrial installations to monitor the quality of waste water discharged into 
a public sewage network.
Sensitive area : A water body must be identified by the Member States as a sensitive area if it falls into one of the 
following groups: (i) water body or section of water body at risk of eutrophication, (ii) water body intended for the 
abstraction of drinking water which could contain too big a concentration of nitrate and (iii) areas where more 
stringent treatment is necessary to fulfil Council directives.  
The appropriate designation of sensitive areas is crucial as it dictates the type of waste water treatment that should 
be put in place to reduce eutrophication inducing agents.
07 Glossary
Sewage network : Physical infrastructure, including pipes, pumps, screens, channels, etc. used to convey sewage 
from its origin to the point of eventual treatment or disposal.
Total suspended solids (TSS) : Quantity of mineral and organic particles suspended in water which can be captured 
on a porosity filter. This parameter is also expressed in mg/l.
Urban waste water treatment directive (Directive) : The Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 aims at 
protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges and discharges from certain 
industrial sectors. It requires the collection and treatment of waste water in agglomerations with a population 
equivalent (p.e.) above 2 000, and more stringent treatment in agglomerations with a p.e. above 10 000 in sensitive 
areas. It also requires that in all agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. where collection systems are in place, appropriate 
treatment is ensured in case of discharge to fresh water and estuaries.
Urban waste water treatment plant : Infrastructure providing a series of treatment processes aiming to reduce 
the level of pollution of urban agglomeration waste water received to an acceptable level before discharge into the 
receiving waters.
Waste water : Any water that has been adversely affected in quality. It is usually conveyed in a sewage network 
and treated at a wastewater treatment plant. Treated waste water is discharged into receiving water via an effluent 
sewer. Waste water generated in areas without access to a public sewage network relies on individual systems, such 
as septic tanks.
Waste water discharge permit : In the present report, permits issued to dischargers of waste water in accordance 
with national legal provisions. The permits for waste water treatment plants include inter alia information on the 
capacity of the plant and the limit values to be respected for a number of parameters and pollutants.
Waste water price (tariff) : Price of waste water charged to those discharging waste water into a sewage network 
and/or treatment plant, in other words the users of the waste water treatment service. Waste water tariffs can vary 
for different users (such as households and industrial installations).
08
 Executive  
summary
I
The waste water and sewage sludge from urban 
agglomerations can affect the quality of Europe’s 
lakes, rivers, coastal waters, soils and groundwater. As 
a result the EU has adopted a series of directives and 
has also co -financed the building of urban waste water 
treatment plants through the Cohesion Fund and the 
European Regional Development Fund.
II
The Court’s audit focused on four Member States in 
the Danube river basin (the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
Romania and Slovakia). The Court analysed the pro -
gress with regard to the implementation of the urban 
waste water treatment directive and, for a sample 
of 28 EU -co-financed waste water treatment plants, 
the performance in treating waste water, the way of 
handling sewage sludge produced and the financial 
sustainability of the infrastructure.
III
The Court concluded that European Regional Develop -
ment Fund/Cohesion Fund spending during the 2007 -13 
programme period has played a key role in bringing 
forward waste water collection and treatment, how -
ever not sufficient to meet the deadlines regarding 
waste water treatment. The Court recommends that the 
Commission enhances reporting requirements and that 
legal provisions in Member States are put in place to 
ensure prompt connection of households to the public 
sewage network.
IV
The Court noted that the funds available under the 
2007–13 programme period have been absorbed 
slowly and that the indicators in the operational pro -
grammes do not allow reconciliation with the progress 
achieved in implementing the Directive. The Court 
recommends that updated information on the finan -
cial resources needed to achieve full compliance with 
the Directive and potential funding sources is made 
available by the Member States.V
The EU co -financed urban waste water treatment 
plants examined were mostly complying with the 
effluent requirements specified in their discharge per -
mits and with those specified by the Directive (when 
applicable). However, around one third of the plants 
are oversized (even when taking into account planned 
future connections). In addition to paying attention 
to the appropriate size of the plants, the Court recom -
mends that the Commission and the Member States 
address the issue of storm water overflows as they can 
negatively impact water quality and that plant opera -
tors seize opportunities for saving operational costs. 
Furthermore, the Court recommends that the  
Commission assesses the appropriateness of concen -
tration limits of the Directive taking into account the 
technological improvement made since 1991 when 
the urban waste water directive was adopted.
VI
The waste water treatment plants examined handled 
the sludge appropriately with the exception of one 
Member State. However, there are not necessarily 
binding requirements regarding pollutants for all 
types of use of sludge. The Court recommends that 
the Commission and Member States set criteria for 
all types of use and take necessary action to ensure 
a robust monitoring of pollutants.
VII
The attained degree of financial sustainability of EU 
co-financed infrastructure was not fully satisfactory. 
The Court recommends that the Commission should 
encourage Member States to implement a responsi -
ble waste water pricing policy with tariffs being not 
lower than the 4 % affordability level mentioned by 
the Commission. Further, measures should be taken to 
ensure that sufficient funds will be available to allow 
necessary maintenance and renewal.
09
 Introduction
Background
01 
The main aim of EU water policy is to 
ensure that a sufficient quantity of 
good quality water is available for peo -
ple’s needs and for the environment 
throughout the EU. Water pollution is 
one of the main environmental worries 
expressed by EU citizens.
02 
This report focuses on the Danube 
river basin which is Europe’s largest 
river basin (801 463 km2) and touches 
19 countries. It is vulnerable to water 
pollution coming from various sources.
03 
One of the sources of water pollution 
is the emission of partially treated or 
untreated waste water from agglom -
erations. The 1991 urban waste water 
treatment directive1 requires Member 
States to ensure by a certain deadline 
that agglomerations are provided with 
collection systems for urban waste wa -
ter and that the collected waste water 
is subject to appropriate treatment.
04 
Sewage sludge produced by urban 
waste water treatment plants can be 
harmful to water and soil, mainly due 
to the content of heavy metals in the 
sludge. Therefore the disposal of sludge 
into surface waters is no longer allowed 
and the urban waste water treat -
ment directive provides for the reuse 
of sludge. The application of sewage 
sludge on agricultural soil2 is regulated 
by the sewage sludge directive3 which 
specifies rules for the sampling and 
analysis of sludge and soil and sets  
limits for concentrations and maximum 
annual quantities of heavy metals 
which may be introduced into soil.05 
A brief overview of the process of 
waste water treatment and sludge 
disposal is provided in Annex I.
06 
The water framework directive’s4 main 
objective is to achieve good surface 
water and groundwater status by 2015. 
The key tool for implementing the Di -
rective is the river basin management 
plan.  By 2009, each Member State 
had to produce river basin manage -
ment plans including a programme of 
measures for each river basin district 
within its territory5. This programme 
had to include inter alia the measures 
required to implement EU legisla -
tion for the protection of water (such 
as the urban waste water treatment 
directive).
07 
The 2013 General Union Environment 
Action Programme to 20206 requires 
a reduction of nitrogen and phospho -
rus emissions, including those from 
urban and industrial waste water and 
from fertiliser use. Equally, the 2012 
Blueprint7 to safeguard Europe’s water 
resources identifies as necessary 
action the improvement of compli -
ance rates on waste water treat -
ment through long -term investment 
planning.1 Council Directive 91/271/EEC 
of 21 May 1991 concerning 
urban waste water treatment 
(OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40).
2 Soil pollution can lead to 
water pollution either through 
leakage of pollutants into 
groundwater or through 
run-off.
3 Council Directive 86/278/EEC 
of 12 June 1986 on the 
protection of the 
environment, and in particular 
of the soil, when sewage 
sludge is used in agriculture 
(OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6).
4 Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
23 October 2000 establishing 
a framework for Community 
action in the field of water 
policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1).
5 When Member States contain 
parts of different river basins 
within their territory (e.g. the 
Czech Republic has parts of 
the Danube river basin as well 
as parts of the basins of the 
Oder and Elbe rivers), plans 
were required to be 
established for each of the 
parts (basin districts).
6 Decision No 1386/2013/EU of 
the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 
20 November 2013 on 
a General Union Environment 
Action Programme to 2020 
‘Living well, within the limits of 
our planet’ (OJ L 354, 
28.12.2013, p. 171).
7 COM(2012) 673 final of 
14 November  2012.
10 Introduction
8 Article 17(1) Treaty on 
European Union and Article 
317 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European 
Union.
9 From 1 January 2007 to 
25 June 2010 the amount was 
25 million euros in the case of 
environment-related projects.EU co‑financing of waste 
water ‑related 
infrastructure
08 
Costs for the construction, upgrades 
and modernisation of waste water 
treatment plants and sewage net -
works are eligible for EU co -financing 
from the European Regional Develop -
ment Fund and the Cohesion Fund. 
The European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development can also provide 
co-financing when rural areas are 
concerned. For the Member States that 
joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 funds 
were available from 2000 till the date 
of accession under the Instrument for 
Structural Policies for Pre -Accession 
(ISPA). ISPA projects became Cohe -
sion Fund projects on the accession of 
these Member States.
09 
The EU funds allocated to waste water 
infrastructure under the European 
Regional Development Fund and the 
Cohesion Fund were approximately 
12.9 billion euros for the 2000–06 pro -
gramme period and 14.6  billion  euros 
for the 2007–13 programme period.10 
Co-financed infrastructure projects 
(see Box 1 ) are implemented under 
shared management, with the Com -
mission bearing the ultimate respon -
sibility for the implementation of 
the EU budget8. During the 2000–06 
programme period, in addition to the 
approval of operational programmes, 
the Commission approved the applica -
tions submitted by Member States for 
European Regional Development Fund 
projects whose total cost exceeded 
50 million euros, for all Cohesion Fund 
and ISPA projects. For the 2007–13 
programme period, apart from the 
approval of programmes, only ‘major 
projects’ (i.e. those costing more than 
50 million euros) had to be approved 
by the Commission9. The decision to 
co-finance a project establishes the 
grant amount (rate of assistance) and 
the conditions for funding which must 
be satisfied.
11 Introduction
11 
Two directorates-general of the Com -
mission have a significant role in the 
area of waste water treatment:
(a) The Directorate-General for 
Environment is responsible for EU 
environmental policy in the field of 
water including waste water treat -
ment. It is required to monitor the 
implementation of the related leg -
islation (such as the deadlines for 
the achievement of the objectives 
of the urban waste water treat -
ment directive) and also to launch 
infringement procedures when 
required. It is consulted by the Di -
rectorate-General for Regional and 
Urban Policy when examining the 
quality of operational programme 
proposals. It is also consulted in 
the appraisal phase of ‘major pro -
jects’ and Cohesion Fund projects;(b) The Directorate-General for Re -
gional and Urban Policy is respon -
sible for the EU budget in the area 
of regional policy under which 
waste water-related projects can 
be co -financed.Example of a co‑financed project visited by the Court
In Hungary, one project consisted (i) of construct -
ing a new sewage network in certain areas of the 
agglomeration and extending the existing sewage 
network in other areas, (ii) of upgrading the urban 
waste water treatment plant to ensure nutrient re -
moval and (iii) of providing a new sludge treatment 
facility.
The project was approved by the Commission in 
December 2004 and entered into operation in 
December 2011. The total expenditure incurred for 
this project was 48.3 million euros, of which the EU 
grant was 36.2  million  euros.Box 1
Picture 1 — Waste water treatment plant (Hungary–Zalaegerszeg)
Source:  ECA.
12
 Audit scope and approach
12 
Through this audit, the Court assessed 
the effectiveness of European Regional 
Development Fund/Cohesion Fund 
spending on waste water treatment 
in helping Member States to achieve 
EU waste water policy objectives. The 
Court intends to cover issues concern -
ing the implementation of the water 
framework directive in the Danube 
river basin in other reports.
13 
The audit focused on four Member 
States of the Danube river basin cover -
ing the upper, central and lower part 
of the basin: the Czech Republic,  
Hungary, Romania and Slovakia10.
14 
The Court addressed the following 
four questions:
(a) Did the Member States meet the 
deadlines for compliance with 
the urban waste water treatment 
directive?
(b) Did the Member States make  
adequate use of the funds available 
under the 2007–13 programme 
period?
(c) Did EU co -financed urban waste 
water treatment plants function 
effectively?
(d) Are the EU co -financed urban 
waste water treatment plants 
financially sustainable?15 
The total EU contribution for waste 
water treatment projects in the four 
Member States was 2.1 billion euros 
for the 2000–0611 programme period 
and 5.8 billion euros12 for the 2007–13 
period.
16 
The audit was based on an assessment 
of:
(a) the most up -to-date data re -
garding: the connection rate by 
agglomeration, the treatment 
efficiency of the waste water treat -
ment plants and the number of 
agglomerations not yet compliant 
with the urban waste water treat -
ment directive;
(b) the performance of 28 urban 
waste water treatment plants. As 
plants had to be operating, most 
projects included in the sample 
had received EU funding under 
the 2000–06 programme period. 
Annex II  contains the list of waste 
water treatment plants examined, 
all of which had a capacity above 
2 000 population equivalent (p.e.).10 Part of the Czech Republic, 
a major part of Slovakia and 
the whole of Romania and 
Hungary are in the Danube 
river basin.
11 For the Member States visited, 
projects were financed from 
ISPA between 2000 and the 
date of accession and from 
accession onwards by the 
European Regional 
Development Fund and the 
Cohesion Fund.
12 Data as of 31.12.2013 (based on 
annual implementation 
reports).
13 Audit scope and approach
17 
Evidence was obtained from docu -
mentary reviews and analyses (e.g. 
national strategies, implementation 
reports, legal acts, statistics and per -
formance data from plant operators), 
from interviews with officials from the 
Commission and Member States and 
with representatives of the owners 
and operators of the treatment plants. 
The Court visited 14 of the 28 treat -
ment plants in the sample between 
March 2013 and January 2014 and 
examined in detail documentation re -
lating to the 14 plants not visited. The 
assessment criteria used for the audit 
are explained further in the different 
sections of this report.
14
 Observations
Compliance with the 
deadlines of the urban 
waste water treatment 
directive
18 
According to the urban waste water 
treatment directive:
 — all agglomerations above  
2 000 p.e. have to have collec -
tion systems in place or, where 
the establishment is not justified, 
individual or other appropriate 
systems13 which achieve the same 
level of environmental protection 
(Article 3 of the Directive);
 — in all agglomerations above 
2 000 p.e. waste water has to un -
dergo secondary treatment so that 
the effluents from waste water 
treatment plants can respect con -
centration limits for biochemical 
oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical 
oxygen demand (COD) and total 
suspended solids (TSS) (Article 4);
 — in sensitive areas14 in all agglomer -
ations above 10 000 p.e . waste wa -
ter has to undergo more stringent 
treatment so that the effluents 
from waste water treatment plants 
can respect concentration limits 
for total nitrogen15 (Ntot) and total 
phosphorus (Ptot) (Article 5);
 — in all agglomerations below 
2 000 p.e. where collection sys -
tems are in place, appropriate 
treatment is to be ensured in case 
of discharge to fresh water and 
estuaries (Article 7).19 
Dates by which the abovementioned 
requirements had to be met were dif -
ferent for the four Member States vis -
ited (see Annex III ). If a Member State 
fails to comply with EU law, the Com -
mission has the power to initiate an 
infringement procedure and ultimately 
to refer the case to the European Court 
of Justice.
