CELEX: 62007CJ0381
Language: en
Date: 2008-11-06
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008. # Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières - TOS v Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement et de l’Aménagement durables. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Conseil d’État - France. # Pollution of the aquatic environment - Directive 2006/11/EC - Article 6 - Dangerous substances - Discharges - Prior authorisation - Fixing of emission standards - Declaratory scheme - Fish farms. # Case C-381/07.

Case C-381/07
      Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières – TOS
      v
      Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement et de l’Aménagement durables
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))
      (Pollution of the aquatic environment – Directive 2006/11/EC – Article 6 – Dangerous substances – Discharges – Prior authorisation – Fixing of emission standards – Declaratory scheme – Fish farms)
      Summary of the Judgment
      Environment – Water pollution – Directive 2006/11 – Implementation of specific programmes incorporating environmental quality
            standards in order to reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances 
      (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/11, Art. 6 and Annex I, List II)
      Article 6 of Directive 2006/11 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment
         of the Community, which requires Member States to subject all discharges which are liable to contain any substances in List
         2 of Annex I to the directive to prior authorisation, in which emission standards are laid down, cannot be interpreted as
         allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality standards have been
         adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in
         nature, subject to a reference to those standards and a right for the administrative authority to object to the commencement
         of operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned. 
      
      First, prior specific examination of each planned discharge liable to contain List II substances is necessary to implement
         programmes to reduce water pollution established by the Member States in accordance with Article 6(1) of that directive, under
         which subjecting all discharges of that nature to prior authorisation constitutes one of the means of implementing those programmes.
         Such an examination is also necessary to fix in each case of authorised discharge the emission standards determined on the
         basis of the environmental quality standards included in those programmes and intended to reduce discharges containing one
         or more List II substances. That examination requires, moreover, an assessment of the actual state of the waters affected
         which must be taken into account in determining the emission standards. Secondly, tacit authorisation cannot be compatible
         with the requirement to specify, in the prior authorisation, the emission standards.
      
      (see paras 27, 35, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
      6 November 2008 (*)
      
      (Pollution of the aquatic environment – Directive 2006/11/EC – Article 6 – Dangerous substances – Discharges – Prior authorisation – Fixing of emission standards – Declaratory scheme – Fish farms)
      In Case C‑381/07,
      REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d’État (France), made by decision of 4 June 2007,
         received at the Court on 8 August 2007, in the proceedings
      
      Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières – TOS
      v
      Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement et de l’Aménagement durables,
      THE COURT (Second Chamber),
      composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of Chamber, J.‑C. Bonichot, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and L. Bay Larsen,
         Judges,
      
      Advocate General: J. Mazák,
      Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator,
      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 26 June 2008,
      after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
      –        the Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières – TOS, by P. Jeanson, Vice-President,
      –        the French Government, by G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, acting as Agents,
      –        the Italian Government, by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato,
      –        the Netherlands Government, by M. de Grave, acting as Agent,
      –        the Commission of the European Communities, by S. Pardo Quintillán and J.‑B. Laignelot, acting as Agents,
      having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
      gives the following
      Judgment
      1        This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament
         and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment
         of the Community (OJ 2006 L 64, p. 52).
      
      2        The reference was made by the Conseil d’État in actions for misuse of powers brought by the Association nationale pour la
         protection des eaux et rivières – TOS – seeking the annulment, in particular, of Decree No 2006-881 of 17 July 2006, amending
         Decree No 93-743 of 29 March 1993 on the nomenclature of operations subject to authorisation or declaration under Article
         10 of Law No 92-3 of 3 January 1992 on water, Decree No 94-354 of 29 April 1994 on water distribution zones (JORF of 18 July
         2006, p. 10786), and Decree No 2006-942 of 27 July 2006, amending the nomenclature of classified facilities (JORF of 29 July
         2006, p. 11336). 
      
