CELEX: 62021CN0342
Language: en
Date: 2021-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-342/21: Action brought on 3 June 2021 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

12.7.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 278/37
            
         
      Action brought on 3 June 2021 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
      (Case C-342/21)
      (2021/C 278/52)
      Language of the case: Slovak
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers, R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)
      
         Defendants: Slovak Republic
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Declare that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the PM10 daily limit values from 2005 in zone SKBB01 Banská Bystrica Region (Banskobystrický kraj) (with the exception of the year 2016) and in the agglomeration SKKO0.1 Košice (with the exception of the years 2009, 2015 and 2016), the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Declare that, by failing to lay down appropriate measures in air quality plans so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible in zone SKBB01 Banská Bystrica Region, the agglomeration SKKO0.1 Košice and zone SKKO02 Košice Region (Košický kraj), the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2008/50/EC in conjunction with Annex XV to that directive;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      Directive 2008/50/EC lays down a daily limit threshold applicable for concentrations of PM10 particles (50 μg/m3). The daily concentration value cannot be exceeded more than 35 times per calendar year. The Slovak Republic has systematically and persistently infringed Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 in the Banská Bystrica Region and in the Košice agglomeration, as is apparent from the annual report on air quality submitted by the Slovak Republic under Article 27 of the Directive.
      Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC further provides that where, in given zones or agglomerations, the levels of pollutants in ambient air exceed any limit value, Member States are to ensure that air quality plans are established for those zones and agglomerations in order to achieve the related limit value specified in Annex XI. In the event of exceedances of those limit values for which the attainment deadline is already expired, the air quality plans shall set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. The Commission submits that the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to draw up, in the event that the limit values are exceeded, air quality plans so far as concerns the zones of Banská Bystrica Region and Košice Region and the agglomeration of Košice, which would provide for appropriate measures so that the exceedance period could be kept as short as possible. First, that infringement results from the very fact that in those two zones and one agglomeration the Slovak Republic systematically and persistently infringed Article 13(1) by exceeding the daily PM10 limit values. Furthermore, the infringement of Article 23(1) of the directive also results from the inappropriate nature of the air quality plans, the inadequacy of the air quality strategy, inadequate additional measures and inadequacies in the Slovak legislation.
      
         (1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.