Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1998-06-11
27 It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that if, as the Commission claims in its first plea, the Hellenic Republic has failed to establish programmes as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 76/464, no authorisations can have been granted in accordance with Article 7(2).
28 The effect of the latter provision is, in particular, to require the authorisations in question to 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.
29 Consequently, whilst it appears that the first plea is well founded, the second is subsumed into it and is thus rendered nugatory, so that there is no need to examine it further.
The plea alleging a lack of programmes as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 76/464
Case C-232/95
34 It should be noted in that regard that the objectives of Directive 76/464 include, in particular, the reduction of pollution caused by substances which, by reason of their noxious qualities, are enumerated in List II in the annex thereto.  In order to attain that objective, the Member States are required by Article 7(1) of Directive 76/464, first of all, to establish programmes laying down quality objectives in accordance with Article 7(3) of that directive.
35 In Case C-298/95 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-6747, paragraphs 22 and 26, the Court held that the Member States are obliged in that context not only to establish programmes for the reduction of pollution but also to establish specific programmes.  The Court stressed that the objective of reducing pollution pursued by general purification programmes does not necessarily correspond to the more specific objective of the directive in issue.
36 Although the Hellenic Republic has submitted that (a) the `1994-1999 environmental programme' or those parts of it which relate to the aquatic environment of Lake Vegorrítis and its tributary and (b) the `Master Plan' programme referred to above constitute programmes within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 76/464, it has not shown that those two programmes relate specifically to the substances mentioned in List II; nor has it indicated the quality objectives on the basis of which the pollution caused by those substances is to be reduced.
38 Moreover, that new programme does not as such bring to an end the failure to fulfil obligations of which the Commission complains.  According to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be taken into account (Case C-60/96 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-3827, paragraph 15, and Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraph 20).  However, as the Greek Government itself admitted at the hearing, the programme in question had not yet been implemented on the material date.