CELEX: C2000/176/04
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-274/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC)

24.6.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 176/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Appeal brought on 16 February 2000 against the judg-
                                                                            ment delivered on 23 November 1999 by the Third
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   Communities in Case T-173/98 between Unión de
                                                                            Pequeños Agricultores and Council of the European
                                                                                                          Union
                          of 13 April 2000
                                                                                                     (Case C-50/00 P)
in Case C-274/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                                      (2000/C 176/05)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                       Directive 91/676/EEC)                                the European Communities in Case T-173/98 between Unión
                                                                            de Pequeños Agricultores and Council of the European was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                           (2000/C 176/04)                                  ties on 16 February 2000 by the Unión de Pequeños Agricul-
                                                                            tores, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and José Jiménez
                                                                            Laiglesia Oñate, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            care of Concepción Llaser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel,
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         L-5680 Dalheim.
                                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          1. Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                 23 November 1999 in Case T-173/98;
In Case C-274/98: Commission of the European Communities                    2. Pursuant to Article 55 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
(Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and F. de Sousa Fialho) v Kingdom                   of the EC declare admissible the main action brought on
of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s Gallego) — application for a                   20 October 1998 by the appellant and refer the case back
declaration that by failing to establish action programmes                       to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the merits
pursuant to Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of                         of the case.
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1; corrigendum to the Spanish version in
OJ 1993 L 92, p. 51), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil             Pleas in law and main arguments
its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. Hirsch, V. Skouris and                     Irregular procedure and breach of Community law:
F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in
which it:                                                                   — the order misunderstands and misinterprets the arguments
                                                                                 submitted by the appellant in so far as it relies on the
                                                                                 fundamental right to effective judicial protection. There
1. Declares that by not establishing the action programmes referred              was no justification for infringing the appellant’s funda-
    to in Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December               mental right to effective judicial protection as a result of
    1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution                   declaring its action inadmissible despite the ‘non-existence’
    caused by nitrates from agricultural sources the Kingdom of                  of an internal remedy, whereas, in the instant case, the
    Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;              finding of inadmissibility in the appellant’s view does not
                                                                                 meet the requirement of ‘effectiveness’ required by the
                                                                                 fundamental right relied upon.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                            — the grounds for the order are inadequate as regards
                                                                                 the appellant’s line of reasoning so far as concerns its
                                                                                 fundamental right to effective judicial protection, and it
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                        again misunderstands the arguments put forward by the
                                                                                 appellant.
                                                                            — the grounds of the order are contradictory with regard to
                                                                                 the consideration of the principle of right to a fair hearing.