20 
The Court examined whether:
 — interim and/or final deadlines were 
met for agglomerations above 
2 000 p.e.;
 — information was available on 
whether appropriate treatment 
was ensured for agglomerations 
below 2 000 p.e. which have col -
lection systems in place;
 — the Commission took any action in 
cases of non -compliance with the 
deadlines contained in the urban 
waste water treatment directive.13 For example a cesspool can be 
considered as an individual 
system.
14 Areas defined as such on the 
basis of the criteria of the 
urban waste water treatment 
directive (see Glossary ).
15 Total nitrogen means: the sum 
of total Kjeldahl -nitrogen 
(organic N + NH3), nitrate 
(NO3)-nitrogen and nitrite 
(NO2)-nitrogen.
15 Observations
Member States generally met 
the deadlines specified in the 
urban waste water treatment 
directive for the collection 
but not for the treatment of 
waste water
Three of the four Member 
States met their deadlines for 
waste water collection
21 
On the basis of the Commission’s ana-  
lysis of data provided by the Member 
States16 the Court concludes that with 
regard to the waste water collection 
(Article 3 of the Directive), of the four 
Member States visited, only Romania 
was slightly behind schedule at the 
end of 2012 with regard to its interim 
deadlines (see Table 1 ).22 
The Court notes however that on the 
basis of the Member States’ data, 
it cannot be assessed whether the 
individual systems which collect part 
of the load provide a similar level of 
environmental protection as collection 
systems. For some agglomerations the 
load that goes to individual systems 
is quite high and in some cases can 
represent up to 100 % of the load of an 
agglomeration. In mid-2014 the Com -
mission requested the Czech Republic, 
Hungary and Slovakia to provide more 
detailed information on how the na -
tional authorities ensure that a similar 
level of environmental protection is 
provided when individual systems are 
in place.16 Data provided in 2014 
presenting the situation at 
reference date 31.12.2012 for 
the Czech Republic, Romania 
and Slovakia and 31.12.2011 for 
Hungary.Table 1Compliance with the deadlines of the Directive regarding waste water collection  
(as of 31.12.2012)
Member State RequirementAchievement:
percentage of agglomerations1 with collecting systems,
including the load2 collected by individual systems
Czech Republic100 % of agglomerations 
by 2010100 %;
7 % of the waste water load is collected by individual systems.
Hungary154 agglomerations (31 % of 
total) by 2010100 %;
14 % of the waste water load is collected by individual systems.
Romania 61 % of the load by 2010Only six agglomerations fulfil the requirements fully. However, the interim deadlines 
refer to the waste water load: at the end of 2012 the actual collection rate was 60.2 %;
1 % of the load is collected by individual systems.
Slovakia291 agglomerations (82 % of 
total) by 2010100 %;
13 % of the waste water load is collected by individual systems and 0.4 % is not  
collected by any means.
1  An agglomeration is considered compliant by the Commission if the load collected in collection systems reaches 98 % or more of the total 
load generated by the agglomeration and the load which is not collected does not exceed 2 000 p.e.
2 The load is the organic biodegradable load of an agglomeration expressed in p.e.
Source:  Commission’s analysis of data provided by the Member States.
16 Observations
23 
Furthermore, the fact that collection 
systems are in place does not mean 
that all households that could be con -
nected are actually connected. For 
example, households may prefer to 
stay with individual systems for cost 
reasons. Legal provisions imposing 
obligations, and in some cases fines for 
non -connection, are in place in all four 
Member States visited to ensure the 
connection of households to the sew -
age network (see Table 2 ). However, in 
three of the four Member States there 
are no deadlines for connection or the 
terms used are vague. This may ham -
per an effective enforcement of the 
obligation to connect to an existing 
sewage network. The way in which the 
obligations were enforced by national 
authorities was not checked in the 
context of this audit.None of the four Member 
States visited met the deadlines 
with regard to waste water 
treatment
24 
On the basis of the Commission’s 
analysis of data provided by the 
Member States the Court concludes 
that with regard to the treated waste 
water all four Member States missed 
to varying degrees their deadlines for 
complying17 with the required concen -
tration limits for certain parameters 
at the end of 2012 (see Table 3  for 
interim deadlines for Hungary, Roma -
nia and Slovakia and Annex III  for all 
deadlines). Considering the delays in 
meeting interim deadlines and the 
need to identify other funding sources 
(see paragraphs 39 and 40), it will be 
extremely difficult for Slovakia and 
Romania to meet their final deadlines 
of 2015 and 2018 respectively.17 The legal compliance check 
follows a hierarchical 
approach. This means that 
non -compliance with 
obligations as regards 
collection (Article 3 of the 
Directive) entails 
non -compliance with the 
obligations to provide 
treatment (Article 4 and, when 
applicable, Article 5), even if 
the quality standards of the 
effluents meet the 
requirements of the Directive. 
Similarly, an agglomeration 
which does not meet the 
quality standards for 
secondary treatment cannot 
be deemed to comply with 
Article 5 (more stringent 
treatment).Table 2National legal provisions to ensure connection to an existing sewage network
Member State Legal provisions
Czech RepublicMunicipalities can make connection compulsory and can impose fines for non‑compliance. For new constructions 
or renovations, treatment or disposal of waste water must be provided. No deadlines have been specified.
HungaryObligation to connect within 90 days of the existence of a collection system. Fines payable (collected as tax) in 
case of non‑connection.
RomaniaObligation to connect for buildings where socioeconomic activities are carried out. Operators of waste water 
treatment plants can be fined for undue delay in connecting new users.
SlovakiaObligation to connect for owners of property generating waste water unless the owner has a permit to treat 
waste water by other means (but no deadlines specified). Fines payable in case of non‑connection.
Source:  ECA analysis of national legislation.
17 Observations
25 
According to the Directive (Article 
5.4.), requirements for individual waste 
water treatment plants (Ntot and Ptot 
removal) need not apply in sensitive 
areas where it can be shown that the 
minimum percentage of reduction 
of the overall load entering all plants 
(above 2 000 p.e.) in that area is at 
least 75 % for both Ntot and Ptot.26 
According to the Accession Treaty only 
a small part of Hungary (six agglom -
erations) was considered as a sensitive 
area where more stringent treat -
ment needed to be in place by 2008. 
However in March 2009, as a result 
of an agreement between Romania 
and Hungary, Hungary informed the 
Commission that it will apply the 
provisions of Article 5.4. by the end of 
2018 for the overall load entering all 
plants (corresponding to 498 agglom -
erations). According to information 
provided by the Hungarian authorities 
to the Commission, the percentage of 
reduction of the load entering treat -
ment plants was 73.1 % for Ntot and 
74.4 % for Ptot by the end of 2012 (at the 
end of 2010 the figures were 71.5 % 
and 79.5 % respectively).Table 3Compliance with the deadlines of the Directive regarding waste water treatment  
(as of 31.12.2012)
Member StateCompliance regarding secondary treatment 
(respect of concentration limits for BOD5, COD and 
TSS)Compliance regarding more stringent treatment in 
sensitive areas (respect of concentration limits for 
Ntot and Ptot)
Requirement Achievement Requirement Achievement
Czech Republic594 agglomerations  
(by 2010)512 (86 %)132 agglomerations  
(by 2010)83 (63 %)
Hungary154 agglomerations  
(by 2010)130 (84 %)6 agglomerations  
(by 2008)5 (83 %)
See paragraphs 25 and 26
RomaniaLoad (in p.e.)
10 829 595 (by 2010)
12 953 045 (by 2013)Load (in p.e.)
8 184 225
(76 % (compared to 2010))
(63 % (compared to 2013))Load (in p.e.)
7 688 721 (by 2010)
9 196 314 (by 2013)1 530 828 
(20 %)
(17 %)
Slovakia258 agglomerations  
(by 2012)236 (92 %)81 agglomerations  
(by 2010)41 (51 %)
Source:  Commission’s analysis of data provided by the Member States.
18 Observations
Changes in the number of 
agglomerations and load 
figures reported by Member 
States have an impact on the 
applicability of the Directive
27 
Agglomerations are defined as an 
area where the population and/or 
economic activities are sufficiently 
concentrated for urban waste water 
to be collected and to be conducted 
to a plant or a discharge point. It is up 
to the Member States to define the 
agglomerations, in particular which 
settlements to include within one 
agglomeration.
28 
The Directive imposes stricter obliga -
tions on Member States for agglom -
erations above 2 000 p.e. The Court’s 
analysis showed that the number of 
agglomerations above 2 000 p.e. and the corresponding load changed 
significantly over time in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Romania. The 
most significant change took place in 
Romania (29 % decrease in the number 
of agglomerations and 17 % decrease 
in the load) (see Table 4 ). If an agglom -
eration is no longer above 2 000 p.e. 
this implies that effluent requirements 
(i.e. concentration limits) are no longer 
to be complied with (see paragraph 
18) and thus the deadlines of the 
Directive no longer apply to such an 
agglomeration.
29 
Considering the large number of ag -
glomerations in the 28 Member States, 
the Commission is not in a position to 
follow each individual case to ensure 
that reported changes in the numbers 
of agglomerations in Member States 
are valid and result in a correct appli -
cation of the Directive. Table 4Changes reported to the Commission regarding number of agglomerations and load
Member StateChange in number  
(above 2 000 p.e.)Change in load  
(in p.e.)Comments
Czech Republic2008: 618
2012: 598
= 3 % decrease2008: 8 429 183
2012: 7 590 604
= 10 % decreaseMainly agglomerations for which the size went 
below 2 000 p.e.
Hungary2005: 404
2007: 497
2012: 498
= 23 % increase since 2005 
and stable since 20072005: 9 643 155
2007: 13 231 718
2012: 11 665 187
= 12 % decrease since 2007There are inconsistencies between the data reported 
to the Commission and the data in the Hungarian 
Decree 173/2014 (VII.18.) which mentions 566  
agglomerations and a load of 10 767 713 p.e.
Romania2007: 2  620
2012: 1 852
= 29 % decrease2007: 25 838 316
2012: 21 409 175
= 17 % decreaseAgglomerations for which the size went below 
2 000 p.e. and changes in the composition of the 
agglomerations
Slovakia No change since 2005: 3562005: 5 054 900
2008: 5 259 370
2012: 5 072 755
= 4 % decrease since 2008
Source:  ECA analysis of data provided by the Member States to the Commission.
19 Observations
The Commission only has 
partial information on the 
situation in agglomerations 
below 2 000 p.e.
30 
In order to establish the river basin 
management plans under the water 
framework directive Member States 
have to assess whether the pollution 
generated by agglomerations (includ -
ing those below 2 000 p.e.) has such an 
impact on water bodies that it needs 
to be acted upon (see paragraph 6). 
Moreover, measures to ensure the im -
plementation of the urban waste water 
treatment directive have to be in -
cluded in the river basin management 
plans. Otherwise, for agglomerations 
below 2 000 p.e., the Commission does 
not require any specific reporting from 
the Member States under the urban 
waste water treatment directive (i.e. 
agglomerations concerned and their 
compliance with Article 7).
31 
The Court found that the Commission 
has only partial information on the 
situation in agglomerations below 
2 000 p.e. For the Czech Republic, Hun -
gary and Slovakia, the river basin man -
agement plans do not indicate how 
many of these agglomerations are of 
importance for water quality. Equally, 
neither the Czech Republic nor Hun -
gary provided any information on the 
number of agglomerations where col -
lection systems were in place but there 
were no treatment plants. In 2013, in 
the context of the assessment of the 
river basin management plans, the 
Commission requested specific data 
for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 
This illustrates that the Commission is 
in a position to request information on 
these agglomerations. Nevertheless, 
the information received and available for the Czech Republic and Hungary 
does not allow the Commission to 
verify compliance with Article 7 of the 
urban waste water treatment directive.
The Commission is 
following up situations of 
non‑compliance in three 
of the four Member States 
visited
32 
Every 2 years Member States have to 
report progress on the implementa -
tion of the urban waste water treat -
ment directive to the Commission. By 
June 2014 the situation at the end of 
2012 had to be reported on (or 2011 if 
later data not available). The Commis -
sion then publishes an overall imple -
mentation report: the last two reports 
were prepared within 18 months of the 
submission deadline for the Member 
States18.
33 
In July 2014 the Commission launched 
a request for information to the Czech 
Republic and to Slovakia and in Octo -
ber 2014 to Hungary on the basis of 
data provided by the Member States 
in 2012. These requests were launched 
with regard to non -compliances by the 
end of 2010 (the Czech Republic and 
Slovakia) or 2009 (Hungary)19 whereas 
at the same time further deadlines had 
elapsed and more up -to-date infor -
mation had been received (see para -
graph 32). The Court therefore consid -
ers that the efficacy of this process as 
it is currently operated is question -
able. The Commission’s assessment of 
the information provided in answer 
to these requests was ongoing in 
March 2015.18 Last published report: ‘7th 
Report on the implementation 
of the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive’, 
COM(2013) 574 final of 
7 August 2013.
19 Romania had not yet reached 
any of its interim deadlines at 
the reference date of 
31.12.2009 and thus 
compliance was not yet to be 
assessed. Nevertheless, 
according to the situation as of 
31.12.2012 (see Table 3 ), 
Romania did not meet its first 
deadline in 2010.
20 Observations
Use of EU funds available 
under the 2007–13 
programme period
34 
Investments in the field of waste water 
are generally co -financed by the EU in 
the context of the 2007–13 operational 
programmes, in particular the hori -
zontal programmes dealing with the 
environment. Each of the four Member 
States has such a horizontal operation -
al programme. Taken together, they 
provided a total budget of  
4.9 billion euros of EU funds for  
investments in the field of waste water.
35 
The Court examined:
 — the rate of absorption of the funds 
available for investments in the 
field of waste water under the 
2007–13 operational programmes 
at the end of 2013;
 — whether the specified targets for 
output and result indicators had 
been achieved by the end of 2013.Not all the funding 
available under the 2007–13 
operational programmes 
taken up
36 
In all four Member States, the funds 
(EU and national) provided in the 
context of operational programmes 
(in particular by the horizontal pro -
grammes dealing with the environ -
ment) are the main source of financing 
for waste water-related projects.
37 
Funds are considered committed by 
the Member States under an opera -
tional programme once a grant deci -
sion for a particular project has been 
taken. The Court found that by the 
end of 2013 significant amounts of the 
available EU and national funding for 
investments in waste water treatment 
had not been committed in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Slovakia (see 
Table 5 ).
