CELEX: C2003/031/09
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-416/02: Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

8.2.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/5
The determination of the time when the fixing (finding) should          The applicant claims that the Court should:
have taken place makes it possible to calculate the period
within which the own resources in question should have been
credited to the Commission’s account, in accordance with                —     Declare that
Article 10 of Regulation No 1552/89. Failure to comply within
that period triggers the obligation to pay default interest
pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, an obli-                     (a)   by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
gation which, according to the case-law of the Court, arises                        with Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/
without its being necessary to examine the reasons for the                          442/EEC ( 1), amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2),
failure to comply within that period.                                               inasmuch as it failed to take the necessary measures
                                                                                    to ensure that waste from the pig farm located in ‘El
                                                                                    Pago de la Media Legua’ is recovered or disposed of
( 1) OJ 1994 L 293, p. 9.
                                                                                    without endangering human health and without
( 2) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                                    harming the environment and insofar as the farm
                                                                                    was not covered by the authorisation required under
                                                                                    the directive and by failing to carry out the requisite
                                                                                    regular checks in respect of such establishments;
                                                                              (b) by failing to carry out an impact assessment prior to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                                    the construction or modification of the project,
gericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case
                                                                                    contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(2)
of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                                    of Council Directive 85/337/EEC ( 3), either in its
      represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten
                                                                                    original wording or as amended by Directive 97/11/
                                                                                    EC (4);
                          (Case C-400/02)
                           (2003/C 31/08)                                     (c)   by failing to carry out the requisite hydrological
                                                                                    studies in the area affected by pollution, in accord-
                                                                                    ance with Articles 3(b), 5(1) and 7 of Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive 80/68/EEC (5);
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                     (d) by not subjecting urban waste-water from the
the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,                      agglomeration of Vera to treatment which is more
represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten (Local Office                        stringent than that described in Article 4, as required
for Defence Expenditure) on the following question:                                 under Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/
                                                                                    EEC ( 6);
Is Article 39 EC infringed by the fact that for the purposes of
calculating the basis of assessment of interim assistance in a
                                                                              (e)   by failing to declare the Rambla de Mojácar a
case arising under Paragraph 4(1)(b) of the collective agreement
                                                                                    vulnerable area, contrary to Article 3(1), (2) and (4)
on social security account must be taken of the notional
                                                                                    of Directive 91/676/EEC (7);
German tax on emoluments (second sentence of Para-
graph 4(3)(b) of that collective agreement) if the former
employee lives and is subject to tax abroad?
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned directives; and
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Spain
                          (Case C-416/02)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 31/09)
                                                                        —     Infringements (a) to (c) relate to the construction and
                                                                              running of an intensive pig farm situated in ‘El pago de la
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     Media Legua’, in the municipal district of Vera, in the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                    province of Almeria. The Spanish authorities admit that
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                        that pig farm is illegal and is not covered by a municipal
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                    licence, so that it must be deemed not to have the
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           requisite authorisation required by Article 9 of Directive
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
       75/442/EEC. Furthermore, those authorities have never                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
       denied that strong odours emanating from that farm                    Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) by order
       reach nearby housing. Also, the incorrect arrangements                of that court dated 8 November 2002, in the case of
       for handling the slurry, which is emptied into a pit which            1) BUPA Hospitals Ltd and 2) Goldsborough Develop-
       is too small for the size of the exploitation, and for                ments Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and
       disposing of carcasses results in the improper dumping                                              Excise
       of slurry and remains of animals in the surrounding area.
       Finally, the Spanish authorities have not submitted any
       description of the inspections carried out to check                                           (Case C-419/02)
       whether Directive 75/442/EEC is being complied with.
       Although the pig farm in question is substantial, counting                                     (2003/C 31/10)
       with 2 779 pigs and more than 600 suckling pigs, and is
       located 600 metres from the river Antas, which the
       Spanish authorities have declared an area of Community
       interest, it has not been the subject of an impact
       assessment as required by Directive 85/337/EEC.                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by an order of the High Court
                                                                             of Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) dated
—      The waste-water of the agglomeration of Vera, with a                  8 November 2002, which was received at the Court Registry
       population of more than 10 000, which is deposited in                 on 20 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       an area which ought to have been designated as sensitive,             1) BUPA Hospitals Ltd and 2) Goldsborough Developments
       should be treated more stringently than merely by means               Ltd and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
       of secondary treatment. Clear evidence of the insufficient            following questions:
       tratement of Vera’s waste-water is the fact that the
       quantity of the chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the
       sample analysed at the request of the Commission is of
       353 mgO 2/l, which is three times greater than the
       maximum authorised for effluent from a waste treatment                Qu est ion 1
       station.
                                                                             Having regard to the relevant circumstances, the relevant
—      By decree of 2 March 1999, the Spanish authorities                    transactions and the position of the vendor companies how is
       declared the sensitive areas of the Autonomous Com-                   the expression ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of
       munity of Andalucia, including, in respect of Almeria, the            Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC on VAT ( 1) (the
       coastal lagoons of the Aguas and Antas rivers, whose                  Directive) to be interpreted?
       waters are eutrophic, with a high concentration of
       nitrates. Consequently, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Direc-
       tive 91/676/EEC, the Spanish authorities should have
       designated the area which drains into those waters as a
       vulnerable area.                                                      Qu est ion 2
( 1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975          Having regard to the relevant circumstances, relevant trans-
     L 194, p. 39).                                                          actions, and the position of the vendor companies how is the
( 2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending                  expression ‘supply of goods’ in Article 5(1) of the Directive to
     Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).                    be interpreted?
( 3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
     of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).
( 4) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
     85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
     private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).               Qu est ion 3
( 5) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
                                                                             a)   Is there a principle of abuse of rights and/or abuse of the
     dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
( 6) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban                 law which (independently of the interpretation given to
     waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).                                the Directive) is capable of precluding the right to deduct
( 7) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning                  input tax?
     the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
     agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1).
                                                                             b)   If so, in what circumstances would it apply?
                                                                             c)   Would it apply in circumstances such as those found by
                                                                                  the Tribunal?