Case C-121/02: Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2002-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, civil aviation, report, transport accident

C 131/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.6.2002

27 February 1998 which amended Directive 91/271/
EEC with respect specifically to certain requirements
established in Annex I thereto;

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In order for Article 3(1) of the directive to be properly
implemented, collecting systems must exist for urban waste
water which enters ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of
Article 5(1) of the directive. Also, in order for Article 5(2) to
be properly implemented, more stringent secondary treatment
is required for urban waste water before its discharge into
‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the
directive — by 31 December 1998 at the latest for agglomer-
ations with a population equivalent (‘p.e.’) of more than
10 000.

The Bay of Elefsina was classified as a ‘sensitive area’ by Joint
Ministerial Decision 19661/1982 of 2 August 1999. It is not
disputed that the overall population of the area of Thriasio
Pedio exceeds 10 000 inhabitants. It is also accepted that the
area’s waste water is discharged into the Bay of Elefsina, which
has been defined as a ‘sensitive area’ since 1999.

(Case C-120/02)

(2002/C 131/18)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and
Joelle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
regulations and administrative measures necessary in
order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Consequently,
the Greek authorities were obliged, under
Article 3(1) of the directive, to ensure that there was a collecting
system for that area’s urban waste water by 31 December 1998
at the latest. Nevertheless, as the letter of 8 October 2001
from the Greek Permanent Representation to the European
Union also makes clear, such a system does not exist today.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
2000 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
the measures required.

Article 5(2) of the directive obliges the Member States, by
31 December 1998 at the latest, to subject urban waste water
entering collecting systems which is from agglomerations with
a p.e. exceeding 10 000 to more stringent secondary treatment
before its discharge into sensitive areas.

It is not in dispute that today urban waste water from the area
of Thriasio Pedio is discharged without treatment into an area
which has been classified as ‘sensitive’ by the joint ministerial
decision of 2 August 1999, in breach of Article 5(2) of the
directive.

The Greek authorities do not dispute the absence of a treatment
system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio.

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 67 of 7.3.1998, p. 29.

(1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.

Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-121/02)

(2002/C 131/19)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen and Hendrik
van Lier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

1.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 131/11

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a)

declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of
Justice on 16 December 1999 in the case of Commission
v Luxembourg (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the
EC Treaty;

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-122/02)

(2002/C 131/20)

(b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the
Commission a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros per day for
each day that it fails to comply with the aforementioned
obligations, running from the date of notification of the
judgment, that being the date of commencement of its
non-compliance with its obligations in the present case;

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(c)

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although Article 228 EC does not indicate the period of time
allowed to a Member State to comply with its obligations, the
fact remains that compliance with a judgment delivered against
is must be commenced forthwith and completed as rapidly as
possible. In the present case, all the provisions and measures
necessary in order for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to
bring its legislation into conformity with the Court’s judgment
should have been adopted and brought into force long ago; at
the time when the Commission issued its reasoned opinion,
over a year had already elapsed since delivery of the judgment
of the Court.

In the Commission’s view, a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros
per day is appropriate, having regard to the seriousness and
duration of the non-compliance and the need to impose an
effective penalty. The Commission has calculated the amount
of the periodic penalty which it was required to indicate to
the Court by using the calculation method defined in its
communication of 8 January 1997 (2). It has applied a weight-
ing of 10 to take account of the seriousness of the non-
compliance, and a weighting of 1.8 in respect of the duration
thereof.

(1) Case C-138/99, OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
regulations and administrative measures necessary in
order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of
Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
2000 but the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the
measures required.

(1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.

Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-129/02)

(2002/C 131/21)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.