Case C-219/05: Action brought on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, urban area, wastewater, water treatment

C 182/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit
2004.

for transposing the dirctive was 5 February

(1) OJ L 208 of 05.08.2002, p. 10.

Action brought on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

— The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil

subject

to treatment which is more rigorous

its obligations
under Articles 4 and 5 of the directive. Those two articles
require that, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, urban
waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000
inhabitants is to be subject to treatment which is more
rigorous than secondary treatment before being discharged
in sensitive areas. However, not all waste water from Sueca
is
than
secondary treatment before being discharged into a sensi-
tive area in the sea. Nor is most of the waste water from
the agglomerations of the region of La Ribera subject to
appropriate treatment before being discharged into the
same sensitive area. The coastal districts of Sueca (El
Perelló, Las Palmeres, Mareny de Barraquetes, Playa del Rey
and Boga de Mar), with a population in summer of 37 000
— 51 000 persons, only subject their water to secondary
treatment before it is discharged into the same sensitive
area.

(Case C-219/05)

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40

(2005/C 182/56)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by D. Recchia, Agent, J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez
Gisbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to subject the urban waste water
its districts and certain municipalities of La
from Sueca,
Ribera (Valencia) to appropriate treatment before dischar-
ging it in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and
5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste-water treatment;

2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil

its obligations
under Article 3 of the directive. In accordance with that
article, Member States are to ensure that collecting systems
are provided at
the latest by 31 December 1998 for
agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than
10 000 when they discharge urban waste waters into
receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’. Both
the agglomeration of Sueca and the majority of the agglom-
erations of the region of La Ribera in the province of
Valencia have a population equivalent of more than 10 000
and discharge their water into an area which has been
declared ‘sensitive’. However, they have not yet provided
collecting systems for all the waste water of those towns.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of
4 May 2005 in Daniel Halbritter v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-227/05)

(2005/C 182/57)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsger-
icht München (Germany) of 23 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 4 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Daniel Halbritter and Freistaat Bayern on
the following questions:

1. Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of
Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
Member State within its territory is precluded from refusing
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State even where, in the territory of the
first Member State, a measure withdrawing or cancelling a
driving licence issued by that State has been taken against
the holder of the driving licence, if the ban on obtaining a
new driving licence in that Member State, with which that
measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence
was issued by the other Member State and