       Relevant provisions
       Community legislation
      3        Recitals 6 to 8 in the preamble to Directive 2006/11 which, in accordance with Article 1(a) thereof applies inter alia to
         inland surface water, that is to say, under Article 2(a) to ‘all static or flowing fresh surface water situated in the territory
         of one or more Member States’, state as follows:
      
      ‘(6)      In order to ensure effective protection of the aquatic environment of the Community, it is necessary to establish a first
         list, called List I, of certain individual substances selected mainly on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation,
         with the exception of those which are biologically harmless or which are rapidly converted into substances which are biologically
         harmless, and a second list, called List II, containing substances which have a deleterious effect on the aquatic environment,
         which can, however, be confined to a given area and which depends on the characteristics and location of the water into which
         such substances are discharged. Any discharge of these substances should be subject to prior authorisation which specifies
         emission standards.
      
      (7)      Pollution through the discharge of the various dangerous substances within List I must be eliminated … 
      (8)      It is necessary to reduce water pollution caused by the substances within List II. To this end Member States should establish
         programmes which incorporate environmental quality standards for water, drawn up in compliance with Council Directives, where
         they exist. The emission standards applicable to such substances should be calculated in terms of these environmental quality
         standards.’
      
      4        Article 3 of Directive 2006/11 provides:
      
      ‘Member States shall take the appropriate steps to eliminate pollution of the waters referred to in Article 1 by the dangerous
         substances in the families and groups of substances in List I of Annex I, hereinafter referred to as “List I substances”,
         and to reduce pollution of the said waters by the dangerous substances in the families and groups of substances in List II
         of Annex I, hereinafter referred to as “List II substances”, in accordance with this Directive.’
      
      5        Article 6 of Directive 2006/11, the wording of which is identical to that of Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of
         4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ
         1976 L 129, p. 23), which was repealed by Directive 2006/11, provides:
      
      ‘1.      In order to reduce pollution of the waters referred to in Article 1 by List II substances, Member States shall establish programmes
         in the implementation of which they shall apply in particular the methods referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.
      
      2.      All discharges into the waters referred to in Article 1 which are liable to contain any List II substances, shall require
         prior authorisation by the competent authority in the Member State concerned, in which emission standards shall be laid down.
         Such standards shall be based on the environmental quality standards, which shall be fixed as provided for in paragraph 3.
      
      3.      The programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall include environmental quality standards for water; these shall be laid down
         in accordance with Council Directives, where they exist.
      
      … ’
      6        Point 8 of List II of families and groups of substances in Annex I to Directive 2006/11, referred to in Articles 3 and 6 of
         the latter, refers to substances which have an adverse effect on the oxygen balance, particularly ammonia and nitrites.
      
      7        Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
         action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1; ‘Framework Directive on water policy’) which predates Directive
         2006/11 but the provisions of which will replace those of that directive from 22 December 2013, in accordance with Article
         22(2) of the Framework Directive on water policy, states in Article 11:
      
      ‘1. Each Member State shall ensure the establishment for each river basin district, or for the part of an international river
         basin district within its territory, of a programme of measures, taking account of the results of the analyses required under
         Article 5, in order to achieve the objectives established under Article 4. …
      
      2. Each programme of measures shall include the “basic” measures specified in paragraph 3 and, where necessary, “supplementary”
         measures.
      
      3. “Basic measures” are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of:
      … 
      (g)      for point source discharges liable to cause pollution, a requirement for prior regulation, such as a prohibition on the entry
         of pollutants into water, or for prior authorisation, or registration based on general binding rules, laying down emission
         controls for the pollutants concerned, including controls in accordance with Articles 10 and 16 …
      
      … ’
      8        Article 22(3)(b) of the Framework Directive on water policy contains the following transitional provision:
      
      ‘for the purposes of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, Member States may apply the principles for the identification of pollution
         problems and the substances causing them, the establishment of quality standards, and the adoption of measures, laid down
         in this Directive.’
      
