Case C-227/01: Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, impact study, rail network

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/19

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
to guarantee the quality of bathing water in accordance
with the limit values in Directive 76/160/EEC (1) and by
failing to comply with the minimum frequency of
sampling operations, as required under that directive, the
Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of
Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)
and 6(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality
of bathing water;

— order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the

present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Article 4(1) of the directive, in conjunction with Articles 3
and 5(1) thereof, requires Member States to take measures
to ensure that a specific result is achieved before the
expiry of a set period (10 December 1985), and, apart
from the exceptions laid down in the directive, a Member
State cannot plead special circumstances as a ground for
failure to comply with that obligation. It follows that
Denmark cannot successfully argue that compliance with
the directive is satisfied if it simply adopts measures with
a view to complying therewith. Denmark cannot invoke
Article 5(2) as a ground for adjusting compliance percent-
ages in respect of ’fortuitous excesses’ deemed to result
from pollution by animals or heavy rain, inasmuch as
those conditions, which are in no wise documented,
cannot be regarded as constituting abnormal weather
conditions.

— Obligation under Article 6(1): the Commission can accept
that the directive provides the possibility of reducing the
number of sampling operations. However, with regard to
the 11 specific bathing areas in respect of which the
Commission requested more detailed information, Den-
mark has merely provided documentation stating that
the Danish rules, under which the number of sampling
operations may be reduced by a factor of 2, that is to say,
from 10 to 5, if the quality of the bathing water has, over
the course of two successive bathing seasons, been of
better quality than that prescribed in the directive, had
been complied with in three cases.

(1) Council Directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of

bathing water, OJ 1975 L 31, p. 1.

(Case C-227/01)

(2001/C 212/34)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 June
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard Berscheid,
Wagner Centre C 254.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that by not carrying out an environmental impact
assessment in connection with the ‘Valencia Tarragona
railway project, Las Palmas-Oropesa section. Platform’, a
project forming part of that known as the ‘Mediterranean
Corridor’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5(2) and 6(2) of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
ment of the effects of certain public and private projects
on the environment;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC in preparing
the railway project: The project was not subjected to the
environmental impact assessment provided for in the directive,
which was compulsory in this instance as the project was one
of those referred to in Point 7 of Annex I to the directive. The
section of railway to which the present action relates involves
the construction of a line for long-distance railway traffic in at
least two senses: duplication of the existing line and construc-
tion of a new line in the municipal terminal of Benicassim.
The Commission considers that the fact that the General
Development Plan for Benicassim was the subject of an impact
assessment does not excuse the Spanish Government from
subjecting the railway project to which the present action
relates to the impact assessment procedure. Having regard to
the lack of detail in which that Plan refers to the route of the
Las Palmas-Oropesa railway section and the non-existence of
studies into the effects of the project on the environment, a
specific environmental
impact procedure was necessary in
order to comply with the obligations arising under Directive
85/337/EEC.

Last, the Commission considers that the Environmental Impact
Study drawn up in connection with the drafting of Amendment
No 3 to the Construction Project not only covered only part

C 212/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

of
the project but also did not comply with Directive
85/337/EEC, since Articles 5(2) and 6(2) of that directive were
not observed. First, in the procedure preceding the adoption
of the Study the file did not take account of the information
referred to in Article 5(2) of the directive (inter alia, the non-
technical summary of
the
information gathered was not made available to the public
before the Study was adopted, as required, in order to give
those concerned the opportunity to express an opinion.

the information) and, second,

(1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Action brought on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-244/01)

(2001/C 212/36)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to transpose in full Article 4(2) of
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts (1), the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission points out that Article L-132-1, subpara-
graph 7, of the French Code de la Consommation (Consumer
Affairs Code) does not contain the condition under which, in
order to be excluded from assessment as to their potentially
unfair nature, fundamental terms must be ‘in plain intelligible
language’. The Commission takes the view that reference to
the actual concept of unfair terms is not a sufficient guarantee
to prevent application of certain unfair terms which define the
main subject-matter of the contract but which are drafted in
unclear or unintelligible language.

(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.

Action brought on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-242/01)

(2001/C 212/35)

the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
to implement fully and properly the provisions required
to transpose Article 4(3) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC
of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
package tours (1) in the Luxembourg legal system, the
its
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
obligations under that directive;

— Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the directive was incor-
rectly transposed by Article 4 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation
of 4 November 1997 inasmuch as, by laying down a 21-day
period prior to departure, that article imposes unjustified
limitations on the right of transfer set out in Article 4(3) of the
directive.

(1) OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 59.