Case C-435/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, harbour installation, inland waterway shipping, project evaluation, pulp and paper industry, regions and communities of Belgium








C_2010024EN.01002502.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/25





Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-435/09)
2010/C 24/46
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, J.-B. Laignelot and C.A.H.M. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







1.


declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to transpose correctly and fully,
 Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and III,
 Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 8(a) and point 18(a), and Article 7(1)(b), and
 Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and III and Annex III as such,
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997,
Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.










2.


order Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on the following grounds in support of its action:






(a)


As regards the legislation of the Flemish Region, the Commission states that that legislation does not take account of all the relevant criteria of Annex III to the Directive when determining whether or not it is necessary to make the projects listed in Annex II to the Directive subject to an environmental impact assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive. The Flemish Government has failed to show that the alternative procedures to which it refers for the projects in question satisfy the requirements of Articles 2 and 5 to 10 of the Directive.










(b)


As regards the legislation of the Walloon Region, the Commission first states that in respect of the projects listed in point 18(a) of Annex I (industrial plants for the production of pulp from timber or similar fibrous materials), that legislation sets a threshold, whereas the Directive does not provide for this, and in respect of the projects listed in point 8(a) of Annex I (ports for inland-waterway traffic) sets a threshold which is expressed in terms of the number of ships and not in tonnes, as the Directive does. Second, the Commission states that Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive has not been correctly transposed in the legislation of the Walloon Region.










(c)


As regards the legislation of the Brussels-Capital Region, the Commission states first that it takes no account of the relevant selection criteria of Annex III to the Directive in its transposition of Article 4(3) of the Directive and that the alternative forms of assessment referred to by the Brussels Government do not satisfy all the characteristics listed in the Directive. The Commission states second that in that legislation Annex III to the Directive is not transposed as such.






(1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.