       National legislation
      9        Under the heading ‘Water and aquatic environments’, the provisions of the Environmental Code relating to authorisation or
         declaration of installations, structures, works and activities are intended, according to Article L. 211-1 of that code, to
         enable balanced and long-term management of water resources intended to ensure, inter alia, the protection of water and the
         fight against all pollution. Article L. 211-2 of the Environmental Code provides, in particular, that general rules on the
         preservation of the quality and distribution of surface water are to be determined by decree of the Conseil d’État. Under
         that article, those general rules are to specify in particular the quality standards and measures necessary to restore and
         preserve that quality, the conditions under which effluent, drainage and other discharges, direct or indirect deposits of
         matter may be prohibited or regulated and, more generally, any fact likely to alter the quality of water and the aquatic environment,
         in the same way as the conditions in which the measures necessary to preserve that quality may be prescribed. In addition
         to those general rules, national requirements or requirements which are specific to certain parts of the territory are, pursuant
         to Article L. 211-3 of that code, also laid down by decree of the Conseil d’État.
      
      10      Article L. 214-1 of the Environmental Code provides:
      
      ‘The following are subject to the provisions of Articles L. 214-2 to L. 214-6: installations not appearing in the nomenclature
         of classified facilities, structures, works and activities carried out for non-domestic purposes by any natural or legal person,
         public or private, involving … effluent discharge, drainage discharge, direct or indirect discharges or deposits, continuous
         or occasional, even non‑polluting.’ 
      
      11      The first paragraph of Article L. 214-2 of the Environmental Code provides:
      
       ‘The installations, structures, works and activities referred to in L. 214-1 are defined in the nomenclature, drawn up by
         decree of the Conseil d’Etat following consultation with the National Water Board, and subject to authorisation or declaration
         depending on the danger which they pose and the seriousness of the effects they may have on water resources and aquatic ecosystems,
         having regard, in particular, to the existence of the zones and areas established for the protection of water and aquatic
         environments.’
      
      12      Article L. 214-3 of the Environmental Code provides: 
      
      ‘I.       The following are subject to authorisation by the administrative authorities: installations, structures, works and activities
         likely to pose risks to public health and safety, have an adverse effect on the free flow of water, reduce water resources,
         notably increase the risk of flooding, cause serious damage to the quality or diversity of the aquatic environment, in particular
         to fish-farm populations.
      
      …
      II.      The following are subject to declaration: installations, structures, works and activities which, since they are not likely
         to pose such risks, must none the less comply with the requirements laid down pursuant to Articles L. 211‑2 and L. 211‑3.
      
      Within a period laid down by decree of the Conseil d’État, the administrative authority may contest the planned operation
         if it appears that it is incompatible with the provisions of the principal water management plan or the water management plan,
         or adversely affects the interests referred to in Article L. 211-1 so seriously that no steps could be taken to remedy it.
         The works may not begin before that time-limit has expired.
      
      If observance of the interests referred to in Article L. 211-1 is not ensured by implementation of the requirements laid down
         pursuant to Articles L. 211-2 and L. 211-3, the administrative authority may at any time lay down by decree any specific requirements
         necessary.
      
      …’
      13      Articles R. 214-32 to R. 214.40 of the Environmental Code contain provisions applicable to operations subject to declaration.
         The declaration is to be addressed, as provided for in the first of those articles, to the Prefect of the department or departments
         concerned who, within 15 days following receipt of the declaration, pursuant to Article R.214-33 of that code is to send to
         the party making the declaration, when the declaration is incomplete, an acknowledgment of receipt stating the documents or
         information missing, or when the declaration is complete, a receipt of the declaration stating either the date on which, in
         the absence of objections, the planned operation may begin or that there are no objections, enabling that operation to be
         started up immediately. The same provision provides that that receipt is to be accompanied, if necessary, by a copy of the
         general requirements applicable. The time-limit allowed for the Prefect to be able to make an objection to an operation subject
         to declaration is specified by Article R. 214-35 of the Environmental Code as being two months from receipt of a complete
         declaration.
      