38 
Moreover, the Court’s analysis shows 
that payments made to beneficiaries 
(reimbursement of costs incurred) 
were at a low level which indicates that 
construction work on many projects 
had not been finished by the end of 
2013. However, EU funds that have 
been committed by the Commission 
but have not been used for payments 
by the Member States within 2 (and in 
some cases 3) years of their commit -
ment will no longer be available for 
use20.20 Article 93 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
of 11 July 2006 laying down 
general provisions on the 
European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund and the 
Cohesion Fund and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 
(OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25).
21 Observations
39 
The final eligibility date for declaring 
expenditure to the Commission to 
receive the corresponding EU grant is 
31.12.2015. Considering the slow imple -
mentation pace, the Court concludes 
that several projects will not be final -
ised by that deadline and, from 2016 
onwards, will require further funds 
(national and/or EU) to be completed. Table 5Absorption of the funds regarding investments in waste water under the 2007–13 
operational programmes dealing with the environment (as of 31.12.2013)
Member StateFunds committed 
(projects approved) and 
expressed as % of the 
budgetFunds paid
Risk that funds will be 
lostas % of the budgetas % of the
funds committed
Czech Republic1 160 million euro
60 % and
1 850 million euro4
95 %52 % 87 %
YES(1 012 million euro)
Hungary1382 billion HUF  
(or 1 290 million euro)
83 %23 % 28 %
YES (105 billion HUF or  
354 million  euro)
Romania2 4 439 million euro
141 %30 % 21 %YES(954  million  euro)
Slovakia3 719 million  euro
86 %40 % 46 %
YES(332  million  euro)
1  Data for Hungary relates to May 2013. The amounts in HUF were converted into euros using the following exchange rate: 1 euro at 296.11 HUF 
(May 2013).
2  Data for Romania relates to water supply and waste water. Separate information not available.
3  Data for Slovakia relates to EU funds only while for the other three Member States it relates to the total public funds (i.e. EU and national 
funds).
4  A number of projects had already been accepted for co -financing but the grant agreement had not been signed. When taking these into  
account, 95 % of the funds were committed.
Source:  ECA analysis of the annual implementation reports for the operational programmes concerned.
22 Observations
40 
The slow implementation pace implies 
a risk that the EU funds available will 
not be fully absorbed by the end of 
2015. The Court notes that projects 
that can be split into separate work 
phases can receive funds under the 
2014–20 programme period for those 
phases that will be implemented in 
that time period. Overall, regarding 
the funds allocated under the 2014–20 
programme period for investments 
in the field of waste water, the Court 
concludes that there is a risk for 
Hungary and an almost certainty for 
Romania and Slovakia that the funds 
planned for the 2014–20 programme 
period (both EU and national) will not 
suffice to ensure the implementation 
of the Directive for agglomerations 
above 2 000 p.e. Member States will 
thus have to identify other financing 
sources.
41 
The Court’s analysis also showed that 
in all four Member States the criteria 
applied for selecting projects to be 
financed under the 2007–13 opera -
tional programmes for environment 
were adequate. However, if and when 
an agglomeration presented a project 
or not was at its discretion. Thus one of 
the reasons why some agglomerations 
of bigger size (needing more strin -
gent treatment) are not yet compliant 
with the urban waste water treatment 
directive is that no project applications 
have been submitted and therefore no 
financing has been requested.Targets for output and result 
indicators were mostly not 
achieved by the end of 2013
42 
The 2007–13 operational programmes 
submitted by the Member States and 
approved by the Commission include 
output, result and impact indicators so 
as to enable the evaluation of the ef -
ficiency and effectiveness of the funds 
spent under the programmes.
43 
The Court notes that the targets for 
the indicators set in the operational 
programmes for environment are not 
of a nature to allow a demonstration of 
the rate of achievement of the targets 
under the urban waste water treat -
ment directive.
23 Observations
44 
The deadline for meeting the targets 
set in the operational programmes is 
2015. The situation at the end of 2013 
is an interim situation but shows that 
many of the targets were still far from 
being achieved (see Table 6 ). The  
situation will improve in the remaining 
2 years as many projects are still in the implementation phase. Nevertheless, 
in view of the significant differences 
between targets set and 2013 imple -
mentation levels, the Court considers 
that some of the targets were clearly 
over optimistic (for example indica -
tor No 2 for the Czech Republic and 
indicator No 1 for Romania).Table 6Achievements of targets as of 31.12.2013 under the 2007–13 operational programmes 
for environment
Member State Indicators Targets for 2015 Achievements
Czech Republic1. Length of new and rehabilitated sewage networks (km) 1202 294
(> 100  %)
2. Number of new, rehabilitated and intensified plants 35094
(27 %)
3. Number of people newly connected to the sewage network 741 000459 266
(62 %)
Hungary1. Number of households with possibility to connect to the 
sewage network400  000141 689
(35 %)
2. Amount of capacity created for waste water treatment 
plants (in p.e.)3 550 000195 124
(5 %)
3. Number of residents concerned by waste water treatment 
projects (in million)1.30.2
(15 %)
Romania1. Number of new and rehabilitated plants 17025
(15 %)
2. Waste water properly treated (% of the total waste water 
volume)6035
(58 %)
Slovakia1. Number of new and rehabilitated plants 6430
(47 %)
2. Number of p.e. connected to the new sewage network 331 29513 883
(4 %)
Source:  ECA analysis of the annual implementation reports for the operational programmes concerned.
24 Observations
Effectiveness of EU 
co‑financed urban waste 
water treatment plants
45 
The Court’s assessment covers 28  
urban waste water treatment plants 
and is based on two aspects:
(a) the level of performance achieved 
with regard to the treatment of 
waste water;
(b) the handling of the sewage sludge 
produced as a result of the waste 
water treatment process.Performance of urban waste 
water treatment plants
46 
Urban waste water treatment plants 
which receive waste water from 
households and industrial installa -
tions have to respect concentration 
limits, as indicated in their waste water 
discharge permit, for the discharged 
effluents. The permit is established on 
the basis of national legal provisions 
and compliance is to be ensured by 
regular checks carried out by the plant 
operators themselves. The permissible 
concentration limits and the frequency 
of monitoring are specified in the 
Directive (see paragraph 18). Indus -
trial installations also have to respect 
concentration limits for the waste 
water discharged into public sewage 
networks.
Pictures 2 and 3 — Discharge of effluents (Hungary‑Budapest; the Czech Republic‑Blansko) 
Source:  ECA.
25 Observations
47 
The Court examined whether:
 — the monitoring and the quality of 
the effluents from urban waste 
water treatment plants respected 
the requirements of the Directive 
and/or of the national waste water 
discharge permits;
 — the sewage networks and/or the 
urban waste water treatment 
plants had adequately coped with 
heavy rainfall;
 — plant operators had assurance on 
the respect of concentration limits 
by industrial installations discharg -
ing waste water into a public  
sewage network;
 — the capacity of the urban waste 
water treatment plants examined 
was sufficient for actual needs; — the operating costs of urban waste 
water treatment plants were justi -
fied in view of the type of treat -
ment provided and the plants’ size.
EU effluent requirements 
respected by the plants for 
which they were applicable
48 
The Court’s examination of the re -
specting of the monitoring and efflu -
ent requirements was based on the 
laboratory analyses carried out by the 
plant operators (self -checks) in 2012. 
It shows that in terms of sampling fre -
quency all but one plant respected the 
requirements of the urban waste water 
treatment directive.
Pictures 4 and 5 — Water samples and results (the Czech Republic‑Blansko; Hungary‑Budapest)
Source:  ECA.

26 Observations
49 
The Court noted that three Member 
States imposed concentration limits 
that were, in some cases, stricter than 
those imposed by the Directive (see 
Table 7 ). At the time of the report, the 
Commission had no plans to propose 
an update of the limits included in the 
Directive.50 
The requirements specified in the 
Directive regarding the effluents dis -
charged applied to 16 of the 28 plants 
examined (57 %). In all 16 cases the 
requirements were met (see Table 8 ). 
Moreover, 25 of the 28 plants (89 %) 
respected the limits indicated in their 
national permits.Table 7National legal provisions regarding concentration limits going beyond the 
requirements of the Directive
Member State Stricter concentration limits
Czech RepublicBOD5, COD, TSS: have stricter limits and limits also exist for plants with a capacity below 2 000 p.e.
Limits for Ptot exist also for plants with a capacity between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e.
Hungary BOD5, COD, TSS: limits also exist for plants with a capacity below 2 000 p.e.
Romania None going beyond Directive requirements.
Slovakia BOD5, COD, TSS: limits also exist for plants with a capacity below 2 000 p.e.
Source:  ECA analysis of national legislation.Table 8Effluents meeting requirements set in the Directive and in permits
Member StateNumber of plants 
examinedUrban waste water treatment directive
Respect of the permit
Respected Not applicable
Czech Republic 4 4 4
Hungary 7 3 4 7
Romania 12 4 8 9
Slovakia 5 5 5
TOTAL 28 16 12 25
Source:  ECA analysis.
27 Observations
51 
In the case of four plants in Hungary 
and eight plants in Romania not all 
requirements of the Directive (in 
particular those for Ntot and Ptot) were 
applicable at the time of the report:
 — Hungary opted for country -wide 
reduction percentages for Ntot and 
Ptot rather than applying limits at 
individual treatment plant level 
(see paragraph 26). Three of the 
four plants concerned had the 
technical capacity to remove 
nutrients (Ntot and Ptot) and thus to 
improve the quality of the efflu -
ents but were not required to do 
so by the national permit;
 — Romania’s deadline for meeting 
the requirements of the Directive 
for agglomerations above  
10 000 p.e. is the end of 2015. For 
seven of these eight plants further 
works will be necessary to enable 
nutrient removal.The situation with regard to 
overflows cannot be assessed 
due to lack of quantified 
information
52 
If during heavy rainfall the capacity 
of a sewage network and a treat -
ment plant is not sufficient, so -called 
overflows may occur whereby not 
only the rainwater but also untreated 
waste water is directly discharged 
into a water body, which has a nega -
tive impact on water quality. This is 
particularly the case where a sewage 
network has combined collection, thus 
collecting rainwater run -off as well as 
household and industrial waste water 
(see Figure 1 ). For 20 of the 28 plants 
examined (71 %) the sewage network 
was mainly or fully combined. The 
Court acknowledges that, in some 
cases, for technical reasons linked to 
the sewage network structure, munici -
palities cannot lay down a separated 
network (separation of waste water 
and rainwater).
28 Observations
53 
According to the Directive, Member 
States were to decide on measures to 
limit water pollution from overflows 
such as: specify dilution rates21 or an 
acceptable number of overflows per 
year or the capacity for dry weather 
flow22. Generally, the treatment plants 
examined have storm water tanks on 
their premises where incoming water 
exceeding the capacity of the plant 
can be stored and released to the plant 
for treatment once the storm period 
is over. With regard to the situation of 
storm period overflows at the level of 
the 28 plants the Court found that: — the volume of overflow had been 
measured by the plant operators 
and stayed at an acceptable level 
(between 1 to 5 % of yearly inflow 
of waste water) in eight cases 
(29 %);
 — there were no overflows according 
to the plant operators in 14 cases 
(50 %);
 — there was no information avail -
able as no measurement had taken 
place in six cases (21 %).Figure 1Illustration of overflow during heavy rain
© Green Learning Station, Civic Garden Center of Greater Cincinnati, ‘Diagram of Combined Sewer 
System’.
21 The relation between waste 
water quantity and rain water 
quantity.
22 The flow that a plant should 
be able to treat in a period of 
dry weather, thus when there 
is no rain.
29 Observations
54 
However, these figures have to be 
treated with caution as there are over -
flow possibilities also at the level of 
the sewage network and thus the wa -
ter reaching the waste water treatment 
plant may already be reduced. Quan -
tified information on the overflows 
occurring at the level of the sewage 
network was not available in any of the 
four Member States visited.
55 
The Court also noted that in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Romania there 
were no legal requirements for either 
an admissible number and volume 
of overflows or for a dilution ratio. In 
Slovakia such requirements exist and 
determine the required size of the 
overflow chambers. However, neither 
the volume nor the dilution ratio of the 
overflows have to be monitored.
56 
In 2014 the Commission decided to 
launch a study on the compliance of 
provisions in Member State legislation 
with EU requirements for overflows as 
set out in the 1991 urban waste water 
treatment directive.85 % of plant operators carried 
out on‑the‑spot checks on the 
respect of concentration limits 
by industrial installations
57 
Industrial installations can discharge 
their waste water into a public sew -
age network for treatment by an 
urban waste water treatment plant. 
According to the urban waste water 
treatment directive Member States 
had to make such discharge subject 
to prior regulation and/or specific 
authorisation.
58 
In order to ensure that treatment pro -
cesses are not impeded by certain pol -
lutants and that the discharges from 
urban waste water treatment plants do 
not contain pollutants that are harmful 
to the environment, industrial instal -
lations have to respect concentration 
limits for a number of pollutants. In 
terms of legal provisions the situation 
varies by Member State: in Hungary 
and Romania there are limits set for 
a number of parameters and in the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia the limits 
set for other than particularly hazard -
ous substances are only for guidance. 
It is then the operator of the sewage 
network/treatment plant who defines 
concentration limits in his operating 
rules.
30 Observations
59 
The relationship between the opera -
tor of a sewage network and a given 
industrial installation is governed by 
a contract which can also set concen -
tration limits which are stricter than 
the legally required ones.
60 
In the Czech Republic, Hungary and 
Romania (see Table 9 ) industrial instal -
lations discharging waste water into 
a public sewage network are obliged 
by law to carry out self -checks on their 
effluents. The results are generally 
submitted to the operator. In Romania 
there is no legal requirement regard -
ing the reporting of the results23 but 
plant operators can include such a   
requirement in the contracts.61 
The Court notes that there are two 
ways for the operator of a waste water 
treatment plant to assess the reliability 
of the checks carried out by the indus -
trial installations (see Table 9 ):
 — The water samples of the industrial 
installations are to be analysed 
by accredited laboratories: the 
national legal provisions did not 
include such a requirement. The 
operator can however include such 
a requirement in the contract with 
the industrial installations;
 — The operator carries out 
on-the-spot checks: in the Czech 
Republic, Romania and Slovakia 
the legal provisions include such 
a requirement.23 With the exception of 
laboratories and entities in the 
medical and veterinary fields.Table 9National legal provisions with regard to the checks of industrial waste water 
discharged into a sewage network
Member StateRequirement for industrial instal ‑
lations to carry out self‑checksRequirement that checks are 
undertaken by accredited 
laboratoriesRequirement for plant operators 
to carry out on‑the‑spot checks at 
the industrial installation
Czech Republic Yes NoYes
(frequency not determined)
Hungary YesNo (except for some types of 
installations)No
Romania Yes NoYes
(frequency not determined)
Slovakia No NoYes
(including minimum frequency)
Source:  ECA analysis of national legislation.
31 Observations
62 
The Court’s evaluation was based, for 
a sample of industrial dischargers by 
plant, on laboratory analyses carried 
out by the operators themselves and 
on the analyses the operators received 
from the industrial dischargers. Infor -
mation concerning any fines imposed 
was also examined.
