CELEX: C2001/212/34
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-227/01: Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

28.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
      to guarantee the quality of bathing water in accordance
      with the limit values in Directive 76/160/EEC (1) and by                                    (Case C-227/01)
      failing to comply with the minimum frequency of
      sampling operations, as required under that directive, the
      Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of                                          (2001/C 212/34)
      Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)
      and 6(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality
      of bathing water;                                                   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 June
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for
      present proceedings.
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard Berscheid,
                                                                          Wagner Centre C 254.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     declare that by not carrying out an environmental impact
                                                                                assessment in connection with the ‘Valencia Tarragona
—     Article 4(1) of the directive, in conjunction with Articles 3             railway project, Las Palmas-Oropesa section. Platform’, a
      and 5(1) thereof, requires Member States to take measures                 project forming part of that known as the ‘Mediterranean
      to ensure that a specific result is achieved before the                   Corridor’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      expiry of a set period (10 December 1985), and, apart                     obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5(2) and 6(2) of Council
      from the exceptions laid down in the directive, a Member                  Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
      State cannot plead special circumstances as a ground for                  ment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      failure to comply with that obligation. It follows that                   on the environment;
      Denmark cannot successfully argue that compliance with
      the directive is satisfied if it simply adopts measures with        —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      a view to complying therewith. Denmark cannot invoke
      Article 5(2) as a ground for adjusting compliance percent-
      ages in respect of ’fortuitous excesses’ deemed to result
      from pollution by animals or heavy rain, inasmuch as                Pleas in law and main arguments
      those conditions, which are in no wise documented,
      cannot be regarded as constituting abnormal weather
      conditions.
                                                                          Failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC in preparing
                                                                          the railway project: The project was not subjected to the
—     Obligation under Article 6(1): the Commission can accept            environmental impact assessment provided for in the directive,
      that the directive provides the possibility of reducing the         which was compulsory in this instance as the project was one
      number of sampling operations. However, with regard to              of those referred to in Point 7 of Annex I to the directive. The
      the 11 specific bathing areas in respect of which the               section of railway to which the present action relates involves
      Commission requested more detailed information, Den-                the construction of a line for long-distance railway traffic in at
      mark has merely provided documentation stating that                 least two senses: duplication of the existing line and construc-
      the Danish rules, under which the number of sampling                tion of a new line in the municipal terminal of Benicassim.
      operations may be reduced by a factor of 2, that is to say,         The Commission considers that the fact that the General
      from 10 to 5, if the quality of the bathing water has, over         Development Plan for Benicassim was the subject of an impact
      the course of two successive bathing seasons, been of               assessment does not excuse the Spanish Government from
      better quality than that prescribed in the directive, had           subjecting the railway project to which the present action
      been complied with in three cases.                                  relates to the impact assessment procedure. Having regard to
                                                                          the lack of detail in which that Plan refers to the route of the
                                                                          Las Palmas-Oropesa railway section and the non-existence of
                                                                          studies into the effects of the project on the environment, a
(1) Council Directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of        specific environmental impact procedure was necessary in
    bathing water, OJ 1975 L 31, p. 1.                                    order to comply with the obligations arising under Directive
                                                                          85/337/EEC.
                                                                          Last, the Commission considers that the Environmental Impact
                                                                          Study drawn up in connection with the drafting of Amendment
                                                                          No 3 to the Construction Project not only covered only part
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.7.2001
of the project but also did not comply with Directive                     Action brought on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of
85/337/EEC, since Articles 5(2) and 6(2) of that directive were            the European Communities against the French Republic
not observed. First, in the procedure preceding the adoption
of the Study the file did not take account of the information
referred to in Article 5(2) of the directive (inter alia, the non-
technical summary of the information) and, second, the                                               (Case C-244/01)
information gathered was not made available to the public
before the Study was adopted, as required, in order to give
those concerned the opportunity to express an opinion.
                                                                                                     (2001/C 212/36)
(1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting as Agents, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
                           Luxembourg
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
                         (Case C-242/01)
                                                                          —     Declare that, by failing to transpose in full Article 4(2) of
                         (2001/C 212/35)                                        Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair
                                                                                terms in consumer contracts (1), the French Republic has
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of the European                    —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Communities, represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
      to implement fully and properly the provisions required
      to transpose Article 4(3) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC
      of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
      package tours (1) in the Luxembourg legal system, the               The Commission points out that Article L-132-1, subpara-
      Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                  graph 7, of the French Code de la Consommation (Consumer
      obligations under that directive;                                   Affairs Code) does not contain the condition under which, in
                                                                          order to be excluded from assessment as to their potentially
—     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.               unfair nature, fundamental terms must be ‘in plain intelligible
                                                                          language’. The Commission takes the view that reference to
                                                                          the actual concept of unfair terms is not a sufficient guarantee
                                                                          to prevent application of certain unfair terms which define the
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          main subject-matter of the contract but which are drafted in
                                                                          unclear or unintelligible language.
The Commission takes the view that the directive was incor-
rectly transposed by Article 4 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation
of 4 November 1997 inasmuch as, by laying down a 21-day
period prior to departure, that article imposes unjustified
limitations on the right of transfer set out in Article 4(3) of the       (1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
directive.
(1) OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 59.