Case C‑488/15

European Commission

v

Republic of Bulgaria

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) — Annex XI — Daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations — Systematic and continuous exceedance of the limit values — Article 22 — Postponement of the deadlines set to attain certain limit values — Conditions under which applicable — Article 23(1) — Air quality plans — ‘Shortest possible’ exceedance period — Appropriate measures — Information needed for an assessment)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 5 April 2017

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations—Subject matter of the dispute—Determination during the pre-litigation procedure—Adjustment because of a change in EU law—Whether permissible—Conditions

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

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations—Subject matter of the dispute—Determination during the pre-litigation procedure—Consideration of events which took place after the delivery of the reasoned opinion—Conditions—Facts of the same kind and constituting the same conduct as those referred to originally

The subject matter of an action under Article 258 TFEU for failure to fulfil obligations is determined by the Commission’s reasoned opinion, so that the action must be based on the same grounds and pleas as that opinion. The subject matter of such an action may extend to events which took place after the reasoned opinion, provided that they are of the same kind as the events to which the opinion referred and constitute the same conduct In addition, in so far as an action seeks to raise a systematic and consistent failure to comply with the provisions of EU law, the production by the Commission of additional evidence intended, at the stage of proceedings before the Court, to support the proposition that the failure alleged is general and consistent cannot be ruled out in principle. (see paras 37, 42, 43)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 40)

The Court may consider of its own motion whether the conditions laid down in Article 258 TFEU for an action for failure to fulfil obligations to be brought are satisfied. (see para. 50)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 52, 87)

The procedure provided for in Article 258 TFEU presupposes an objective finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty or secondary legislation. Exceeding the limit values laid down in Annex XI to Directive 2008/50, on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, is, therefore, sufficient for a finding to be made that there has been an infringement of the provisions of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive. (see paras 68, 69)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 76)

See the text of the decision. (para. 87)

It is apparent from Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, that in the event of exceedances of the limit values for PM10 concentrations for which the attainment deadline is already expired, the Member State concerned is required to draw up an air quality plan meeting certain requirements. That provision has a general scope because it applies, without being limited in time, to breaches of any pollutant limit value established by that directive, after the deadline fixed for its application, whether that deadline is fixed by Directive 2008/50 or by the Commission under Article 22 of the directive. (see paras 102, 104)

The fact that a Member State exceeds the limit values for PM10 concentrations is not in itself sufficient to find that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. It must be ascertained, on the basis of a case-by-case analysis, whether the air quality plans drawn up by the Member State concerned comply with that provision. Such plans may be adopted only on the basis of the balance between the aim of minimising the risk of pollution and the various opposing public and private interests. (see paras 106-108)