3.

The sequence of events preceding the action in Case 96/SI may be summarized as follows. In response to two requests from the Commission for information as to the measures adopted or envisaged by the Netherlands to implement Directive No 76/162, the competent ministerial authority in that country, by letter of 28 March 1978, stated in the first place thai preparations were being made for amendment of the law relating to the pollution of surface water in order to lay down standards intended to ensure — bearing in mind that in the Netherlands the water authorities were decentralized — that the minimum quality required for the various functions of surface water would be maintained throughout the countrv. The Netherlands authority observed that “this legislative amendment therefore has great significance in connection with the implementation of the directive”. The same letter also acknowledged that it was necessary to adopt rules enabling the use of surface water for bathing purposes to be prohibited where such water did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the directive. Those rules would involve an amendment to the law relating to hygiene and safety in bathing establishments. The letter then referred to an extension of the water-sampling programme then in force “in order to adapt it to the provisions of the directive”. Finally, it was stated that the Netherlands had for a long time imposed certain requirements for the protection of health to which bathing water had to conform and in that respect reference was made to an opinion of the Health Council contained in a report on bathing water which was attached for information. On 8 Februaņ 1979 the Commission reminded the Netherlands Government that the period for the introduction of the provisions of national law needed for the implementation of Directive No 76/160 and for informing the Commission thereof had expired on 10 December 1977. Referring to the abovementioned letter of 28 March 1978 and to the undertaking given therein by the Netherlands Government to the effect that it would inform the Commission as soon as the implementing measures in question had been adopted. the Commission pointed out that the failure to give any information in that regard constituted a breach of the obligation imposed in Article 12 (1) of the directive. The memorandum of 8 February represented the first step in the procedure under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty and therefore granted the State to which it was addressed a period of two months in which to submit its observations. On 23 May 1979, the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the European Communities gave a reply to the Commission which began with the assurance that the Netherlands legislation in force on the quality of surface water provided for “a number of methods” of controlling the quality of such water, and that at the same time the prospective multiennial programme for the campaign against water pollution for the period 1975 to 1979 included in the annexes thereto the provisions of Directive No 76/160. Although the draft law for amendment of the legislation relating to the pollution of surface water was still under discussion in Parliament, it was stated in the letter that even before such amendment there existed “administrative provisions enabling the directive to be implemented to a considerable extent”. Moreover, the law relating to hygiene and safety in bathing establishments had been amended, in the light of the directive of 8 December 1975, and that law, too. enabled measures to be adopted regarding the quality of bathing water. (The letter wen: on to say that the amendment in question was still at the draft stage, and would, it was envisaged, be laid before Parliament during 1979). Having referred to the obligation of mayors to order the closure of bathing establishments in the event of any danger of the propogation of infectious diseases, the letter stated that the measures to be taken for implementation of the directive would be harmonized with each other on the basis both of the law relating to the pollution of surface water and of the law relating to hygiene and safety in bathing establishments. In view of the matters referred to in the letter, the Netherlands Permanent Representative submitted that, by means of the legislation in force, the Netherlands Government was in practice already implementing the directive in question. The Commission did not share that view and on 23 July 1979 issued a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 169 of the EEC Treaty to the effect that the Kingdom of the Netherlands had failed to fulfil an obligation imposed on it by Directive No 76/160 by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to implement it. The Commission referred to its earlier letter of 8 February 1979 and to the observations of the Netherlands Permanent Representation of 23 May 1979 and stated that neither the law to combat infectious diseases and to detect the causes of disease (mentioned in those observations) nor the report on bathing areas constituted measures to ensure compliance with the directive within the meaning of Article 12 thereof, whilst on the other hand the legislative measures planned at an earlier stage bv the Netherlands authorities in order to implement the directive — namely amendment of the law relating to the pollution of surface water and the law relating to hygiene and safety in bathing establishments — were still at the draft stage. On 26 November 1979, the Netherlands Permanent Representation wrote again to the Commission reaffirming its view that the law relating to the pollution of surface water already provided “certain mechanisms making it possible to pursue a policy aimed at meeting or continuing to observe the quality requirements which surface water intended for a specific purpose (in this case, for bathing) must satisfy”. The hierarchical structure of the relations between the various central and decentralized authorities responsible for the quality of water and the procedures for concerted action on the part of those authorities would contribute to development of the policy pursued in order to improve the quality of surface water. The letter acknowledged that, in order to ensure the implementation of Directives Nos 76/160 and 76/464, it was necessary “to create a legal instrument by which general and binding instructions might be issued to all the authorities responsible for the quality of water” and that “an instrument of that kind does not exist at the present time in the law relating to the pollution of surface water” and therefore “it is necessary to adapt that law for the purpose of implementing the directive”. That did not however mean, according to the Netherlands Government, that implementation of the directive in the Netherlands was not possible without such adaptation, for the determination of parameters, as defined in the directives, was also provided for in the prospective multiennial programme, which had the status of a recommendation to local authorities which “in fact draw up their policy ... on the basis of that programme”. Furthermore, the amendment to the law on hygiene and safety in bathing establishments, which had not yet been effected, did not prevent the adoption of provincial and municipal orders prohibiting bathing in surface waters which did not satisfy the quality requirements laid down in the Community directive. In conclusion, the Netherlands Permanent Representation, having repeated the undertaking to expedite as far as possible the procedure for adoption of the legislative amendments announced some considerable time earlier, concluded that, even if such measures were not adopted, Directive No 76/160 should be considered as having been implemented by means of the existing laws, through administrative channels, and by use of the available mechanisms for the orientation of policy. By letter of 24 March 1981, the Netherlands Permanent Representation finally informed the Commission of the stage reached in the procedure for amendment of the law relating to the pollution of surface water and the law relating to safety in bathing establishments. Although work was progressing, it had not yet been possible to complete the draft laws in question. In view of the continuing delay in the adoption of the measures considered necessary for implementation of the directive, the Commission lodged thtapplication against the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 24 April 1981 which gave rise to Case 96/81.