63 
26 of the 28 urban waste water treat -
ment plants examined by the Court 
treated industrial waste water. For 22 
of the 26 treatment plants (85 %) the 
operators carried out on -the -spot 
checks. For three of the remaining four 
plants, the operators had the results of 
the industrial dischargers’ self -checks 
as analysed by accredited laboratories.
64 
If an industrial installation exceeds its 
concentration limits a fine is imposed 
by the operators of the treatment 
plant: in Hungary and Romania the 
fine (amount varying by polluting 
substance) is set in the national legal 
provisions while in the Czech Republic 
and Slovakia, the contract between 
the operator and the industrial instal -
lation sets the amount to be paid for 
exceeding concentration limits. While 
for Hungary and Romania the fine 
relates to the quantity of pollution24 
discharged between two measure -
ments (in a year), in the Czech Republic 
and Slovakia the amount calculated 
generally referred to the quantity 
of pollution discharged on the day 
the measurement took place25. The 
Court considers that in such cases the 
amount due is likely to be small and 
the deterrent effect will be limited.Around one third of the 
waste water treatment plants 
examined are oversized
65 
The Court assessed the capacity utilisa -
tion expressed in p.e. (i.e. the capacity 
to treat a certain pollution load)26 and 
found that nine of the 28 plants exam -
ined (32 %) operate at less than 50 % of 
their capacity (see Figure 2 ). A further 
nine plants (32 %) operate at between 
51 and 60 % of their capacity. This is 
particularly an issue in Romania where 
eight out of 12 plants are operating at 
less than 50 % of capacity. Investing in 
plants with significant excess capacity 
is not an efficient use of scarce finan -
cial resources whether EU or national.
66 
The Court’s evaluation of another 
indicator corroborates this assesment: 
with regard to the hydraulic capa-  
city (i.e. the inflow expressed in l/sec 
and/or m3/hour) 16 of the 28 plants 
examined (57 %) operate at less than 
60 % of their capacity. This evaluation 
was based on a comparison between 
the water inflow (m3) and the average 
capacity of the plant (in dry weather)27.24 This corresponds to the 
quantity discharged in excess 
of the consented quantity 
(volume multiplied by 
a concentration expressed for 
example in mg/l).
25 Contracts generally specify 
a standard time period 
(ranging from five days to 
30 days depending on the 
contracts) for the case where 
the precise time period during 
which concentration limits 
were exceeded cannot be 
specified.
26 Comparison between the 
pollution load (expressed in 
p.e.) actually treated in a year 
and the pollution load that 
a plant is able to treat (see 
Annex II , column ‘Designed 
capacity in p.e.’).
27 As the inflow can include 
waste water but also clear 
water (i.e. rainwater and 
groundwater which do not 
need any treatment) the share 
of the clear water was taken 
into account in the evaluation 
of the capacity utilisation.
32 Observations
67 
Furthermore the Court found that for 
22 of the 28 plants examined (79 %) 
the share of clear water (i.e. rainwater 
and groundwater) in the total inflow is 
above 30 % (from 32 % to 85 %). This 
increases the hydraulic capacity utilisa -
tion: clear water is part of the inflow 
but does not need any treatment. In 
that respect:
 — the Court acknowledges that there 
can be a certain quantity of rain -
water drained towards the waste 
water treatment plants since com -
bined sewage networks cannot 
necessarily be replaced by separ-  
ated networks (see paragraph 52); — however, groundwater infiltra -
tion rates can be reduced through 
network rehabilitation by restoring 
the water tightness of networks 
and manholes. If these civil works 
were taken into account when 
designing the plant the required 
hydraulic capacity of the plant 
could be reduced, in some instan-  
ces significantly (see Box 2 ).Figure 2Capacity utilisation expressed in p.e.
Source:  ECA analysis.51-60 %
>60 %
Number of plants<50 %Romania
Slovakia
Hungary
Czech Republic
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
33 Observations
68 
While most of the plants have plans 
for a future increase in the number of 
people connected, these new connec -
tions are few in number and will thus 
not significantly change the percent -
age of capacity utilised. Furthermore, 
while industrial activity may increase 
again in the long term it is expected 
that new industrial installations will be 
equipped with their own waste water 
treatment systems.Scope for reducing certain 
operating costs
69 
Operating costs28 can be an indica -
tor of the operational efficiency of 
the co -financed assets and play a role 
in setting the water tariff. Therefore 
the Court made a comparison of the 
2012 costs on the basis of accounting 
information received for the 28 plants 
examined.28 Sum of the following costs: 
labour cost, cost for materials 
(including cost for chemicals), 
energy cost, sludge transport 
and disposal cost and other 
costs. In the category ‘other 
costs’ only the outsourced 
maintenance costs and costs 
for outsourced laboratory 
analysis were considered. 
Depreciation cost was not 
included for example.Picture 6 — Part of infrastructure rarely in use (Romania‑Galati)
Source:  ECA.
Example of an important share of groundwater running through a treatment plant
For one plant in Romania, the hydraulic capacity utilisation is in a range of 60 to 85 %. However, around half 
of the water reaching the plant is groundwater which does not need any treatment. If the sewage network 
was more watertight, less groundwater would enter the sewage network and the hydraulic capacity utilisa -
tion would drop to around 40 %. By comparison, for some plants in the sample, groundwater infiltration only 
represented 10 % to 20 % of the total inflow.Box 2
34 Observations
70 
Operating costs are influenced by the 
treatment type provided (more strin -
gent treatment implies a higher cost) 
and by the size of the plant. However, 
the comparison shows that there are 
important differences amongst the 
plants (see Figure 3 ).Figure 3Operational costs (in euro/p.e.) by plant
Notes: Two plants were excluded as they presented elements distorting the comparison.
Plants which had more stringent treatment in place but did not respect the concentration limits of the Directive were included in the category 
‘secondary treatment’.
Source:  ECA analysis.euro/p.e.
Waste water treatment plantsFirst quartileMedianThird quartile
ZYX WVUTSRQPONMLKJI HGFEDCBA25
20
15
10
5
0Primary treatmentSecondary treatmentMore stringent treatment/tertiary treatment
71 
The Court notes that there is room for 
reducing the operating costs of several 
of the plants examined as illustrated 
by the following examples:
 — Regarding the sludge transport 
and disposal cost, there are sig -
nificant price variations among 
the 28 plants examined. In nine cases the cost was above 100 euros 
per tonne of dried solid and in six 
cases the cost was between 50 eu -
ros and 100 euros per tonne. The 
price for this cost element plays an 
important role as its share in the 
total cost of operating the plant 
can be significant (average around 
10 % but in extreme cases going 
up to 30 % or 50 %);
35 Observations
 — The share of energy represents on 
average around 30 % of the total 
cost for the 28 plants examined. 
In half of the cases the treatment 
plants were using sewage sludge 
for producing energy, generally 
via anaerobic digestion. In most of 
these cases the share of energy in 
the total cost was below the aver -
age of 30 %;
 — In that respect the European 
Environment Agency concluded in 
a 2014 report29 that the use of indi -
cators to measure the performance 
of water utilities across Europe 
would significantly improve the 
understanding of the resource 
efficiency challenges involved. 
A comparison of such indicators 
could usefully form the basis for 
a benchmarking exercise.Use of the sludge produced 
by urban waste water 
treatment plants
72 
The treatment of waste water results 
in the production of sewage sludge. 
Sewage sludge is considered as waste 
under the waste directive30. According 
to this directive, reuse, recycling and 
recovery of waste is to be preferred 
to the disposal of waste through 
landfilling, incineration or permanent 
storage31. The EU encourages the use 
of sewage sludge in agriculture as 
a fertiliser.29 Technical report No 5/2014 
‘Performance of water utilities 
beyond compliance’.
30 Directive 2008/98/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
19 November 2008 on waste 
and repealing certain 
Directives (OJ L 312, 
22.11.2008, p. 3).
31 Waste hierarchy introduced by 
Article 4 of Directive  
2008/98/EC.
Picture 7 — Sewage sludge produced (the Czech Republic‑Blansko)
Source:  ECA.

36 Observations
73 
The Court examined whether:
 — sludge was reused rather than 
disposed of;
 — concentration limits for certain 
sewage sludge parameters, in 
particular heavy metals, had been 
complied with by the operators of 
the urban waste water treatment 
plants;
 — previous recommendations of the 
Court on this subject had been 
implemented by the Commission.
Sewage sludge reused rather 
than disposed of in three of the 
four Member States
74 
The Court’s evaluation of the 28 
treatment plants covered the 2012 
sludge production32 and was based on 
a review of the contractual arrange -
ments between the plant operators 
and waste management companies 
and relevant accounting data. The au -
dit did not include visits to the waste 
management companies that took the 
produced sludge to ensure its proper 
handling by these companies.
75 
The Court found that in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Slovakia the 
plants generally had contracts with 
one or more waste management 
companies which either dealt with the 
sludge themselves or moved it on to 
other users. According to the con -
tracts, waste management companies 
mostly used the sludge for compost 
production, recultivation or biogas 
production.76 
In Romania, all or part of the sludge of 
11 of the 12 plants examined is land -
filled and/or is kept on site. Keeping 
sludge on site is not sustainable on 
a long -term basis.
77 
According to Romania’s National Waste 
Management Strategy (2003–13) 50 % 
of the sludge should be used in agri -
culture or incinerated by 2020. A new 
Sewage Sludge Management Strat -
egy was presented by the Romanian 
authorities in February 2012 but had 
not yet been approved at the time of 
the audit.
78 
Member States provided data as of the 
end of 2012 to the Commission on the 
use of sewage sludge. This data con -
firms that reuse is the preferred option 
for three of the four Member States 
visited  (see Figure 4 ).32 The sludge produced by the 
waste water treatment plants 
examined in the four Member 
States represents the 
following share of the total 
sludge production: 0.78 % in 
the Czech Republic, 45 % in 
Hungary, 52 % in Romania and 
10 % in Slovakia.
37 Observations
Applicable concentration limits 
were respected in the majority 
of cases
79 
According to the sewage sludge direc -
tive dealing with the use of sludge 
on agricultural soil, operators of the 
waste water treatment plants have to 
monitor33 the content of the sludge to 
ensure that concentration limits are re -
spected, particularly for heavy metals.
80 
Moreover, national legal provisions can 
go beyond the sewage sludge direc -
tive by including more parameters 
and stricter limits and can set concen -
tration limits for use other than on 
agricultural soil. The Court’s analysis of 
national legislation shows that: — when sludge is used in agriculture, 
the limits set by national legisla -
tion in all four Member States were 
for many parameters stricter than 
those imposed by the sewage 
sludge directive. All four Member 
States also set limits for additional 
parameters such as arsenic for 
example;
 — when sludge is used as input mat-  
erial for compost production, 
limits for the input material exist in 
the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 
the form of a technical norm;Figure 4Use of sewage sludge as of 31.12.2012 expressed in percentage of total sludge 
produced
Notes:  In the Czech Republic, in 2012, around 32 % of the sludge was used for compost production (category: reuse: others). In Slovakia, in 2012, 
63 % of the sludge was used for compost production (category: reuse soil and agriculture). For Romania, the category ‘disposal: others’ includes 
temporary storage on site.
Source:  ECA analysis of data provided by the Member States to the Commission.2 %Disposal: othersDisposal: incinerationDisposal: landﬁllRe-use: othersRe-use: soil and agricultureCzech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0 %71 %
21 %
14 %22 %
65 %
63 %
33 Article 9 and Annex II of 
Directive 86/278/EEC specify 
the parameters, concentration 
limits and annual number of 
samples that have to undergo 
laboratory analyses.
38 Observations
 — for landfilling, a Council deci -
sion34 of 2002 set the leaching 
limit values for waste acceptable 
at landfills. It is noted that ac -
cording to Czech legal provisions, 
biodegradable waste other than 
municipal waste and liquid and 
liquid releasing waste (thus includ -
ing sludge) cannot be landfilled35. 
Landfilling is allowed in Hungary, 
Romania and Slovakia.81 
As sewage sludge can be used as an 
input material for compost production, 
the Court also analysed the legal provi -
sions in place for the use of compost 
and notes that the situation varies by 
Member State, as currently there are 
no concentration limits set at EU level 
(see Table 10 ).34 Council Decision 2003/33/EC 
of 19 December 2002 
establishing criteria and 
procedures for the acceptance 
of waste at landfills pursuant 
to Article 16 of and Annex II to 
Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ L 11 
of 16.1.2003, p. 27).
35 Vyhláška 294/2005 Sb (Decree 
294/2005 Sb) .
36 Assessment of feasibility of 
setting bio -waste recycling 
targets in  the EU, including 
subsidiarity aspects, final 
report dated 31.3.2011, 
produced under the 
Framework contract ENV.G.4/
FRA/2008/0112 by vito vision 
on technology in association 
with Bio Intelligence Service 
and ARCADIS.Table 10Legal provisions on concentration limits for compost
Czech Republic Hungary Romania Slovakia
Yes
‑ compost on agricultural soil
‑ compost used for recultivation
‑ compost marketed as fertiliserYes
‑ compost marketed as fertiliser
No rules for recultivation or use on 
non‑agricultural soilNone Yes
‑ compost marketed as fertiliser
No rules for recultivation or use on 
non‑agricultural soil
Source:  ECA analysis of national legislation.
82 
The Court’s examination of the com -
pliance with concentration limits by 
the 28 treatment plants was based 
on the laboratory analyses carried 
out by the plant operators in 2012. It 
shows that limits, when they existed 
(see paragraph 80), were respected 
by all plants in the Czech Republic, 
Hungary and Slovakia. In Romania 
the limits were respected by one out 
of three plants (33 %) where sludge 
was used on agricultural soil. For the 
two other plants the analyses did not 
cover all parameters. Also, six out of 
seven plants (86 %) sending sludge to 
landfills did not respect the limit for 
dry content. Moreover, for three out 
of the seven plants (43 %) the analyses 
did not cover all parameters.83 
The absence of limits for sludge and 
compost for certain types of use (recul -
tivation, non -agricultural soil) can pose 
a threat to soil quality and subsequent -
ly to water quality through run -off 
and drainage. Moreover, the absence 
of EU -wide criteria for compost to be 
marketed as fertiliser implies that an 
equivalent protection of the environ -
ment cannot be ensured throughout 
the EU. Also, as stated in a study 
carried out on behalf of the Commis -
sion, ‘the low quality of compost in 
some countries has been identified as 
the main obstacle to further market 
development’36.
39 Observations
37 Special Report 3/2009 on the 
effectiveness of structural 
measures spending on waste 
water treatment for the 
1994–99 and 2000–06 
programme periods  
(http://eca.europa.eu ).
38 SWD(2014) 209 final of 
2 July 2014 ‘Ex -post evaluation 
of five Waste Stream 
Directives’.
