CELEX: C2001/028/20
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-398/00: Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities

27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 28/11
(4) Are penalties such as those provided for under Article 399          Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the Codice Postale Italiano (Italian Postal Regulations
     set out in Presidential Decree No 156 of 1973) compatible
     with Community law, in the light of the principles of              The Commission claims that even though there existed,
     non-discrimination and proportionality?                            within the area in question, waste-water treatment plants by
                                                                        31 December 1998, Italy should have adopted measures to
                                                                        identify the discharges for the purposes of applying Article
(1) OJ L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 10.                                         5(5) of the directive by adapting, if necessary, the relevant
(2) OJ L 321 of 30.12.1995, p. 1.                                       plants. Italy cannot justify its delay in fulfilling its obligations
                                                                        under the directive by arguing that the main factors on the
                                                                        basis of which the present situation was to be characterised,
                                                                        for the purposes of the applicability of its obligations under
                                                                        Articles 5(2) and 5(5), have not yet been examined and
                                                                        assessed, since those obligations had been entrusted to local
                                                                        bodies (the Regions). As the Court of Justice has consistently
                                                                        held, Member States cannot rely on provisions of their own
                                                                        internal legal order in order to justify failure to respect the
                                                                        obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                As regards the exemption under Article 5(4) of the directive, it
                                                                        is clear that it cannot apply unless it can be shown that the
                                                                        minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering
                                                                        all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is of a
                         (Case C-396/00)
                                                                        certain value, which is impossible for the time being because
                                                                        there is no treatment plant in existence.
                          (2001/C 28/19)
                                                                        By declaring a state of emergency, the Italian authorities have
                                                                        shown themselves to be seriously willing to resolve the
                                                                        situation even if the Commission is concerned that, despite
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           having indicated the expected dates of completion of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 October              works, by letter of 9 July and of 27 October 1999, in reply to
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the letter of formal notice, the latest letter of 6 April 2000
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,           makes no further mention in that respect. In any event, so far
and by Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal                as concerns the present case, nothing of the foregoing changes
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               the fact that Italy is in breach of Community law.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary
     to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, discharges of
     urban waste water from Milan collected in a basin
     draining into the ‘Po delta’ and ‘northwestern Adriatic
     coastal areas’, as defined by the Decree Law No 152 of
     the Italian Republic of 11 May 1999 (Provisions on the
     prevention of pollution of water and implementation of             Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Kingdom of Spain
     Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban                      against Commission of the European Communities
     waste-water treatment and Council Directive
     91/676/EEC (2) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates                                    (Case C-398/00)
     from agricultural sources), pursuant to Article 5 of
     concerning urban waste-water treatment, were subject to                                       (2001/C 28/20)
     more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment
     or equivalent described by Article 4 of that directive, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Article 5(2) of the aforementioned directive, as laid down         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     in Article 5(5);                                                   Communities on 30 October 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                        represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                        Spain
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 22 August 2000
      in respect of all the measures it relates to with the
      exception of the grant of June 1998;                                                        (Case C-404/00)
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2001/C 28/21)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 November
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     The present action is directed against the decision of the         represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Stefan Rating, of its
      Commission initiating the formal investigation provided            Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      for under Article 88(2) EC into the injection of capital           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
      and regional aid given to Santana Motor SA, taking                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      the view that this was new aid, and suspending its
      implementation. The Spanish authorities however regard
      the measures to which the contested decision relates to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      be existing aid. The aid, which was duly notified on
      30 July and 17 November 1999 (capital injection and
      regional aid respectively), became existent by virtue of           —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      Article 4(6) of Council Regulation No 659/99 (1). By letter              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      of 28 July 2000 transmitted by fax on the same day, the                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the                     mission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 October 1999 (1)
      Junta de Andalucı́a was about to implement the measures                  declaring certain aid granted to the group of publicly
      notified to the Commission. The fact that that communi-                  owned shipyards in Spain to have been granted illegally
      cation was registered by the Commission on 31 July, or                   and, moreover, incompatible with the common market,
      3 days later, does not change the date on which the fax                  Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      was received, which is the transmission date.                            Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and of that
                                                                               directive; and
      The contested decision dated 22 August was notified on
      23 August 2000, when the 15 working days on which                  —     Order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      the Commission relied had expired.
      Likewise, a fax of 17 August and a letter of 21 August,            Pleas in law and main arguments
      prior to the date of the contested decision, informing the
      recipient that the Commission had ‘adopted’ that decision,
      cannot be regarded in any way as notification of the
      formal decision to initiate the investigation pursuant to          Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Decision 2000/131/EC of
      Article 4 of Regulation 659/99.                                    26 October 1999 is to be binding in its entirety upon Kingdom
                                                                         of Spain, the Member State to which it is addressed, by virtue
                                                                         of the notification served upon it on 2 December 1999.
—     (In the alternative) Inadequate statement of reasons               Although Article 243 EC provides for Court of Justice to
                                                                         prescribe any necessary interim measures, the Kingdom of
                                                                         Spain, which had brought an action for annulment under
      The contested decision was adopted by the Commission               Article 230 EC against the decision (Case C-36/00), has not to
      only in order to circumvent the deadline after which they          date submitted any request to that effect. Thus, the decision in
      became ‘existent’, and are not a reflection of a certainty         question remains binding in its entirety in respect of the
      that the measures are incompatible with the Treaty, nor            Kingdom of Spain. The Spanish Government has not complied
      that there was a need for more information than was                with the decision without it being possible to consider such
      received.                                                          failure justified by an ‘absolute impossibility’.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC      (1) On the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of the publicly
    Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).                                             owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22).