      14      The installations, structures, works or activities concerned must, pursuant to Article R. 214-38 of the Environmental Code,
         be set up, carried out and operated in accordance with the declaration file and, as the case may be, the specific requirements
         referred to in Articles R. 214-35 and R. 214-39 of that code. Article R. 214-39 provides that amendment of the requirements
         applicable to an installation may be requested by the party making the declaration from the Prefect who is to decide by decree
         and that it may also be ordered by the Prefect on the basis of the third paragraph of Article L. 214-33, II of the Environmental
         Code. Moreover, Article R. 214-40 of that code provides that any amendment made by the party making the declaration to the
         project as declared which is such as to entail a significant change to the details in the initial declaration file must, before
         it is carried out, be brought to the knowledge of the Prefect, who may require a new declaration, which is subject to the
         same formalities as the initial declaration.
      
      15      Decree No 2006-881, the annulment of which is sought in the main proceedings, revises the nomenclature referred to in paragraph
         1 of Article L. 214-2 of the Environmental Code, which is included in the Annex to Article R. 214-1 of that code under the
         heading ‘Nomenclature of the operations subject to authorisation or declaration under Articles L. 214-1 to L. 214-3 of the
         Environmental Code’. Under section 3.2.7.0 of that nomenclature, as amended, fresh-water fish farms (‘fish farms’) are henceforth
         subject, in respect of water control, to the declaration procedure, whereas previously they were subject to authorisation
         or declaration depending on whether they gave rise to a study or an impact statement.
      
      16      Moreover, pursuant to Article L. 511-1, the provisions of the Environmental Code relating to facilities classified for the
         protection of the environment are to apply to facilities which may present hazards or risks for, inter alia, public health
         and safety, agriculture, and the protection of nature and the environment. Pursuant to Article L. 511-2 of the Environmental
         Code, those facilities are defined in the nomenclature of classified facilities which makes them subject to authorisation
         by the Prefect or to declaration, according to the seriousness of the hazards or risks their operation may present.
      
      17      Decree No 2006-942, the annulment of which is also sought in the main proceedings, amended that nomenclature. It follows that
         fish farms are henceforth subject to authorisation in respect of the policy of classified establishments for the protection
         of the environment only when their annual production capacity exceeds 20 tonnes.
      
       The main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
      18      The Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières – TOS submits, in support of its actions for annulment of
         Decree No 2006-881 and Decree No 2006-942 before the Conseil d’État, that those measures fail to have regard to the provisions
         of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11.
      
      19      After pointing out that the waste from fish farming contains ammonia and nitrites, which are List II substances, and that
         Article 6 of Directive 2006/11 makes discharges liable to contain such substances subject to prior authorisation in which
         emission standards are to be specified, the national court states in its decision that, with the exception of those with an
         annual production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes, which are subject to authorisation under the legislation concerning facilities
         classified for the protection of the environment, fish farms are subject as such only to a declaratory scheme.
      
      20      However, the court making the reference states that that scheme, in view of what is regarded as the low-polluting nature of
         such fish-farm facilities, is based on the objective of simplification of administrative procedures and better allocation
         of monitoring resources. It states that, under that scheme, the Prefect has the right to object to works, which cannot begin
         until a period of two months has passed, and where he does not object he may impose technical requirements in order to protect
         the interests referred to in Article L. 211-1 of the Environmental Code, in particular setting limits on the emissions of
         pollutants. It takes the view that, in those circumstances, serious difficulty is raised by the question as to whether Article
         6 of Directive 2006/11 may be interpreted as allowing the Member States to introduce such a scheme. 
      
      21      Accordingly, the Conseil d’État decided to stay the proceedings in respect of the claims made in the application for annulment
         directed against Decree No 2006‑881 in so far as it makes fish farms subject to a declaratory scheme in connection with water
         policy, and in respect of the application for annulment of Decree No 2006/942 and to refer the following question to the Court
         for a preliminary ruling:
      
      ‘May Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC … be interpreted as allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution
         including environmental quality standards have been adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect
         of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in nature, subject to a reference to those standards and a right for the administrative
         authority to object to the commencement of the operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned
         [?]’
      
