CELEX: C2002/131/19
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-121/02: Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 131/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
       27 February 1998 which amended Directive 91/271/                   Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of
       EEC with respect specifically to certain requirements              the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       established in Annex I thereto;                                                              Luxembourg
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                              (Case C-120/02)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 131/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
In order for Article 3(1) of the directive to be properly                 ties on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
implemented, collecting systems must exist for urban waste                Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and
water which enters ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of                Joelle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Article 5(1) of the directive. Also, in order for Article 5(2) to         Luxembourg.
be properly implemented, more stringent secondary treatment
is required for urban waste water before its discharge into
‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive — by 31 December 1998 at the latest for agglomer-
ations with a population equivalent (‘p.e.’) of more than                 —     declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
10 000.                                                                         regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                                order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
                                                                                EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
The Bay of Elefsina was classified as a ‘sensitive area’ by Joint               for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
Ministerial Decision 19661/1982 of 2 August 1999. It is not                     to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
disputed that the overall population of the area of Thriasio                    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Pedio exceeds 10 000 inhabitants. It is also accepted that the                  directive;
area’s waste water is discharged into the Bay of Elefsina, which
has been defined as a ‘sensitive area’ since 1999.                        —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Consequently, the Greek authorities were obliged, under
Article 3(1) of the directive, to ensure that there was a collecting      Pleas in law and main arguments
system for that area’s urban waste water by 31 December 1998
at the latest. Nevertheless, as the letter of 8 October 2001              The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
from the Greek Permanent Representation to the European                   2000 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Union also makes clear, such a system does not exist today.               the measures required.
Article 5(2) of the directive obliges the Member States, by               (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
31 December 1998 at the latest, to subject urban waste water
entering collecting systems which is from agglomerations with
a p.e. exceeding 10 000 to more stringent secondary treatment
before its discharge into sensitive areas.
It is not in dispute that today urban waste water from the area           Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of
of Thriasio Pedio is discharged without treatment into an area            the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
which has been classified as ‘sensitive’ by the joint ministerial                                   Luxembourg
decision of 2 August 1999, in breach of Article 5(2) of the
directive.                                                                                        (Case C-121/02)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 131/19)
The Greek authorities do not dispute the absence of a treatment
system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio.
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
(2) OJ L 67 of 7.3.1998, p. 29.                                           ties on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen and Hendrik
                                                                          van Lier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 131/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                      Belgium
(a)   declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
      comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of                                         (Case C-122/02)
      Justice on 16 December 1999 in the case of Commission
      v Luxembourg (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the                               (2002/C 131/20)
      EC Treaty;
(b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
      Commission a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros per day for           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
      each day that it fails to comply with the aforementioned           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      obligations, running from the date of notification of the          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
      judgment, that being the date of commencement of its               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      non-compliance with its obligations in the present case;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
(c)   order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                               order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
                                                                               EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
                                                                               for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
                                                                               to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                               directive;
                                                                         —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Although Article 228 EC does not indicate the period of time
allowed to a Member State to comply with its obligations, the
fact remains that compliance with a judgment delivered against
is must be commenced forthwith and completed as rapidly as               Pleas in law and main arguments
possible. In the present case, all the provisions and measures
necessary in order for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to
bring its legislation into conformity with the Court’s judgment          The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
should have been adopted and brought into force long ago; at             2000 but the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the
the time when the Commission issued its reasoned opinion,                measures required.
over a year had already elapsed since delivery of the judgment
of the Court.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
In the Commission’s view, a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros
per day is appropriate, having regard to the seriousness and
duration of the non-compliance and the need to impose an
effective penalty. The Commission has calculated the amount
of the periodic penalty which it was required to indicate to             Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of
the Court by using the calculation method defined in its                  the European Communities against the French Republic
communication of 8 January 1997 (2). It has applied a weight-
ing of 10 to take account of the seriousness of the non-
compliance, and a weighting of 1.8 in respect of the duration                                    (Case C-129/02)
thereof.
                                                                                                 (2002/C 131/21)
(1) Case C-138/99, OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                         2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.