39 Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 
of the European Parliament 
and the Council of 
13 October 2003 relating to 
fertilisers (OJ L 304, 21.11.2003, 
p. 1).
40 Final report ‘Evaluation of 
Regulation (EC) 2003/2003 
relating to fertilisers’ produced 
for the Commission by the 
Centre for Strategy and 
Evaluation Services dated 
November 2010.
41 Toxic synthetic chemicals.
Sewage sludge directive update 
awaits Commission’s revision of 
the fertilisers regulation
84 
The Court in its Special Report 3/200937 
recommended that the Commission 
should consider whether the time is 
appropriate for a revision of the sew -
age sludge directive. The Commission 
carried out a comprehensive evalua -
tion38 of several waste stream direc -
tives, including the sewage sludge 
directive, to determine whether the 
regulatory framework is fit for pur -
pose. The 2014 evaluation concluded 
that the sewage sludge directive 
raises ‘doubts about its relevance in its 
present form. In almost 30 years, the 
standards and requirements set up in 
the directive have never been revised 
or updated’. It further concludes that 
any future decision on the review of 
the directive should be postponed 
until the adoption of a revised fertilis -
ers regulation39.85 
In 2010, an ex post  evaluation40 of the 
functioning of the current fertilisers 
regulation concluded that the scope of 
the regulation should be extended to 
cover not only inorganic fertilisers but 
also organic fertilisers and soil improv -
ers. It also proposed the introduction 
of maximum limits for contaminants 
present in fertilisers. In 2015, the Com -
mission is reflecting on whether to 
propose a revised fertilisers regulation.
86 
In 2012 the Commission’s Joint Re -
search Centre presented the results of 
a pan -European screening exercise on 
the occurrence and levels of selected 
compounds in sewage sludge. Accord -
ing to the report there is no scientific 
evidence for introducing new limit 
values for classical organic pollutants 
or for emerging pollutants with the ex -
ception of perfluoralkyl substances41.Picture 8 — Laboratory equipment to carry out tests at a treatment plant (Hungary‑Szeged)
Source:  ECA.

40 Observations
87 
Other papers and studies42 refer to the 
potential risks related to microplastics. 
Microplastics can be removed to a cer -
tain degree in waste water treatment 
plants and the removed parts then end 
up in sludge. When sludge is used on 
land, microplastics can end up in the 
aquatic environment via run -off from 
the land.
88 
With regard to compost, the Court rec -
ommended in Special Report 20/201243 
that the Commission should develop, 
with Member States, EU quality stand -
ards to encourage the development 
of a compost market. The Commis -
sion’s Joint Research Centre published 
in early 2014 a technical proposal for 
end -of-waste criteria44 for biodegrada -
ble waste subjected to biological treat -
ment. However, the study proposed to 
exclude sewage sludge as a compost 
and digestate material. It remains to be 
seen whether and how the proposal 
regarding the revision of the fertilisers 
regulation will introduce the proposed 
criteria and whether it will introduce 
a mechanism for gradual inclusion of 
categories not covered by the techni -
cal proposal such as sewage sludge.Financial sustainability of 
the EU co‑financed urban 
waste water treatment 
plants
89 
A key element for ensuring the finan -
cial sustainability of water services is 
the recovery of costs. Financial sustain -
ability is ensured when the revenues 
from the service provision are suf -
ficient to cover operating and main -
tenance costs and to recover capital 
costs and thus allow investments to 
be renewed. The water framework 
directive (Article 9) requested Member 
States to ensure by 2010 an adequate 
contribution of the different water 
uses to the recovery of the costs of wa -
ter services. It is through waste water 
pricing (tariff) that the users of waste 
water services will contribute to the 
cost recovery. Furthermore, the pol -
luter pays principle45 implies that pol -
luters (in this case those discharging 
waste water such as households and 
industrial installations) are responsible 
for the pollution they have caused 
and therefore should bear the costs of 
reducing this pollution (in this case via 
waste water treatment).
90 
As water is not a commercial product 
like any other, tariffs are calculated on 
the basis of price -setting mechanisms 
which are generally provided for in 
national legislation.42 See for example: 1. Pilot study 
carried out by the 
Alfred -Wegener -Institut, press 
release of 30.10.2014  
(www.awi.de ) and 2. Paper on 
potential risk of microplastics 
in the fresh water 
environment published on 
29.9.2013 on www.stowa.nl  
(Stichting Toegepast 
Onderzoek Waterbeheer).
43 Special Report 20/2012 ‘Is 
structural measures funding 
for municipal waste 
management infrastructure 
projects effective in helping 
Member States achieve EU 
waste policy objectives?’ 
(http://eca.europa.eu ).
44 Criteria that certain specified 
waste has to fulfil in order to 
cease to be waste.
45 Article 191(2) of the Treaty on 
Functioning of the European 
Union (consolidated version).
41 Observations
91 
When determining the waste water 
tariff Member States may take into 
consideration the social, environmen -
tal and economic effects46 in an effort 
to ensure that water services remain 
affordable. Commission guidance47 
refers to 4 % of household income as 
a commonly accepted affordability 
ratio, i.e. the total water bill (drinking 
water and waste water) can represent 
4 % of household income.
92 
For both the 2000–06 and 2007–13 
programme periods, Commission guid -
ance48 required water tariffs to cover 
at least operating and maintenance 
costs, as well as a significant part of 
the depreciation charge on assets. 
Depreciation can be considered as 
a proxy of the cost needed to renew 
the infrastructure in the future.
93 
For the 2014–20 programme period, 
respect of the cost recovery principle 
was made mandatory through the 
necessity to fulfil an ex ante  condi -
tionality. This means that the approval 
of operational programmes for the 
2014–20 programme period is subject 
to the ‘existence of an adequate con -
tribution of the different water uses 
to the recovery of the costs of water 
services […]’. The definition of what is 
an ‘adequate’ contribution is, however, 
at the Member States’ discretion.94 
The Court examined whether:
 — the waste water tariff covered the 
depreciation, operating and main -
tenance costs of the assets;
 — there was room for increasing the 
waste water tariff where operating 
and maintenance costs were not 
sufficiently covered;
 — infrastructure owners had accumu -
lated sufficient financial reserves 
to enable the replacement/renew -
al of the infrastructure at the end 
of its economic lifetime.
Waste water tariffs charged 
to users allowed full recovery 
of costs in only 11 % of cases
95 
The Court analysed the water tariff set -
ting for 2012 in respect of the 28 waste 
water treatment plants examined. 
It compared the cost components 
included in the tariff with the financial 
data of the plant operators and infra -
structure owners. The Court found that 
costs were fully recovered in only three 
cases (11 %). In the other 89 % of cases 
cost recovery was only partial.46 Article 9 of the water 
framework directive.
47 The new programming period 
2007–13: Guidance on the 
methodology for carrying out 
cost -benefit analyses, working 
document No 4, 8/2006.
48 The new programming period 
2000–06: Technical paper 1 
— Application of the polluter 
pays principle — 
Differentiating the rates of 
Community assistance for 
Structural Funds, Cohesion 
Fund and ISPA infrastructure 
operations’ (6.12.99). For the 
2007–13 programming period 
see previous footnote.
42 Observations
96 
The Court notes that in three Member 
States there are specific legal provi -
sions which limit the degree of cost 
recovery:
 — in the Czech Republic49 and Slova -
kia50 the depreciation cost relating 
to the part of the assets financed 
by grant (EU and national) is fully 
or partially excluded;
 — in Hungary a decrease in water 
tariffs was imposed in 201351 and in 
Slovakia there are restrictions with 
regard to tariff increases52.
97 
In view of this situation, the Court also 
considers that there may be a risk that 
plant operators will not carry out nec -
essary maintenance in order to main -
tain short -term profitability. This could 
however contribute to diminishing 
the operational sustainability of the 
waste water treatment plants. Assess -
ing whether the cost for maintenance 
in 2012 corresponded to the actual 
maintenance needs was not within the 
scope of this audit.
98 
A further element which can have an 
impact on the tariff setting is the way 
of determining the EU grant for an 
infrastructure project. An EU grant is 
only justified if the revenue generated 
by the project is not sufficient to cover 
investment and operational costs. 
This funding gap (i.e. the difference 
between discounted investment costs and discounted net revenue), which 
needs to be estimated on the basis of 
a cost–benefit analysis, can then be 
financed by public funds (including EU 
grants). This approach has disincentive 
effects on the application of the cost 
recovery principle as it implies that the 
higher the revenues from the waste 
water activities (i.e. the higher the  
tariffs), the lower the grant the investor 
may expect to receive.
99 
For the 2014–20 programme period, 
unlike for previous periods, applicants 
for EU grants do not necessarily53 have 
to carry out a cost–benefit analysis 
for their project to assess the funding 
gap. Instead, a flat rate net revenue 
percentage can be applied which is set 
by regulation at 25 %54. The funding 
gap will thus be 75 % whatever the 
income generated by the project. In 
other words if the tariff is such that the 
income generated covers more than 
25 % of the costs, this will not reduce 
the grant accordingly.49 For EU co -financed projects 
waste water prices should be 
increased until full 
depreciation is ensured but 
taking into account the 
affordability level (set at 2 % of 
household income).
50 Depreciation of the part of the 
assets acquired by a grant 
before 2011 is not included in 
the tariff calculation. However, 
as a result of a Decree of 2011 
the depreciation of all assets 
acquired from 2011 onwards 
can be taken into account at 
a maximum rate of 2 % (thus 
corresponding to a lifetime of 
50 years). In fact, the 
Commission only approved 
‘major projects’ under the 
2007–13 programme period 
once the 2011 Decree was 
approved as it considered that 
sustainability was not ensured 
under the previous legal 
provisions.
51 In Hungary, setting the waste 
water tariffs was until 2011 at 
the discretion of the 
municipalities. Amended legal 
provisions specified that the 
2012 tariffs could only be 
increased by maximum 4.2 % 
in relation to the 2011 tariffs. 
The 2013 tariffs (first half of the 
year) were to be the same as 
the 2012 tariffs and the tariffs 
for the second half of 2013 and 
for 2014 could not be more 
than 90 % of the 2012 tariffs.
52 The 2014 tariff will remain 
valid for 2015 and 2016 unless 
a price adjustment is 
requested and justified by 
a significant change in 
economic parameters.
53 For ‘major projects’ to be 
approved by the Commission 
(see paragraph 10) the 
obligation will remain. Under 
the 2014–20 programme 
period, these are projects for 
which the total eligible cost 
exceeds 50  million  euros.
54 Article 61(3) and Annex V of 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 laying 
down common provisions on 
the European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development and the 
European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and laying 
down general provisions on 
the European Regional 
43 Observations
Waste water tariffs were 
below the affordability 
level mentioned by the 
Commission in 92 % of 
cases where costs were only 
partially recovered
100  
The 2012 average waste water tariffs 
in the four Member States visited are 
indicated in Figure 5.101  
In 23 out of the 25 cases (92 %) where 
full cost recovery was not achieved 
the total charges paid by the users for 
drinking water and waste water ser -
vices lie below the 4 % of household 
income affordability level mentioned 
by the Commission. Of these, in seven 
cases (30 %) the waste water tariff was 
lower than the average national waste 
water tariff.Figure 52012 average waste water tariffs
Waste water tariﬀ in euro/m3
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Romania
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Note:  Tariffs were converted into euros using the following exchange rates: 1 euro at 291.86 HUF, at 
25 CZK and at 4.45 RON.
Source:  Data from the national statistical offices of the Czech Republic and Hungary, the Slovakian 
Water Research Institute and the Romanian authorities.Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the 
European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC)  
No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 320).
44 Observations
Financial reserves 
insufficient to ensure 
renewal of the infrastructure
102  
Generally, the renewal of an infrastruc -
ture needs to be ensured by the owner 
of the infrastructure55. In 12 of the 28 
waste water treatment plants exam -
ined (43 %) reserves56 were built by the 
owners to finance such a renewal. The 
situation differed (see Table 11 ) ac-
cording to the organisational structure 
chosen for managing waste water ser -
vices. When the owner is a municipal -
ity and there is no legal requirement 
to ensure separate accounting for the 
management of water-related infra -
structure, income and expenditure 
from that activity will be mixed with 
income and expenditure from other 
activities of the municipality.
103  
For the plants examined, even where 
reserves had been built up or where 
funds were accounted for separately, 
they will not be sufficient to ensure 
future renewal of the infrastructure 
due to the nature of the tariff policy in 
place (see paragraphs 95 and 96).104  
With regard to the financial situation 
of the operating companies, the legal 
provisions regarding the water tariff 
setting (no such provisions in Hungary) 
do allow for the inclusion of a profit57, 
a precondition for the accumulation 
of reserves. For 26 of the operating 
companies (93 %), all or the majority of 
the capital is publicly owned, generally 
by the same municipalities that own 
the infrastructure.
105  
In practically all cases, the operating 
companies, which often also manage 
drinking water plants and more than 
one waste water treatment plant, were 
able to build some financial reserves. 
These funds could contribute to 
financing the renewal of the infrastruc -
ture provided that the reserves are 
not withdrawn by the owners of the 
operating companies for needs other 
than water management. In fact, nine 
of the 28 operating companies (32 %) 
paid out dividends in the period 2010 
to 2012.Table 11Situation with regard to financial reserves built by the owners of the infrastructure
The owner is a municipality  
(or a  group of municipalities)The owner is a company created by a municipality  
(or a  group of municipalities)
The company does not operate 
the plantThe company also operates the 
plant
19 cases (68 %) 4 cases (14 %) 5 cases (18 %)
Reserves built16 % Yes
84 % Not specified or noneYesYes
(see paragraph 105)
Reserves sufficient No No No55 If the owner and the operator 
of the infrastructure are 
different entities, it is the 
operator who will receive the 
income for the treated waste 
water. From this income the 
operator has to cover his 
operational and maintenance 
costs and the rent owing to 
the owner of the 
infrastructure. The rent 
provided for in the rental 
agreement should cover 
depreciation and other costs 
incurred by the owner.
56 Accounted for in the balance 
sheet under reserves and/or 
retained earnings.
57 In the Czech Republic there is 
a provision that profit should 
be reasonable. In 2013, the law 
provided for a formula for the 
calculation of reasonable 
profit. In Slovakia, the profit is 
limited to a certain amount 
per m3.
45
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
106  
The European Regional Development 
Fund/Cohesion Fund spending for 
urban waste water treatment plants 
during the 2000–06 and 2007–13 pro -
gramme periods has played a decisive 
role in the Member States’ progress in 
meeting the requirements of the urban 
waste water treatment directive. But 
delays were noted for all four Mem -
ber States covered by this report and 
the absorption of EU funds was slow. 
Almost all co -financed urban waste 
water treatment plants treated the 
waste water adequately but the Court 
considers that around a third of them 
are oversized. In most Member States 
visited, national effluent require -
ments were often stricter than those 
of the Directive and this suggests 
that a review of the Directive may be 
necessary. The Court also found weak -
nesses regarding the management of 
overflows and the handling of sludge. 
