CELEX: 62010CN0458
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-458/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

18.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 346/29
            
         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-458/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/48
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare that by failing to transpose fully and correctly Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Commission bases its action on two grounds of complaint.
   By its first ground of complaint, the Commission maintains that the transposition of points (b) and (c) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 (1) is incomplete. The national legislation does not provide that the derogation must contain ‘previous relevant monitoring results’ and does not refer to ‘the quantity of water supplied each day’, ‘the population concerned’ and ‘whether or not any relevant food-production undertaking would be affected’.
   By its second ground of complaint, the Commission claims that the transposition of point (e) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 is incomplete and incorrect, since the Luxembourg authorities claim, inter alia, that, given that it is the party requesting a derogation who is responsible for defining and implementing remedial measures, it is that party who should provide a ‘summary of the plan’, a ‘timetable for the work’ and an ‘estimate of the cost’ of the measures, and not the party making the decision to grant the derogation, as required by the directive.
   
      (1)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)