Case C-252/08: Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
Date: 2008-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Malta, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air quality, combustion gases, environmental monitoring, industrial pollution, pollution control

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/15

Article 217 thereof, Articles 454(2) and (3) of the imple-
menting provisions then in force, and Article 7 of the Sixth
Directive)?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ L 76, 23.3.1992,
p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253,
11.10.1993, p. 1).

(4) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).

Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-241/08)

(2008/C 197/25)

Language of the case: French

By its first ground for complaint, the applicant insists on the
clarity of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, which prohibits
any deterioration of protected habitats. The introduction into
in order to
national law of the concept of ‘significant effects’
limit the application of the abovementioned provision to certain
human activities, is therefore not justified. Equally, the national
legislature may not assert in a peremptory fashion that certain
activities such as hunting or fishing ‘do not cause a disturbance’
for a
to ‘Natura 2000’ sites, even if
temporary period or under the national legislation in force.

they are carried out

By its second ground for complaint, the Commission points out
first that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that any
plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the
management of the site is to be subject to appropriate assess-
ment, except in strictly defined cases. The defendant's legislation
is problematic in the light of Community law since it systemati-
cally exempts from the procedure for assessment of the environ-
mental implications the works, projects or schemes provided for
under ‘Natura 2000’ contracts.

The Commission points out second that, under French law,
there are projects which do not require authorisation or admin-
istrative approval and which therefore avoid the assessment
procedure. Yet some of these projects have significant effects on
the ‘Natura 2000’ sites, having regard to the objectives of
conservation of species.

According to the Commission, national legislation should finally
impose on applicants a clear obligation to provide for alternative
solutions where there are negative assessments of the implica-
tions of a project or management plan for a site.

Parties

(1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not adopting the laws or regulations neces-
sary to transpose correctly Article 6(2) and (3) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1),
the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

— Order the French Republic to bear the costs.

Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-252/08)

(2008/C 197/26)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

in
The Commission refers to two grounds
support of its action, alleging the infringement of Article 6(2)
and 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (‘the Habitats Directive’),
respectively.

for complaint

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Flynn and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

C 197/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare

failing to correctly
the European Parliament and of

apply Directive
that, by
2001/80/EC (1) of
the
Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions
of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion
plants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1) (hereinafter ‘the Directive’) in
relation to the operation of the Phase One steam plant of
the Delimara power station and the power station at Marsa,
the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex IV A, Annex VI A
and Annex VII A, and under Article 12 in conjunction with
Annex VIII A.2 of that directive;

— order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Phase One steam plant of the
Delimara power station does not respect the emission limit
values fixed by the directive for emissions of sulphur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides and dust.

It is further submitted that, with regard to both the Phase One
the Delimara power station and the power
steam plant of
station at Marsa, Malta has failed to comply with the require-
ment for continuous measurement of concentrations of sulphur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust pursuant to Art. 12 and para-
graph 2 of Part A of Annex VIII of the directive.

(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1.

Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

(Case C-256/08)

(2008/C 197/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. O'Reilly and M. Condou-Durande, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum
standards for the qualification and status of third country

nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who
otherwise need international protection and the content of
the protection granted or, in any event, by failing to notify
those provisions to it, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Directive;

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 10 October 2006

(1) OJ L 304, p. 12.

Action brought on 20 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-269/08)

(2008/C 197/28)

Language of the case: Maltese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and K. Xuereb, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum
standards for the qualification and status of third country
nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who
otherwise need international protection and the content of
the protection granted or, in any event, by failing to notify
those provisions to it, the Republic of Malta has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 10 October 2006

(1) OJ L 304, p. 12.