       The question
      22      In order to answer the question referred, it must be pointed out, first, that Directive 2006/11 is not intended to make the
         commencement of operations liable to discharge dangerous substances into the aquatic environment subject to a particular regime
         of authorisation or declaration on the basis of the characteristics of those operations. On the other hand, as is apparent
         in particular from recitals 6 to 8 of that directive, it is intended to eliminate pollution by List I substances of the waters
         falling within its scope and to reduce pollution of those waters by List II substances, such as ammonia and nitrites. Directive
         2006/11 is not therefore designed to oblige Member States to adopt applicable measures specific to certain operations or facilities
         as such, but it requires them to take appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce pollution of waters caused by discharges
         liable to contain dangerous substances, in accordance with the nature of the latter.
      
      23      Accordingly, in order to reduce pollution of waters by List II substances, Article 6 of Directive 2006/11 provides, inter
         alia, that the Member States are to establish programmes including environmental quality standards for water, drawn up in
         compliance with Council directives where they exist. For the implementation of those programmes, Article 6(2) provides that
         all discharges into the waters referred to in Article 1 of the directive which are liable to contain any such substances require
         prior authorisation by the competent authority in the Member State concerned, in which emission standards are to be laid down,
         based on the environmental quality standards.
      
      24      It must be stated, secondly, that Directive 2006/11 does not lay down any exception to the rule in Article 6(2) thereof. Accordingly,
         for the reasons set out in paragraph 22 of this judgment, that provision does not make a distinction according to the characteristics
         of the facilities from which the discharges come and, in particular, according to whether those facilities are regarded as
         being high‑polluting or low-polluting. Nor does it make a distinction according to the extent of the discharges. A declaratory
         scheme such as the one described in the question referred by the national court could therefore be regarded as permitted under
         Article 6 of Directive 2006/11 only if it required the competent administrative authority to adopt in all cases of discharges
         a decision capable of being regarded as constituting prior authorisation within the meaning of that article.
      
      25      Not only must the authorisation laid down in Article 6(2) of Directive 2006/11 be prior to any discharge liable to contain
         any of the List II substances, it must also specify the emission standards, which are based on the environmental quality standards
         set out in a programme established by the Member State in accordance with Article 6(1) and (3). The Court has, however, held
         on numerous occasions that it follows from Article 7(2) of Directive 76/464, of which the wording is identical to that of
         Article 6(2) of Directive 2006/11, that authorisations must contain emission standards which are applicable to authorised
         individual discharges and which have been calculated in accordance with the quality objectives previously laid down in a programme
         established pursuant to Article 7(1) to protect the expanses of water and watercourses in question (see, inter alia, Case
         C-282/02 Commission v Ireland [2005] ECR I-4653, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited). The Court also stated, in connection with Article 7(2), that the
         quality objectives fixed by those programmes on the basis of analyses of the waters affected serve as the point of reference
         for calculating the emission standards set in the prior authorisations (see Case C-384/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-3823, paragraph 41). 
      
      26      It follows that prior authorisation within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2006/11 means that every request for authorisation
         for that purpose must be examined individually and cannot be tacit (see, with particular regard to Article 7 of Directive
         76/464, Case C-230/00 Commission v Belgium [2001] ECR I-4591, paragraph 16).
      
      27      On the one hand, prior specific examination of each planned discharge liable to contain List II substances is necessary to
         implement programmes to reduce water pollution established by the Member States in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive
         2006/11, under which subjecting all discharges of that nature to prior authorisation constitutes one of the means of implementing
         those programmes. Such an examination is also necessary to fix in each case of authorised discharge the emission standards
         determined on the basis of the environmental quality standards included in those programmes and intended to reduce discharges
         containing one or more List II substances. That examination requires, moreover, an assessment of the actual state of the waters
         affected which must be taken into account in determining the emission standards. On the other hand, tacit authorisation cannot
         be compatible with the requirement to specify, in the prior authorisation, the emission standards calculated on the basis
         of the procedure described above.
      
