Case C‑648/13

European Commission

v

Republic of Poland

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — European Union water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Monitoring of the ecological status and the chemical status of surface waters — River basin management plans’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 30 June 2016

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

Environment — European Union water policy — Directive 2000/60 — Obligation to monitor the status of surface waters, groundwater and protected areas — Article 8(1), third indent of the Directive — Transposition by a Member State without imposing the obligation on competent authorities to use the results obtained in monitoring — Not permissible

The transposition of a directive does not necessarily require the provisions of the directive to be enacted in precisely the same words in a specific, express provision of national law; a general legal context may be sufficient if it actually ensures the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner. However, with regards to Directive 2000/60 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32, since those definitions serve to guarantee a correct transposition of the substantive obligations provided for therein, it is imperative that they be properly taken into consideration in the transposition of the substantive provisions employing the defined terms when the Member State does not effect a separate transposition for them. Accordingly, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations when the definitions set out in Article 2(19), (20), (26) and (27) of Directive 2000/60 are not in the relevant legislation in force on the date of expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, as that lack of transposition may compromise the attainment of the objectives pursued by that directive. Since the provisions of directives must be implemented with unquestionable binding force, and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty, the interpretation of a national provision on water protection in accordance with a number of other provisions dispersed throughout several different pieces of legislation which do not prima facie address water protection does not meet those requirements. (see paras 73, 75, 78, 87, 88, 91)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 79)

There is no connection between the terms ‘available groundwater resource’ in Article 2(27) of Directive 2000/60 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32, and ‘abstraction of water’, as laid down in a provision of the national legislation transposing that directive. The former refers to natural processes, the definition of which is found in Directive 2000/60, referring to a state of natural balance, namely, the overall recharge of the body of groundwater less the rate of flow, without human intervention. That intervention, which distinguishes the abstraction of water, comes within Article 2(28) of that directive. The definition given in Article 2(27) makes implicit reference to the monitoring obligation referred to point 2.2.1 of Annex V thereto, which concerns both natural and human-triggered processes. If those two categories remained undifferentiated, there would be a risk that the effects of the human intervention would not be covered, which would make it difficult to determine adequately which measures needed to be taken in order to guarantee good water status in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2000/60. (see para. 90)

The transposition of the third indent of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/60 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32, in national law consists in taking account of the requirement that programmes for monitoring water status in protected areas must be supplemented by the specifications contained in EU legislation on the basis of which the protected areas were established. National provisions that do not demonstrate that the competent national authorities are obliged to make use of the results obtained from environmental monitoring in order to monitor and record the status of the waters concerned, in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 8 of and Annex V to Directive 2000/60, do not meet that requirement. The mere fact of possibly holding data about habitats and species or even water status does not guarantee that the monitoring programmes established under the provisions transposing Directive 2000/60 will be supplemented by the specifications contained in the EU legislation. (see paras 105-107, 109)