Case C-191/02: Action brought on 23 May 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental monitoring, wastewater, water treatment

C 180/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.2002

Action brought on 23 May 2002 by Commission of
the European Communities against Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-191/02)

(2002/C 180/20)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 May 2002 by Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal advisor
of the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to ensure equivalence of the
monitoring methods in accordance with Annex I Part D.1
of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste water treatment, the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the directive and in particular under Article 15(1)
thereof.

2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs

of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application of the monitoring methods used in Germany
(‘2-hours-mixed sample’ and ‘qualified random sample’) (2)
instead of the methods required by the directive in Annex I
part D, numbers 2, 3 and 4, has the result that the limits laid
down by the Directive can be exceeded without objection. This
is proved by the results of a study commissioned by the
Umweltbundesamt
in 1996:
‘Expert opinion as to the equivalence of the requirements of
the Framework Waste Water Regulations and the EU Directive
as regards the discharge concentration of urban waste water
treatment plants and the degree of nitrogen elimination’.

(Federal Environment Office)

the overall reduction of 75 % to which the Federal Republic
refers with regard to the nitrogen load must have been
measured according to the monitoring methods applied in
Germany. That level of nitrogen reduction cannot therefore
substantiate the equivalence of monitoring method applied in
Germany.

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1971, p. 40. Annex I of the Directive was
amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February
1998, OJ L 67 of 7.3.98, p. 29.

(2) Verordnung über Anforderungen an das Einleiten von Abwasser
in Gewässer of 21 March 1991, BGBl. 1997 I-566, as amended
by the notice of 20.9.2001, BGBl. 2001 I-2240.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appellate Authority, by order of that court dated 27 May
2002, in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian
Catherine Zhu against Secretary of State for the Home
Department

(Case C-200/02)

(2002/C 180/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of
the Immigration
Appellate Authority dated 27 May 2002, which was received
at the Court Registry on 30 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian Catherine Zhu
against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the
following questions:

1. On the facts of the present case, does Article 1 of Council
Directive 73/148/EEC (1) or in the alternative of Article 1
of Council Directive 90/364/EEC(2):

a)

b)

confer the right on the First Appellant, who is a
minor and a citizen of the Union, to enter and reside
in the host Member State?

and if so, does it consequently confer the right on
the Second Appellant, a third country national who
is the First Appellant’s mother and primary carer, to
reside with the First Appellant (i) as her dependent
relative, or (ii) because she lived with the First
Appellant in her country of origin, or (iii) on any
other special basis?

The Commission rejects the objection that, on account of
Article 5(4) of the directive, it is not necessary to appraise the
equivalence of the monitoring methods for individual plants.
Article 5 governs an area different from Article 15 and Annex I
part D. Article 5 governs quality requirements, exceptions from
which are admitted subject to a quite specific requirement.
Article 15 and Annex I part D govern monitoring methods by
which compliance with limits is reviewed. It is quite clear that

2.

If and to the extent that the First Appellant is not a
‘national of a member state’ for purposes of exercising
Community Rights pursuant to Council Directive 73/
148/EEC or Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC,
what then are the relevant criteria for identifying whether
a child, who is a citizen of the Union, is a national of a
member state for purposes of exercising Community
rights?