      28      In the light of those considerations, a declaratory scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, subject to a reference
         to the environmental quality standards included in the programmes to reduce water pollution and a right for the administrative
         authority to object to the commencement of the operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned,
         cannot satisfy the requirements referred to above of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11, since it does not guarantee that any
         discharges liable to contain a List II substance give rise to a specific examination leading to the fixing of emission standards
         specific to them, calculated on the basis of the applicable environmental quality standards and the actual state of the waters
         affected. Such a scheme does not therefore require the competent administrative authority to adopt a decision capable of being
         regarded as constituting prior authorisation within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2006/11.
      
      29      Furthermore, neither the existence of general rules on the preservation of the quality of surface water and national requirements
         or requirements specific to certain parts of the territory, such as those laid down in Articles L. 211-2 and L. 211-3 of the
         Environmental Code and the requirements applicable to fish farms laid down by an order made, according to statements made
         at the hearing, on 1 April 2008, even subject to penalties, nor the communication to the person making the declaration of
         a copy of the general requirements applicable, such as those laid down by Article R. 214-33 of the same code, can make good
         the failure to specify emission standards applicable to individual discharges, determined on the basis of the environmental
         quality standards laid down and the actual state of the water affected.
      
      30      Therefore, contrary to the French Government’s assertion, a declaratory scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings
         is not governed by provisions which might place it on the same footing in practice as a simplified authorisation scheme satisfying
         the requirements laid down in Article 6 of Directive 2006/11.
      
      31      It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that, contrary to what the French, Italian and Netherlands Governments
         maintain in their written or oral observations, a declaratory scheme subject to a right to object, even if it is based on
         the objective of simplification of administrative procedures and better allocation of monitoring resources, such as that at
         issue in the main proceedings, cannot be regarded as equivalent to the scheme of prior authorisation provided for in Article
         6 of Directive 2006/11.
      
      32      That conclusion cannot be called into question by the argument put forward by the Netherlands Government at the hearing, and
         supported also by the French Government, regarding the Framework Directive on water policy.
      
      33      It is true that the Member States may already apply, under the transitory provision in Article 22(3)(b) of the Framework Directive
         on water policy, for the purposes of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11, ‘the principles for the identification of pollution problems
         and the substances causing them, the establishment of quality standards, and the adoption of measures, laid down in [the Framework
         Directive on water policy]’. In particular, as the Commission of the European Communities noted at the hearing, Article 11(3)(g)
         of the Framework Directive on water policy allows, for point source discharges liable to cause pollution, the adoption, inter
         alia, of a registration scheme and does not therefore necessarily lay down a prior authorisation scheme.
      
      34      However, that registration scheme is to be understood, even on a transitional basis, only in connection with the implementation
         of the Framework Directive on water policy. That registration scheme cannot be applied independently of other measures laid
         down by that directive – the existence of which in the context of the main proceedings is not apparent from either the decision
         making the reference or the observations submitted by the French Government – and presupposes, in particular, as is apparent
         from Article 11 of that directive, the prior identification of river basin districts, the carrying out of analyses in respect
         of each of them and the establishment of a programme of measures taking into account the results of those analyses as well
         as the definition of the emission controls for the pollutants concerned.
      
      35      As a result of all of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 6 of Directive 2006/11 cannot
         be interpreted as allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality standards
         have been adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting
         in nature, subject to a reference to those standards and a right for the administrative authority to object to the commencement
         of the operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned.
      
       Costs
      36      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
         the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs
         of those parties, are not recoverable.
      
      On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:
      Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by
            certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community cannot be interpreted as allowing the
            Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality standards have been adopted under
            that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in nature, subject
            to a reference to those standards and a right for the administrative authority to object to the commencement of the operations
            or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: French.