Case C-188/08: Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Date: 2008-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, waste management, wastewater

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/7

7. If the answer to Question 6 is in the affirmative, is European
standard EN 795 to be interpreted as meaning that
the
anchor device referred to in Question 1 must be tested (by a
Notified Body) under foreseeable conditions of use (such as
external
the
anchor device itself and/or of the materials by which it is
attached, or the roof construction)?

temperatures, weather conditions, ageing of

8. If the answer to Question 7 is in the affirmative, must the
in accordance with user restrictions

tests be carried out
(referred to in the instructions for use)?

(1) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approx-
imation of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40,
p. 12).

(2) Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approx-
imation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protec-
tive equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18).

(3) Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the
modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment proce-
dures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity
marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisa-
tion directives (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 23).

Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-188/08)

(2008/C 197/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

waters to fully and correctly transpose into its domestic
legislation the requirements of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14 of the said Directive and under the Treaty
establishing the European Community.

— order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the management

The Commission maintains that
in Ireland there is neither
domestic legislation nor Community legislation which provides
for
in accordance with the Directive, of
domestic waste waters disposed of through septic tanks and
other individual treatment systems outside of larger agglomera-
tions.

In the absence of other legislation, Ireland is obliged to trans-
pose and apply the requirements of the Directive to such waste
Ireland has not transposed nor claimed to
waters. However,
have translposed these requirements. Furthermore,
it has not
complied with those requirements in practice. More particularly,
Ireland has not, for the waste waters in question:

— transposed the provisions of Article 4 of

the Directive.
Transposition of Article 4 is important because it sets out
environmental objectives
should be pursued and
that
respected in relation to other duties of the Directive. The
Commission submits that there is also a failure to comply
with Article 4 in practice in the Lough Leane catchment,
this is borne out by the evidence it has adduced of the envir-
onmental harm resulting from a failure to control adequately
septic tanks.

— transposed the provisions of Article 7 of

the Directive.
Article 7 is important because it inter alia provides for terri-
tory-wide forward planning of arrangements for disposal of
waste at suitable sites in order to avoid environmental harm.
Apart from failing to transpose Article 7 of the Directive,
Ireland has in practice failed to put in place plans that satisfy
the requirements of Article 7 in relation to septic tanks and
other individual treatment systems.

— transposed the provisions of Article 8 of

the Directive.
Article 8 is important because it stipulates that waste is
disposed of in accordance with the Directive. There is also a
failure to comply with Article 8 in practice in Ireland, since
Ireland does not ensure that domestic waste waters are
disposed of in accordance with the Directive.

— Declare that in so far as domestic waste waters disposed of
through septic tanks and other individual treatment systems
in the countryside are not, for purposes of Article 2(1)(b) of
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1)
as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991 (2), covered by other Community or Irish legislation,
Ireland has, by failing in respect of the said domestic waste

— transposed the provisions of Article 9 of

the Directive.
Article 9 is important since it provides for a formal prior
approval with environmental safeguards of a waste disposal
operation. Such controls as Ireland applies in practice to
septic tanks and other individual treatment systems are not
equivalent and there is therefore a failure in practice to
comply with Article 9.

C 197/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

— transposed the provisions of Article 10 of the Directive. The
Commission considers that
the disposal of waste waters
through septic tanks or other individual systems will almost
to a disposal operation for
always in practice amount
purposes of the Directive. However, it is conceivable that, in
some circumstances, an argument might be made for
considering the treatment method to be a recovery opera-
tion. This might be
for dry
composting of domestic waste waters with a view to their
subsequent use as a fertilizer. Accordingly, the Commission
has included Article 10 in the present Application.

for example,

case,

the

— transposed the provisions of Article 11 of the Directive.
Ireland does not claim, for purposes of Article 11(3) or
otherwise, to have transposed the provisions of Article 11
of the Directive, but in so far as it may purport to do so, the
Commission would contend that such rules as it has put in
place for septic tanks and other individual treatment systems
do not amount to a transposition of Article 11(1) and (2) of
the Directive. In particular, the rules applicable in Ireland do
not ensure that the conditions imposed in Article 4 of the
Directive are respected. Moreover, there is no system of
registration of septic tanks and other individual treatment
systems.

— transposed the provisions of Article 12 of the Directive.
Article 12 is important in relation to septic tanks and other
individual treatment systems in as much as, to operate effec-
tively; such systems require periodic removal and disposal of
sludges. To the extent that there are professional services
involved in such removal and disposal,
they are not
addressed in Irish law and practice in accordance with the
Directive.

— transposed the provisions of Article 13 of the Directive.
Article 13 is important since, without proper maintenance,
even well-sited and well-installed septic tanks and other indi-
vidual treatment systems can malfunction and cause envir-
onmental harm. A system of inspections is therefore crucial.
The evidence of the Lough Leane study shows that, apart
from failing to transpose the requirements of Article 13 of
the Directive, Ireland fails to respect those requirements in
practice in relation to septic tanks and other individual treat-
ment systems.

— transposed the provisions of Article 14 of the Directive.
Article 14 of the Directive is important in terms of record-
keeping that helps ensure that septic tanks and other indivi-
dual treatment systems do not become overloaded and are
properly maintained. The evidence of the Lough Leane study
shows that, apart from failing to transpose the requirements
of Article 14 of the Directive, Ireland fails to respect those
requirements in practice in relation to septic tanks and other
individual treatment systems.

(1) OJ L 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
lodged on 8 May 2008 —
hallinto-oikeus

(Finland)

TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

(Case C-192/08)

(2008/C 197/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

Defendants: Viestintävirasto, iMEZ Ab

Questions referred

and interconnection of,

1. Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access
to,
communications
networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), when
read in conjunction with recitals 5, 6 and 8 in the preamble
to that directive and with Article 8 and Article 5 thereof, to
be interpreted as meaning that:

electronic

1 (a) national legislation may provide, as in Paragraph 39(1)
of the Finnish Communications Market Law, that any
telecommunications operator has an obligation to
negotiate on interconnection with another telecommu-
nications operator and, if so,

1 (b) a national regulatory authority can take the view that
the obligation to negotiate has not been complied
with where a telecommunications operator which
does not have significant market power has offered
another operator
interconnection under conditions
which the authority regards as wholly unilateral and
likely to hinder the emergence of a competitive market
at the retail level, where they have hindered in practice
the second operator from offering its customers the
opportunity to transmit multimedia messages to end-
users subscribed to the telecommunications operator's
network and, if so,