Finally, waste water tariffs are too low 
in many cases to ensure the finan -
cial sustainability of the co -financed 
infrastructure.
Compliance with the 
deadlines of the urban 
waste water treatment 
directive
107  
All four Member States covered by this 
report have made important progress 
in meeting the requirements of the 
urban waste water treatment directive, 
but incurred delays in specific areas: — Deadlines for waste water col -
lection in agglomerations above 
2 000 p.e. (where effluent require -
ments apply) were met in all four 
Member States covered, with 
the exception of Romania which 
is slightly behind schedule with 
regard to its interim deadlines. 
Legal provisions to ensure the con -
nection of households to existing 
sewage networks are in place in all 
four Member States. The effective 
enforcement of these obligations 
poses however difficulties for the 
national authorities concerned as 
they are vague;
 — None of the Member States visited 
respected the deadlines for the 
treatment of waste water in ag -
glomerations above 2 000 p.e. The 
Court also noted that the number 
of such agglomerations dropped 
significantly in some of the Mem -
ber States covered. As a result, 
fewer agglomerations needed 
to meet the requirements of the 
Directive;
 — For agglomerations below 
2 000 p.e., on which EU funds are 
also spent, the Commission has 
only partial information as there 
is no specific reporting in place 
and the information provided by 
the Member States in the river 
basin management plans is not 
complete.
46 Conclusions and recommendations
108  
The Commission currently follows up 
the situation of compliance with the 
urban waste water treatment direc -
tive in three of the four Member States 
covered by this report. The Court’s 
analysis shows that this is a lengthy 
process: generally Member States 
have around 18 months (and in some 
cases 30 months) to report data to the 
Commission and it takes the Commis -
sion another 18 months to finalise its 
analysis and reporting.
Recommendation 1
The Commission should:
(a) require agglomerations below 
2 000 p.e. which have collection 
systems in place, to report on 
whether waste water treatment 
is appropriate given the require -
ments of Article 7 of the urban 
waste water treatment directive 
and, where this is not the case, 
whether adequate measures have 
been included in river basin man -
agement plans;
(b) verify the Member States’ report -
ing on the number of agglomera -
tions above and below 2 000 p.e. 
where there have been significant 
changes, in particular from one 
category to another. This verifica -
tion could be included in the Com -
mission’s follow -up process with 
Member States;(c) encourage Member States to 
establish clear legal obligations for 
households to connect to existing 
sewage networks. Information on 
the rate of household connectiv -
ity should form part of the regular 
reporting exercise;
(d) shorten the time needed to as -
sess compliance with the urban 
waste water treatment directive 
by requiring Member States to 
report data within 6 months (in 
accordance with Article 15 of the 
Directive) of the date for which the 
Commission wishes to know the 
situation regarding implementa -
tion (reference date). The Commis -
sion should also strive to reduce its 
own reporting time;
(e) screen for similar issues of lengthy 
reporting periods under other 
environment -related directives.
Use of EU funds available 
under the 2007–13 
programme period
109  
The Member State’s approval and 
implementation of EU co -financed pro -
jects in the field of waste water treat -
ment during the 2007–13 programme 
period experienced considerable 
delays. This risks the loss of EU funds 
available and could provoke a need 
for Member States to make available 
other funds (national or private) to 
ensure the finalisation of a number of 
projects.
47 Conclusions and recommendations
110  
Member State estimates of the remain -
ing funding needs for completion of 
the projects required to comply with 
the Directive, exceed in at least two 
of the four Member States the appro -
priations available under the 2014–20 
operational programmes dealing with 
the environment.
Recommendation 2
The Commission should:
(a) request Member States to provide 
updated information on the finan -
cial amounts they will need to raise 
to ensure that the implementa -
tion deadlines set out in the urban 
waste water treatment directive 
can be achieved for agglomera -
tions above 2 000 p.e. and agglom -
erations below 2 000 p.e which 
have collection systems in place;
(b) request Member States to make 
sure that those agglomerations 
which are not compliant with the 
Directive will carry out the projects 
necessary to ensure compliance.Effectiveness of EU 
co‑financed urban waste 
water treatment plants
Performance of urban waste 
water treatment plants
111 
The effluents of all urban waste water 
treatment plants respected the con -
centration limits of the urban waste 
water treatment directive where it 
was applicable. In two Member States 
either the deadline for application had 
not yet expired or the limit values were 
not applicable at individual plant level. 
89 % of plants respected the limits set 
in their permits. The Court also noted 
that these limits are based on national 
legislation and/or plant permits which 
in some cases set limits that are stricter 
than those of the Directive.
112  
For overflows, occurring in periods of 
heavy rain, which impact the water 
quality of the receiving water body 
there is however a general lack of in -
formation on their quantity and water 
quality parameters. The Court notes 
that the Commission has recently 
launched a study on this subject.
48 Conclusions and recommendations
113  
In the majority of cases (89 %) plant 
operators checked on a sample basis 
the respect of concentration limits 
regarding waste water discharged by 
industrial installations. In Slovakia, 
however, the plant operators did not 
complement the results of their checks 
(which could take place as little as 
once per year) by requesting to receive 
also the results of self -checks under -
taken by the industrial installations 
themselves.
114  
Around a third of the urban waste 
water treatment plants examined are 
oversized with some of them treat -
ing too high a share of groundwater. 
This is due to both weaknesses in the 
design of the plants (such as unrealistic 
assumptions about the need for waste 
water treatment by households and 
industry) and changes in population 
after the works had started.
115  
The significant variations in terms of 
operating costs of the treatment plants 
(in particular regarding energy and 
sewage sludge transport and disposal) 
imply that there is scope for reducing 
these costs.Recommendation 3
The Commission should:
(a) assess the appropriateness of con -
centration limits in the Directive 
taking into account the techno -
logical improvements made since 
1991 when the urban waste water 
directive was adopted;
(b) assess whether the rules on the 
number and frequency of checks 
to be undertaken by national 
environmental inspection bod -
ies and the fines to be paid by 
industrial installations for not 
respecting concentration limits 
have a sufficient deterrent effect 
in line with the Commission’s 2012 
communication58;
(c) assess the need to require of Mem -
ber States the mandatory measure -
ment of overflows and the setting 
of rules for the permitted number 
and quality of such overflows;
(d) not approve ‘major projects’ and 
request Member States not to ap -
prove projects under an  
operational programme unless 
the design of the size of the waste 
water treatment plants takes into 
account the possibilities of reduc -
ing groundwater infiltration: the 
costs for investments in the water 
tightness of the sewage network 
may be lower than the costs for 
investment in a treatment plant of 
higher capacity;58 COM(2012) 95 final 
Communication from the 
Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social 
Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions 
‘Improving the delivery of 
benefits from EU environment 
measures: building confidence 
through better knowledge 
and responsiveness’.
49 Conclusions and recommendations
(e) encourage Member States to ex -
plore and disseminate information 
on the possibilities of cost sav -
ings such as by using the energy 
production potential of sewage 
sludge or by using sewage sludge 
as valuable raw material for phos -
phorus recovery. This may also 
involve requesting waste water 
treatment plant operators to par -
ticipate in benchmarking exercises 
to identify at which plant there is 
room for increasing cost efficiency 
and by identifying those cost ele -
ments which need to be focused 
on.
Use of the sludge produced 
by urban waste water 
treatment plants
116  
The reuse of sewage sludge is the 
preferred option in three of the four 
Member States covered. In Roma -
nia, however, most of the sludge is 
landfilled or kept on site which is not 
sustainable in the long run.
117  
When sludge is used on agricultural 
soil or is landfilled, concentration 
limits established at EU level exist for 
certain substances, such as heavy met -
als. For those types of use, the Mem -
ber States’ monitoring was generally 
found adequate, with exceptions in 
Romania. The situation is different for 
other types of use (such as sludge as input material for compost or use on 
non -agricultural soil). Here no require -
ments are specified at EU level to pro -
tect the environment. The Court notes 
that the Commission also considers the 
sewage sludge directive as outdated in 
this respect, but intends to update the 
fertilisers regulation first.
Recommendation 4
The Commission should:
(a) make final payments for ‘major 
projects’ approved under an op -
erational programme conditional 
upon the existence of an appropri -
ate solution for reusing sewage 
sludge and request Member States 
to follow the same approach for 
projects approved at their level; 
this could be done by inserting 
a specific clause in the grant agree -
ments for the 2014–20 programme 
period;
(b) propose, on the basis of a review 
of the appropriateness of pollut -
ants and concentration limits, an 
adaptation to the sewage sludge 
directive or any directive or regula -
tion dealing with waste water 
or soil quality issues and require 
Member States to ensure a robust 
monitoring of pollutants for any 
kind of reuse of sludge.
50 Conclusions and recommendations
This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 10 June 2015.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President
Financial sustainability of 
the EU co‑financed urban 
waste water treatment 
plants
118  
Waste water tariffs charged to house -
holds and industry were for 89 % of 
plants too low to enable the renewal 
of the infrastructure at the end of its 
expected economic lifetime. In most 
cases tariffs are still significantly below 
the affordability level of 4 % of house -
hold income. This situation is partly 
due to national legal provisions: in 
two Member States depreciation cost 
cannot be fully taken into account in 
the tariff setting and in two Member 
States there are ceilings on annual tar -
iff increases. When costs are not fully 
recovered from the users of the waste 
water services, the uncovered part will 
have to be paid by others which will 
mostly be the public at large on the 
basis of taxes paid. Furthermore, as 
a result of this situation, plant opera -
tors may cut down on current mainte -
nance which will shorten the economic 
lifetime of the assets and/or worsen 
the waste water treatment quality.119  
In two thirds of cases examined by 
the Court there is no information on 
whether the infrastructure owners 
built up sufficient financial reserves for 
maintenance and eventual renewal of 
water and waste water infrastructure. 
This is due to the fungibility of resourc -
es where owners are municipalities.  
At the level of the treatment plant  
operators some reserves are created 
out of accumulated profits.
Recommendation 5
The Commission should:
(a) encourage Member States to im -
plement a responsible waste water 
tariff policy and to adapt, where 
necessary, the legal provisions in 
the area of water pricing so tariffs 
cannot be lower than the com -
monly accepted affordability ratio 
of 4 %;
(b) encourage Member States to see 
that public owners, such as mu -
nicipalities, ensure that sufficient 
funding will be available for neces -
sary maintenance and renewal of 
waste water infrastructure.
51
 Annexes Annex IUrban waste water treatment environmentPipe
under
construction
Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant (UWWTP)1.Pre-treatment
(mechanical)2.Primary treatment
(mechanical )3.Secondary treatment (biological )Untreated/
partially treated
wastewater
entering the
UWWTP
RIVERTreated
wastewaterSludge treatment (drying) before disposal
4.Tertiary (biological /
chemical )andquaternary (UV)
treatmentUntreated waste water
Excess sludgeSludge transport
Nutrient
removal
UV
treatmentScreening
De-sanding
andde-
oilingRIVERReuse inincineration
Disposal inlandfillsReuse inagriculture incountrysideRun/offsofimproperly
used fertilizers intothe
river
Quality Control TestingAgglomeration notconnected,
discharging directly intotheriverAgglomeration connected
Discharging waste water (with
adequate pre-treatment tothe
municipal sewage system )Livestock
Source:  ECA.
52 Annexes
List of waste water treatment plants examined
Member State LocationDesigned capacity 
in p.e.Total expenditure1
(in euro)Total EU grant
(in euro)Grant rate as % of 
total expenditure
Czech RepublicBludov 4 115 38 312 039.31 26 818 427.32 70 %
Zubri 47 000 43 395 472.68 29 508 921.03 68 %
Bzenec 22 607 27 294 593.37 17 732 842.00 65 %
Blansko 29 376 27 294 593.37 17 732 842.00 65 %
HungarySzeged 230 000 94 637 207.86 33 325 000.00 35 %
Zalaeger‑Szeg 180 000 48 350 946.27 36 263 208.96 75 %
Györ 375 000 17 560 130.00 7 250 000.00 41 %
Dunakeszi 82 5002 954  395.002
(HUF 914 976 000)1 942 002.002
(HUF 601 438 000)66 %
Budapest 1 600  000 438 526 042.48 278 661 500.00 64 %
Debrecen 675 000 87 304 362.28 50 636 530.12 58 %
Sopron 165 000 18 594 829.58 9 297 414.79 50 %
RomaniaBraila 247 700 43 984 313.64 32 988 235.23 75 %
Bucharest Glina 1 654 110 105 765 515.60 68 747 585.14 65 %
Buzau 235 000 26 964 178.91 19 953 492.39 74 %
Constanta North 308 125 69 251 771.60 49 669 303.00 72 %
Craiova 385 000 71 894 883.75 52 783 500.00 73 %
Galati 360 000 72 053 837.40 42 000 000.00 58 %
Iasi 933 300 45 550 042.28 34 162 531.71 75 %
Oradea 250 000 18 570 208.73 12 999 145.77 70 %
Pitesti 320 000 46 879 803.82 31 312 500.00 67 %
Ramnicu Valcea 130 000 28 119 004.10 21 089 253.08 75 %
Satu Mare 180 000 31 789 308.31 22 570 408.90 71 %
Timisoara 440 000 41 187 160.13 29 242 884.13 71 %
SlovakiaTrencin 30 000 7 935 751.09 3 967 875.55 50 %
Povazska Bystrica 45 000 12 299 508.09 6 149 754.04 50 %
Trnava 211 700 29 711 033.08 10 193 516.00 34 %
Vranov 34 900 51 823 026.31 34 020 640.00 66 %
Presov 91 275 65 699 239.14 40 566 608.00 62 %
1  Some projects included several sub -projects (for example upgrading of waste water treatment plants in several locations and construction of 
sewage networks in several locations) and thus the total expenditure relates to the project as a whole and not just to the waste water treat -
ment plant examined.
2 Amount in HUF converted into euros using the following exchange rate: 1 euro at 309.7 HUF (average for 2014).Annex II
53 Annexes Annex IIIDeadlines for the implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive
Member State Interim target dates to comply with Final deadline of transitional period
Czech Republic1 May 2004 – for 18 agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.
31 Dec 2006 – 36 agglomerations31 Dec 2010
Hungary31 Dec 2008 – for agglomerations in sensitive areas with > 10 000 p.e.
31 Dec 2010 – for agglomerations in normal areas with > 15 000 p.e.31 Dec 2015
31 Dec 2008  – for biodegradable industrial 
waste water from plants belonging to indus ‑
trial sectors from Annex III of the Directive
In 2009 Hungary committed to comply with Article 5(4) of the Directive by 2018 .
