Case C-587/22: Action brought on 8 September 2022 — European Commission v Hungary
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, pollution control measures, regions of Hungary, urban area, wastewater, water treatment








C_2022398EN.01002201.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/22






Action brought on 8 September 2022 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-587/22)
(2022/C 398/24)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to ensure that the agglomerations of Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely, Zalakaros, Soltvadkert, Pilisvörösvár, Szécsény, Tolna, Köröm, Nagykőrös, Veresegyház, Kiskunhalas, Tököl, Szigetszentmiklós, Hódmezővásárhely, Szentendre, Mezőtúr, Békés, Dabas, Dunavarsány and Szentes are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and are connected to them, or that individual systems or other appropriate systems achieve the same level of environmental protection as the collecting systems and treatment systems, and that urban waste water entering collecting systems is before discharge subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4, read in conjunction with Article 10, of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment. (1)











—


declare that, by failing to ensure, in respect of the agglomerations of Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely and Zalakaros, that urban waste water is subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, read in conjunction with Article 10, of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.










—


declare that, by failing to ensure the monitoring of discharges from urban waste water treatment plants in respect of the agglomerations of Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely, Zalakaros, Soltvadkert, Pilisvörösvár, Szécsény, Tolna, Köröm, Nagykőrös, Veresegyház, Kiskunhalas, Tököl, Szigetszentmiklós, Hódmezővásárhely, Szentendre, Mezőtúr, Békés, Dabas, Dunavarsány and Szentes, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.










—


order Hungary to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of the case is Hungary’s inadequate implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment. The directive concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of waste water from certain industrial sectors. The objective of the directive is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of the abovementioned waste water discharges in relation to certain industrial sectors and to agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 2 000.
In the Commission’s view, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive in relation to a total of 22 agglomerations (Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely, Zalakaros, Soltvadkert, Pilisvörösvár, Szécsény, Tolna, Köröm, Nagykőrös, Veresegyház, Kiskunhalas, Tököl, Szigetszentmiklós, Szentendre Hódmezővásárhely, Mezőtúr, Békés, Dabas, Dunavarsány and Szentes) subject to the two intermediate time limits set in the Treaty of Accession (31 December 2008 and 31 December 2010).
The primary reason for the unlawful situation is the low rate of connection to the collecting systems already in place in those agglomerations. Second, there is the issue of the unjustified and excessive use, in those agglomerations, of individual systems or other appropriate systems that do not achieve the level of environmental protection laid down by the directive.


(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.