CELEX: 62008CN0443
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-443/08: Action brought on 7 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

10.1.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/11
            
         Action brought on 7 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-443/08)
   (2009/C 6/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)
   
      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to correctly transpose Article 2(3), Article 2(4) and Article 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (1) as regards the definition of the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’ and the obligations applying to existing installations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order French Republic to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’, as defined in Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of Directive 1999/13/EC, are necessary in order to ensure a harmonised and efficient application of that directive in so far as they specify the obligations applying to certain categories of industrial installations referred to by that directive. There are many omissions in that regard in the transposition of the directive into French law because the defendant did not include any definition of the concept ‘small installation’, while its definition of the concept ‘substantial change’ does not take into account the thresholds for the increase of emissions of volatile organic compounds, above which the change in an installation must be considered to be substantial.
   The applicant also criticises the lack of precision and clarity in the transposition of Article 4(4) of the Directive concerning the obligations applying to substantial changes in existing installations. The rules relating to new installations being stricter than those applicable to old installations, clearer rules should in fact be drawn up also in the cases where an existing installation undergoes significant changes in order to ensure the directive, the purpose of which is to guarantee a high level of protection of the environment, remains effective.
   
      (1)  OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1.