RomaniaCollecting systems
31 Dec 2010 – 61 % of the load in p.e.
31 Dec 2013 – 69 % of the load in p.e.
31 Dec 2015 – 80 % of the load in p.e.
31 Dec 2013 – all agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.
31 Dec 2018 Secondary treatment or equivalent (or more stringent treatment for sensitive 
areas)
31 Dec 2010 – 51 % of the load in p.e.
31 Dec 2013 – 61 % of the load in p.e.
31 Dec 2015 – 77 % of the load in p.e.
31 Dec 2015 – all agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.
Slovakia31 Dec 2004 – for 83 % of the total biodegradable load
31 Dec 2008 – for 91 % of the total biodegradable load
31 Dec 2010 – all agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.
31 Dec 2012 – for 97 % of the total biodegradable load31 Dec 2015
54 Reply of the  
Commission
V
Regarding the size of the plants, the Commission 
considers that it is for the MS to decide on the plant 
size as the UWWTD does not set any specifications 
on plants dimensioning (see Commission’s reply to 
paragraph 65).
In general, the size of the plants may be determined 
by several factors, including a safety margin to com -
ply with the UWWTD at all times, coping with sea -
sonal activities/variations such as tourism, industrial 
activities, or heavy rainwater flow and provision 
for possible future connection of additional settle -
ments, population growth, etc.
Since 2007, the involvement of Jaspers structure 
(Joint Assistance to Support Projects in Euro -
pean Regions) aims at assisting Member States to 
improve the quality of major project applications 
including their technical characteristics, prior to 
their submission for grant financing under the 
Funds.
Concerning the issue of overflows, see Commis -
sion’s replies to paragraphs 54 to 56.
As regards the assessment of concentration limits, 
see the Commission’s replies to paragraph 49 and 
recommendation 3(a).
VI
The Commission accepts the Court’s 
recommendation.
VII
The Commission accepts this recommendation 
and considers it partially implemented as Member 
States are required to implement an appropriate 
water tariff policy through Article 9.1 of the WFD 
and the ex ante  conditionality 6.1 of Annex XI of CPR 
1303/2013. 
Moreover the Commission considers that the 4  % 
affordability level is indicative.Executive summary
III
The Commission does not currently intend to 
increase the reporting effort under the urban waste 
water treatment directive 91/271/EEC (UWWTD) 
with regard to agglomerations under 2 000 p.e. 
since there is no obligation of collection and treat -
ment for these agglomerations under Articles 3, 4 
and 5 of the UWWTD. However, under the water 
framework directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) the Commis -
sion requests Member States to provide some infor -
mation, irrespective of the size of the agglomera -
tions. In addition, the pilot programme ‘Structured 
Implementation and Information Framework’ (SIIF) 
should improve reporting quality (see Commission's 
reply to paragraph 29).
The Commission recalls that for agglomerations 
above 2 000 p.e., the legal framework already pro -
vides that households are required to be connected 
to networks or to have individual or appropriate 
systems in place.
IV
The main objectives of the European Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund 
in the 2007–13 programming period are to reduce 
the gap between the levels of socioeconomic devel -
opment of the EU regions and not necessarily to 
contribute in meeting the UWWTD deadlines which 
falls under the responsibility of the Member States 
concerned and this, independently of the level of 
allocated funds. In so doing the 2007–13 ERDF/CF 
contribution may indeed not be sufficient to fulfil 
all needs in the field of sewerage infrastructure in 
meeting the UWWTD deadlines.
As regards the need to reconcile reporting with the 
progress in implementing the UWWTD, the Com -
mission considers that such information is made 
available and updated by Member States every 
2 years in case of changes, under Article 17 of the 
UWWTD.
Reply of the Commission 55
28
The Commission notes that drops in the generated 
load up to 10–15 % at Member States level may be 
considered as admissible because agglomerations 
are ‘living’ entities which experience continuous 
changes (e.g. due to emigration, closure of factor-  
ies, etc.). On the contrary, a constant load (p.e.) 
throughout the years may indicate that figures are 
not duly updated. The decrease in the number of 
agglomerations is a logical consequence of the 
decrease in load, and also of the changing nature 
of agglomerations. The follow up of the evolution 
in the number of p.e. is more significant than the 
changes in the number of agglomerations.
The situation of load decrease in Romania only 
appeared with their first implementation results 
(8th Reporting Exercise) and might be considered, 
in principle, not ‘admissible’. Under the frame of the 
SIIF Pilot (structured Implementation and Informa -
tion Framework) launched in 2013 the Commission 
will ask the authorities about the reasons for such 
substantial changes (also affecting the number of 
agglomerations) and act accordingly (see Commis -
sion’s reply to paragraph 29). Romania will be part 
of phase III starting in 2015.
29
The Commission has launched the SIIF pilot pro -
gramme to improve the organisation and man -
agement of data/information at national level 
and inform policymakers, interested parties and 
the public on how legislation is practically imple -
mented, in line with provisions of the Access to 
Information and INSPIRE directives (2003/4/EC 
and 2007/2/EC). It mainly addresses how to reach 
or maintain compliance by focusing on data and 
information demands in non-compliant agglomera -
tions and by designing IT systems that link differ -
ent data sources (environmental, socioeconomic, 
funding, legal aspects, etc.). The following countries 
are involved so far: CY, LT and SI and it is foreseen to 
involve four additional countries (inter alia RO). However, the Commission does not accept the 
second part of this recommendation (i.e. that suf -
ficient funds for the necessary maintenance and 
renewal should be available) since, in the absence 
of a specific legal framework, the responsibility to 
ensure the availability of funds for maintenance and 
renewal falls within the remit of the owners and/or 
the operators of the sewerage infrastructure, there -
fore within the remit of Member States.
Observations
22
The Commission is currently analysing the replies 
received to the referred formal enquiries made to 
these countries. In that context, the Commission 
is analysing whether any follow-up as regards the 
demonstration of the equivalence of environmental 
protection by individual systems is necessary.
23
The Commission notes that this observation is 
addressed to the MS concerned. Connection of 
households to public sewerage is not regulated by 
the UWWTD. It is up to MS, via their national legisla -
tion, to connect or, alternatively, apply individual 
or other appropriate systems in order to ensure 
compliance with Article 3 of the UWWTD.
26
This concertation between Hungary and Romania 
results from the possibility offered under Article 9 
of the UWWTD. 
Besides this, Article 5.4 refers to a global reduction 
of N and P applicable to the waste water entering all 
the treatment plants in the related area, even those 
serving agglomerations below 10 000 p.e.
Reply of the Commission 56
31
The Commission’s compliance strategy under the 
UWWTD focuses on the largest emissions of pol -
lutants in the water bodies. As such, the Commis -
sion does not oblige Member States to report on 
agglomerations under 2 000  p.e. since there is no 
obligation of collection and treatment for these 
agglomerations under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the 
UWWTD. However under the WFD, the Commission 
requests Member States to provide information on 
water bodies subject to significant pressures from 
urban waste water (irrespective of the size of the 
agglomerations) and the measures that are put in 
place to achieve good status. Subsequently, Mem -
ber States can take additional measures for agglom -
erations below 2 000  p.e. on a case-by-case basis.
33
The Commission considers that the efficacy of 
the process is not questionable: via the specific 
requests to MS launched in 2014 and referred to by 
the Court, the most recent available data regard -
ing the deadlines 2009–10 have been requested 
from the MS authorities. In practical terms it means 
that information on compliance with the deadlines 
expired in 2009–10 will be updated by the authori -
ties with more recent data (year requested: 2012 or 
2013). In addition with the data from the 8th report -
ing exercise (reference years 2011–12), the Com -
mission will be in a position to assess compliance 
with the new elapsed deadlines. These updates will 
enable the Commission, if considered appropriate, 
to launch infringement cases where necessary. As 
indicated by the Court, the Commission is currently 
analysing the information provided by the Member 
States in that respect.
37
The Commission considers that the commitment 
rates at programme level for all four Member 
States concerned at the end of 2013, as indicated in 
Table 5, is satisfactory.For Member States covered by the SIIF and in 
particular for Romania, the Commission intends to 
follow up on the evolution of the load generated in 
the agglomerations in the next few years to better 
understand if such a change is justified or not.
30
The Commission points out that it is not com -
pulsory for Member States to report under the 
UWWTD for the agglomerations of less than 2 000  
p.e. (reporting requests by the Commission under 
Article 15 of the UWWTD refer to collection and 
treatment data for agglomerations above 2 000  
p.e.). Member States send additional reports to the 
Commission under Article 16 of the UWWTD which 
only concern general information about the ‘dis -
posal of urban waste water and sludge’. 
For reasons of proportionality and in order not to 
increase the reporting effort, the Commission does 
not request reporting for agglomerations under 
2 000  p.e., neither under Articles 15, 16 nor 17 of the 
UWWTD. Furthermore, the Commission does not 
request information which is not necessary to check 
compliance with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the UWWTD. 
Under the WFD, the Commission requests Mem -
ber States to provide information on water bodies 
subject to significant pressures from urban waste 
water (regardless of the size of the agglomerations) 
and the measures that are put in place to achieve 
good status including quantitative indicators, e.g. 
on reduction of pollutant loads discharged. The 
Commission will rely on the provisions of the WFD 
to check the agglomerations under Article 7 of the 
UWWTD.
Reply of the Commission 57
41
The Commission notes that according to Article 14 
of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 
11 July 2006, the budget of the European Union 
allocated to the funds shall be implemented within 
the framework of shared management between 
the Member States and the Commission. Within this 
framework, the final decision for the projects selec -
tion falls under the responsibility of the Member 
States which have to ensure that the selected pro -
jects are in line with the relevant 2007–13 program -
ming documents adopted by the Commission and 
that they also comply with the EU legislation (e.g. 
the UWWTD). The Commission considers that if no 
project applications have been submitted/approved 
for some bigger agglomerations this can be due 
to the fact that they were not considered ‘mature’ 
enough to fulfil the applied selection criteria (e.g. 
technical maturity/readiness to be implemented).
43
In general, core/common output as well as pro -
gramme-specific result and output indicators are 
set for all 2007–13 programmes and their targets 
typically reflect the supported type of interventions 
(output indicator) or the expected aim relating to 
the potential beneficiaries (result indicator).
44
The Commission recognises that some target indi -
cators may not be fulfilled by closure (end 2015). 
However the situation, as regards the fulfilment of 
indicator targets, varies from one MS to another and 
should in any case be subject to a review at closure 
as most of the wastewater treatment projects were 
contracted only in 2014.38
The Commission recognises that the absorption rate 
at the end of 2013 at all Member States concerned 
was quite low, hence the existence of a de-commit -
ment risk at programme level (Article 93 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006). However, it should 
be stressed that there are objective reasons for this, 
as for example, the need to strengthen the techni -
cal, legal and administrative capacity in the Mem -
bers States concerned. Moreover, the Commission 
points out that payments for most of the projects 
usually occur during the last implementing years 
(i.e. 2014 and 2015) as the eligibility end date is the 
end of 2015.
39
The Commission is aware that a number of projects 
may not be finalised by 31/12/2015 and that they 
can split into two separate phases (see also the 
Commission’s reply to paragraph 40 hereunder). 
That is why in order to accelerate the implementa -
tion of the programmes concerned and address the 
de-commitment risk, a Task Force on implementa -
tion was established at the end of 2014 focusing, 
among others, to speed up implementation in the 
four Member States.
40
Taking into consideration that a number of projects 
can be split between two programming periods 
and in order to make it easier for Member States 
the Commission has proposed a modification of 
the programmes’ closure guidelines, which were 
adopted on 30 April 2015 (Commission decision 
C(2015)2771 amending the Decision C(2013) 1573). 
Their key objective is to introduce more flexibility in 
some areas, including the ‘phasing’ of the unfin -
ished projects from 2016 onwards. 
As regards Slovakia and Romania and to a lesser 
extent Hungary the Commission is fully aware that, 
despite the significant contribution of the 2014–20 
programmes’ allocation in favour of the wastewater 
treatment area, it will most likely not be possible to 
fulfil all needs.
Reply of the Commission 58
58
The Commission underlines that Member States 
have an obligation to ensure that discharge of 
industrial waste water into collecting systems and 
urban waste water treatment plants comply with 
Article 11 and Annex I.C of the UWWTD, while 
detailed provisions linked to concentration limits 
are governed by national legislation.
64
The Commission highlights that it is up to MS to 
decide on how to control industrial installations 
discharges.
65
The UWWTD sets no specifications on the dimen -
sioning of plants. Article 4 merely requires that the 
load shall be calculated on the basis of the maxi -
mum average weekly load entering the plant during 
the year. It is therefore for the Member States to 
decide on the dimensioning of the plants. 
Without excluding the fact that the projects might 
have been oversized at the time of the audit, the 
Commission considers that the final appreciation 
and decision on the exact design and size of a 
WWTP should consider the ‘state-of-the-art’ stand -
ards, as well as a number of complex factual and 
hypothetical parameters. 
In general, the size of the plants may be determined 
by several factors, including a safety margin to com -
ply with the UWWTD at all times, coping with sea -
sonal activities/variations such as tourism, industrial 
activities, or heavy rainwater flow and provision 
for possible future connection of additional settle -
ments, population growth, etc. 
Since 2007, the involvement of Jaspers structure 
(Joint Assistance to Support Projects in Euro -
pean Regions) aims at assisting Member States to 
improve the quality of major project applications 
including their technical characteristics, prior to 
their submission for grant financing under the 
funds.49
The Commission considers that the fact that Mem -
ber States set stricter concentration limits than the 
UWWTD does not necessarily lead to the need to 
review the statutory limits set out in the Directive. 
Member States are free to implement the UWWTD 
beyond its requirements. Besides this, Member 
States are also obliged to comply with other rel -
evant directives1  in the area of water protection/
quality.
54
The Commission has noted the same issue and has 
launched a study on overflows (see paragraph 56), 
which will enable to gather more detailed informa -
tion on overflows at MS level and therefore obtain 
more accurate conclusions on related data.
The Commission has already addressed a huge 
pollution problem due to overflows in London 
and Whitburn, launching an infringement case in 
front of the Court of Justice of the EU (C-301/10, 
18 October 2012). However, as there are no concrete 
requirements regarding overflows in the UWWTD, 
which simply states ‘MS shall decide on measures to 
limit … overflows’ (Annex I A), the Commission first 
needs to gather evidence on the type of measures 
used at MS level, their effectiveness and their prac -
tical application, before being able to address over -
flow pollution in a systematic manner at EU level.
Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 55 and 56
The Commission considers that the study referred in 
paragraph 56 will allow a deeper assessment of the 
situation in each MS, which for the moment is not 
possible. On the basis of the conclusions, the Com -
mission may decide to investigate those MS where 
it found that mismanagement of overflows may 
entail pollution problems by untreated waste water.
1 In particular the water framework directive (2000/60/EC) and its 
daughter directives on groundwater (Directive 2006/118/EC)  and 
priority substances (EQS Directive 2008/105/EC), and, inter alia, the 
drinking water directive (Directive 98/83/EC), the bathing water 
directive (Directive 2006/7/EC), the marine strategy framework 
directive (2008/56/EC), the habitats directive (92/43/EEC) (in 
particular Article 6), and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (in particular 
Annex II.A.6).
