CELEX: C1998/258/21
Language: en
Date: 1998-08-15 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 June 1998 in Case C-214/97: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 75/440/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 258/11
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court,
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               Schleswig-Holstein) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                     the proceedings pending before that Court between
                       of 17 June 1998                               Wilhelm Mecklenburg and Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der
in Case C-68/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Landrat, intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen
the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v                     Interesses, Kiel Ð on the interpretation of Articles 2(a)
                  Ministero delle Finanze (1)                        and 3(2), third indent, of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
                                                                     7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
(National tax on audiovisual and photo-optical products              the environment (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 56) Ð the
Ð Internal taxation Ð Possible incompatibility with                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                       Community law)                                President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.
                        (98/C 258/19)                                Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La
                                                                     Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June
                                                                          1990 on the freedom of access to informationon the
In Case C-68/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                 environment is to be interpreted as covering a
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a                 statement of views given by a countryside protection
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 authority in development consent proceedings if that
Court between Grundig Italiana SpA and Ministero delle                    statement is capable of influencing the outcome of
Finanze Ð on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC                   those proceedings as regards interests pertaining to the
Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                       protection of the environment.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
                                                                     2. The term preliminary investigation proceedings' in the
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                          third indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive is to be
given a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          interpreted as including an administrative procedure
                                                                          such as that referred to in Paragraph 7(1)(2) of the
Article 95 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as                        Umweltinformationsgesetz, which merely prepares the
precluding a Member State from introducing and levying a                  way for an administrative measure, only if it
consumption tax in so far as the taxable amount and the                   immediately precedes a contentious or quasi-
procedure for collecting the tax are different for domestic               contentious procedure and arises from the need to
products and for products imported from other Member                      obtain proof or to investigate a matter prior to the
States.                                                                   opening of the actual procedure.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 17 June 1998                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-321/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   of 17 June 1998
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                in    Case   C-214/97: Commission of the European
Wilhelm Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der Landrat,                            Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)
intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses,
                            Kiel (1)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                     Directive 75/440/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
(Environment Ð Access to information Ð Directive 90/                                       prescribed period)
313/EEC Ð Administrative measure for the protection of
 the environment Ð Preliminary investigation proceedings)                                    (98/C 258/21)
                        (98/C 258/20)
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-321/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-214/97: Commission of the European
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                   Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/12              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.8.98
Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and JoaÄo                  EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
Lopes Fernandes) Ð application for a declaration that, by              dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
failing to draw up a systematic plan of action and time-               environment of the Community (1), the Kingdom of the
table for the improvement of surface waters and, in the                Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under
alternative, by failing to inform the Commission forthwith             that Directive and under Article 189 of the EC Treaty;
of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty and the provisions of                 (2) orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning                costs.
the quality required of surface water intended for the
abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ
L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch and K. M.
Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer,
                                                                   The Commission considers that the Kingdom of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                   Netherlands has infringed Directive 76/464/EEC (the
judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                   Directive') by failing to lay down quality objectives in
                                                                   relation to certain substances referred to in the Directive.
1. Declares that, by failing to draw up a systematic plan
     of action including a time-table for the improvement          Ð Quality objectives in respect of the substances
     of surface water, the Portuguese Republic has failed to           enumerated in the first indent in List II in the Annex
     fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council              to the Directive: the fact that no Community limit
     Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the               values have been fixed for certain families and groups
     quality required of surface water intended for the                of substances in List I in the Annex to the Directive
     abstraction of drinking water in the Member States;               means that those substances fall within the scope of
                                                                       List II in that Annex. Moreover, it cannot be inferred
                                                                       from the phrase substances in List I for which the
                                                                       limit values . . . have not been determined' that this
2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       must be done by the giving of express notice. Even if
                                                                       the factual situation was unclear as regards the
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                             initiatives of the Commission and the Council or as to
                                                                       whether or not specific Community limit values were
                                                                       to be fixed, that cannot in any way justify the
                                                                       conclusion that a Member State is consequently
                                                                       released from the obligation to establish programmes
                                                                       for those families or groups of substances in
                                                                        accordance with Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of the
                                                                        Directive.
Action brought on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                          Netherlands                                   The fixing of emission standards on the basis of the
                                                                        best technical means available does not satisfy the
                        (Case C-152/98)                                requirement of legal certainty, which must be fulfilled
                         (98/C 258/22)                                 whenever directives are transposed.
                                                                   Ð Quality objectives in respect of the substances
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   enumerated in the second indent in List II in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    Annex to the Directive: the Kingdom of the
Communities on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of the                  Netherlands has failed to lay down quality objectives
European Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal                 for the fourth category referred to therein (organic
Adviser in its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an                  compounds of silicone, etc.) and for certain substances
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos               in the first category (titanium, boron, uranium,
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.                  tellurium and silver). The legal obligation to transpose
                                                                        the Directive into national law is not removed,
                                                                        however, by the possible existence of practical
                                                                        difficulties, especially since other Member States have
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             managed to fulfil that obligation.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(1) declare that, by failing to take adequate steps to
     transpose into national law the provisions of
     Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 76/464/