Case C-316/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, urban centre, wastewater, water treatment

C 224/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-316/06)

(2006/C 224/49)

(Case C-319/06)

(2006/C 224/50)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applican: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The applicant claims that the Court should:

to ensure

IE40, Shanaganagh,

— declare that, by failing, in respect of discharges from the
agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34,
IE41, Sligo, and IE45,
Letterkenny,
Tramore County Waterford,
that, before
discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was
made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treat-
ment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing to
ensure that the said discharges satisfied the relevant require-
ments of Annex I.B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of
30 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by
the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 4(1) and 4(3) of the said Directive.

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that
the Irish authorities are in
breach of their obligations to ensure that waste waters from
the agglomerations in questions are subject to secondary treat-
ment (or equivalent), as set out in Article 4 of the directive.

Although Ireland has offered explanations as to the delays
encountered in these agglomerations and has provided some
indications of the state of progress in meeting the directive's
requirements, it is the Commission's view that these explana-
tions and indications cannot be considered as excusing a failure
to meet the deadline fixed in Article 4(1), first indent, of the
directive. Moreover, the Commission submits that the informa-
tion provided by the Irish authorities is insufficient to allow it
to conclude that the installation of secondary waste-water treat-
ment plants in these agglomerations is imminent.
In most
stages need to be
cases,
completed before the treatment plants will be installed.

it appears

further

several

that

(1) OJ L 135 , P.40 - 52

Form of order sought

— Declare that,

(1) by declaring that subparagraphs 1, 2, 8 and 11 of
Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 constitute
public policy provisions falling within ‘national public
policy’;

(2) by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive

96/71/EC (1) in Article 1(1)(3) of that Law;

(3) by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law, conditions
to guarantee legal

which are not sufficiently clear
certainty;

(4) by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents
necessary for controls be kept in Luxembourg in the
hands of an ad hoc agent resident there,

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC,
and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first ground for complaint, the Commission complains,
essentially, that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg interprets too
widely the term ‘public policy provisions’ in the first indent of
Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC. That complaint regards, in
particular: (1) the obligation imposed by the national legislature
to employ only employees with whom undertakings posting
workers to the Grand Duchy have concluded a written contract
of employment or prepared a document deemed to be similar
under Directive 91/533/EEC (2);
limitation
the automatic adjustment of pay to
period in respect of
the limitation period in
changes in the cost of
respect of rules governing part-time and fixed-term employ-
ment, and (4) the limitation period in respect of collective
labour agreements .

the national

living;

(2)

(3)