Reply of the Commission 59
76
As a matter of principle, the Commission agrees 
that sludge should not be kept on site and will have 
to be, in a more or less near future, evacuated to a 
final destination.
83
The Commission is reflecting on a revision of the 
fertilizer regulation 2003/2003. One of the options 
under consideration is to establish legally bind -
ing heavy metal limit values and to possibly cover 
sewage sludge which meet these requirements 
for their fertilising properties, in a revised fertiliser 
regulation.
84
The Commission at this stage is not planning to 
propose a revision of the sewage sludge directive, 
deciding first for a possible revision of the fertiliser 
regulation before taking any future decision on the 
review of the sewage sludge directive.
87
The Commission agrees that more and more stud -
ies show the impact of microplastics in fresh and 
marine waters and that waste water could be a 
source of emission.
88
The Commission is reflecting on whether to pro -
pose a revised fertilisers regulation in 2015 (see also 
paragraphs 83 and 84).
95
The Commission states that the water framework 
directive (Article 9) requires ensuring an adequate 
contribution of the different water uses to the 
recovery of the costs of water services by 2010.67
The cost of reducing clear water must be examined, 
as a large reduction may be very costly. When the 
share of clear water in the inflow is high it has to 
be examined how to reduce it in a cost effective 
manner.
67 Second indent
The Commission agrees that this could be an option 
in cases where it is supported by appropriate cost/
benefit analyses comparing the expected renova -
tion cost with the expected benefits.
71 First indent
The Commission considers that the sludge treat -
ment cost depends on the type of treatment which 
is chosen from the one hand, and on the final desti -
nation of the sludge from the plant on the other.
71 Third indent
The Commission supports benchmarking to 
improve the environmental performance of water 
utilities. In its reply to the European Citizens Initia -
tive Right2Water (COM(2014) 177 final) the Commis -
sion committed itself to an action to explore the 
idea of benchmarking water quality and services, 
and organised a multi-stakeholder meeting in Sep -
tember 2014. This dialogue stressed that the term 
‘benchmarking’ is used in a broad sense. A clear dis -
tinction should be made between increasing trans -
parency as a goal in the light of the citizens initia -
tive and benchmarking as a support management 
tool. In the latter sense, benchmarking is designed 
for utilities and benchmarking networks allowing 
for the assessment of performance through com -
parisons of similar entities containing a complex set 
of data and indicators. The Commission’s role in this 
exercise is however limited to facilitate the dialogue 
on the exchange of best practices.
Reply of the Commission 60
97
The Commission also considers that there is a risk 
that plant operators are not carrying out the neces -
sary maintenance for profitability reasons. However, 
in the absence of a specific legal framework the 
operators’ effectiveness falls within the remit of the 
Member States.
98
The Commission considers that an appropriate 
charging system is not only important from the 
point of view of the ERDF contribution but also 
desirable for the financial sustainability of the oper -
ation in the long run. The disincentive effects of the 
applied cost recovery principle so far will substan -
tially be improved since the potential beneficiaries 
in the 2014–20 programming period do not neces -
sarily need to carry out a cost–benefit analysis to 
determine the financing gap of their projects but a 
flat rate revenue percentage of 25 % can be applied.
99
If Member States choose to apply a flat rate of 
25 %, in line with Article 61(3a) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013, the Commission is indeed to oper -
ate within the constraints this legal framework 
provides.
Common reply to paragraphs 101 
to 105
See Commission’s reply paragraph 98.Conclusions and recommendations
106
The Commission considers that the low absorption 
rate at the end of 2013 could be for example due 
to the need to strengthen the technical, legal and 
administrative capacity in the four Member States 
concerned, the fact that payments for most of the 
projects usually occur during the last implementing 
years (i.e. 2014 and 2015) as the eligibility end date 
is the end of 2015. 
The Commission agrees that an appropriate charg -
ing system is not only important from the point of 
view of the ERDF contribution but also desirable for 
the financial sustainability of the co-financed sew -
erage infrastructure. According to Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013 of 17 December 2013, the potential 
disincentive effects of cost recovery principle are 
expected to be gradually decreased, since Member 
States are required to fulfil the water 6.1 ex ante  
conditionality by providing evidence that the water 
cost recovery provisions laid down in Article 9 of 
the WFD, are observed when water infrastructure is 
co-financed by the funds.
The Commission notes the Court’s finding that 
almost a third of the examined plants are oversized. 
Please refer furthermore to the Commission’s reply 
to paragraph 65.
107 Second indent 
Regarding the drop in agglomerations, the Com -
mission considers that the follow up of the evolu -
tion in the number of p.e. is more significant than 
the changes in the number of agglomerations. The 
Commission will follow up on the Romanian situa -
tion under the frame of the SIIF Pilot (see Commis -
sion’s reply to paragraphs 28 and 29).
Reply of the Commission 61
Recommendation 1(c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and 
considers it already implemented in agglomerations 
above 2 000 p.e. In those agglomerations, the urban 
waste water treatment directive provides that col -
lecting systems or individual or appropriate systems 
are in place.
Recommendation 1(d)
The Commission accepts the recommendation.
The delay between the reference year requested 
and the issuance of the Commission’s report is due 
to many different processing and legal factors, 
both at Member State and Commission levels (e.g. 
Member States’ internal processes, quality check of 
the data provided, number of agglomerations con -
cerned, prioritisation, etc.). The Commission consid -
ers that the current Member States reporting sys -
tems does not enable earlier reporting deadlines, 
which would be otherwise desirable as the national 
systems delay the Commission’s own reporting 
time. The Commission is working on improving its 
own reporting time and collecting more recent data 
from Member States by developing a pilot project 
involving a selected number of Member States, the 
so-called SIIF reporting tool. 
Recommendation 1(e)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
The Commission will, independently of this audit, 
launch a broad review of reporting requirements 
under EU environment legislation in the framework 
of its ‘Better Regulation’ agenda2 .
2 COM(2015) 215 final. Better regulation for better results — An EU 
agenda of 19/05/2015.107 Third indent
The Commission considers that it collects the 
information necessary and fit for purpose under the 
UWWTD and may request, in addition, information 
under the WFD for specific purposes (see Commis -
sion’s reply to paragraphs 30 and 31).
108
The Commission states that the long process is due 
to the number of agglomerations concerned all 
over the EU. However, the SIIF reporting tool should 
improve the reporting process at national level.
Under the UWWTD 8th reporting exercise, the Com -
mission has asked for 2011 or 2012 datasets.
Recommendation 1(a)
The Commission does not accept this 
recommendation.
The Commission does not currently intend to 
increase the reporting effort under the UWWTD 
with regards to agglomerations under 2 000 p.e. 
having collection systems in place. However under 
the WFD, the Commission requests Member States 
to provide information on water bodies subject 
to significant pressures from urban waste water 
(irrespective of the size of the agglomerations) and 
the measures that are put in place to achieve good 
ecological and chemical status.
Recommendation 1(b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation. The 
Commission does not currently intend to introduce 
a systematic verification on the number of agglom -
erations below 2 000 p.e. via the regular reporting 
exercises under Articles 15 and 17 of the UWWTD. 
However, the Commission will follow up in cases 
where significant changes have been brought to its 
attention or identified through other means, such 
as the pilot programme ‘Structured Implementation 
and Information Framework’.
Reply of the Commission 62
As regards agglomerations of more than 2 000 p.e., 
it is already implemented as such a requirement is 
already in place under Article 17 of the UWWTD. 
Article 17 reporting is meant to reconcile the need 
to report with the progress in implementing the 
UWWTD. Such information is made available and 
updated by MS every 2 years in case of changes, in 
accordance with Article 17 of the UWWTD. In addi -
tion, through the new reporting template (adopted 
with Decision No 2014/431/EU of 26/06/14), MS may 
report on the implementation of programmes, 
including information on forecasted investments, 
related use of funds and deadlines concerning each 
reported project. One of the SIIF pilot programme 
objectives is to make this information available to 
the public.
Concerning agglomerations of less than 2 000 p.e., 
the Commission considers that such requirement 
would unduly increase the reporting effort, and 
may ultimately lead to inaccuracies in the data 
reported by MS. Furthermore, there are no report -
ing obligations for these agglomerations under the 
UWWTD.
Recommendation 2(b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The 2014–20 programmes mainly focus on agglom -
erations of more than 2 000 p.e. This is also the 
objective of the reporting requirements enshrined 
in Article 17 of the UWWTD (see also reply above 
point (a)).
111
The Commission considers that it is for the Member 
States to decide on plant permits.109
The Commission also recognises that there are de-
commitment risks at programme level according to 
Article 93 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
for the four Member States examined. Some of the 
main reasons for the implementation delays are 
outlined in the Commission’s replies to paragraphs 
38 and 106. 
In order to find ways to accelerate the implementa -
tion of the programmes concerned and address the 
de-commitment risk, a Task Force on implementa -
tion was established at the end of 2014 focusing, 
among others, to speed up implementation by the 
four MSs concerned. 
Also, in order to ensure the smooth finalisation of a 
number of projects the Commission has proposed a 
modification of the programmes’ closure guidelines 
aiming to introduce more flexibility in some areas, 
including the ‘phasing’ of the unfinished projects 
from 2016 onwards (refer also to Commission’s reply 
to paragraph 40).
110
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 
and the Cohesion Fund main objectives in the 
2007–13 programming period are to reduce the gap 
between the levels of socioeconomic development 
of the EU regions and not necessarily to contribute 
in meeting the UWWTD deadlines which falls under 
the responsibility of the Member States concerned 
and this, independently of the level of allocated 
funds. In so doing the 2007–13 ERDF/CF contribu -
tion may indeed not be sufficient to fulfil all needs 
in the field of sewerage infrastructure in meeting 
the UWWTD deadlines.
Recommendation 2(a)
The Commission partially accepts this 
recommendation.
Reply of the Commission 63
Recommendation 3(c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and 
will examine this possibility in light of the results of 
the relevant study launched recently.
Recommendation 3(d)
The Commission accepts the Court’s 
recommendation. 
In compliance with the regulation for the 2014–20 
programming period, the Commission will rely on 
independent expert assessments (including Jaspers) 
to make sure that waste water treatment plants are 
properly sized. However, it is at the discretion of 
Member States whether a cost–benefit analysis is 
carried out.
Recommendation 3(e)
The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
However, the Commission would like to note that 
there are no legal obligations imposed on Member 
States to apply the existing practices or to partici -
pate in benchmarking exercises (see also Commis -
sion’s reply to paragraph 71).
116
The Commission considers that landfilling or long-
term storage of sewage sludge in Romania is not 
sustainable and should not be accepted in co-
funded projects.
117
The Commission is reflecting on a revision of the 
fertilizer regulation 2003/2003. One of the options 
under consideration is to establish legally bind -
ing heavy metal limit values and to possibly cover 
sewage sludge which meet these requirements 
for their fertilising properties, in a revised fertiliser 
regulation.114
The UWWTD does not regulate the size of plants, 
apart from the general obligation under Article 4. 
In addition, it is important to note that this type of 
infrastructure has a long lifetime and it is hard to 
assess their appropriate size only in the short term. 
In general, the size of the plants may be determined 
by several factors such as safety margin to com -
ply with the UWWTD in the long run, coping with 
seasonal activities/variations such as tourism, heavy 
rains water inflow or provision for possible future 
connections due to population growth (see also 
Commission’s reply to paragraph 65).
Recommendation 3(a)
The Commission does not accept the recommen -
dation. For the moment the Commission does not 
intend to launch an assessment of the appropriate -
ness of the concentration limits in the UWWTD, nor 
to review the directive in the near future.
Recommendation 3(b)
The Commission does not accept this 
recommendation.
When preparing its communication on environ -
mental inspections in 2012, the Commission has 
assessed in a broad way rules, controls and checks 
related to EU environmental legislation. While this 
work has indicated that little information on the 
capacities of inspection regimes was available in 
several of the Member States and the use of sanc -
tions tended to be variable3; the Commission is of 
the opinion that the type, number and frequency 
of checks and inspections are best addressed by 
Member State authorities on the basis of risk. As 
regards fines, conformity checks are currently being 
done on the basis of the Member States legisla -
tion used to give effect to Directive 2008/99/EC4  
which, inter alia, provides for sanctions on natural 
and legal persons for the most serious breaches 
of environmental law, including those relevant to 
Directive 91/271/EEC (UWWTD).
3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/Final%20
report%20inspections.pdf
4  Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the 
environment through criminal law OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, pp. 28–37.
Reply of the Commission 64
Recommendation 5(a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Member States are required to implement an appro -
priate water tariff policy through Article 9.1 of the 
WFD, and through the ex ante  conditionality 6.1 of 
Annex XI of CPR 1303/2013. 
However, the Commission stresses that given the 
multidimensional nature of water values and the 
fact that the 4 % affordability ratio is indicative, 
the setting of the final ratio falls within the remit of 
Member States.
Recommendation 5(b)
The Commission does not accept this 
recommendation. 
In the absence of a specific legal framework, the 
responsibility to ensure funds availability for main -
tenance and renewal falls within the remit of the 
owners and/or operators of the sewerage infrastruc -
ture, therefore within the remit of Member States.Recommendation 4(a)
The Commission does not accept this recommenda -
tion. The Commission systematically encourages 
Member States to include the appropriate sludge 
treatment in the physical subject of the major 
projects applications submitted for financing under 
the funds. However, the Commission cannot impose 
this practice to Member States within the existing 
legal framework as Member States have no obliga -
tion to link the final payments of programmes to 
the existence of an appropriate solution for reusing 
the sewerage sludge.
Recommendation 4(b)
The Commission partially accepts this recommenda -
tion. The Commission at this stage is not planning 
to propose a revision of the sewage sludge direc -
tive, deciding first for a possible revision of the fer -
tiliser regulation, before taking any future decision 
on the review of the sewage sludge directive.
118
The Commission states that the water framework 
directive (Article 9) requires ensuring an adequate 
contribution of the different water uses to the 
recovery of the costs of water services by 2010.
The Commission considers that an appropriate 
charging system is not only important from the 
point of view of the ERDF contribution but also 
desirable for the financial sustainability of the oper -
ation in the long run. The disincentive effects of the 
applied cost recovery principle so far will substan -
tially be improved since the potential beneficiaries 
in the 2014–20 programming period do not neces -
sarily need to carry out a cost–benefit analysis to 
determine the financing gap of their projects but a 
flat rate revenue percentage of 25 % can be applied.
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: 
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Waste water and sewage sludge can affect the quality of 
waters and soils. In response to this, the EU has adopted 
directives and co-financed the building of collecting systems 
and waste water treatment plants.
The Court checked the implementation of the urban waste 
water treatment directive in four Member States of the 
Danube river basin. It also examined a sample of 28 
treatment plants, to see how they treated waste water, 
handled sewage sludge and assured financial sustainability.
The Court makes recommendations on reporting, on ways to 
improve effectiveness, efficiency and the sustainability of 
treatment plants, on the relevance of concentration limits, 
on the use of sewage sludge and on monitoring pollutants 
in sludge.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS