European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2014-09-11
21. It should be noted at the outset that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under EU law and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself properly against the objections formulated by the Commission. The subject-matter of proceedings under Article 258 TFEU is therefore delimited by the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by that provision. The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the FEU Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also in order to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter (see, inter alia, judgment in Commission  v Netherlands , C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraphs 33 and 34).
22. By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 38(1)(c) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission must, in any application made under Article 258 TFEU, indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal and factual particulars on which those complaints are based. It follows that the Commission’s action must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which have led it to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaties (see, inter alia, judgment in Commission  v Netherlands , EU:C:2012 :243, paragraphs 35 and 36).
24. The procedure for a declaration of a failure on the part of a State to fulfil an obligation itself affords a means of determining the exact nature of the obligations of the Member States in case of differences of interpretation (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission  v Spain , C‑196/07, EU:C:2008:146, paragraph 28).
40. That definition of services is not to be found in Directive 2004/35, which was adopted four years after Directive 2000/60 and does not contain any reference to it in that regard. The German version, moreover, does not refer to ‘Dienstleistung’, but rather to ‘Funktionen’, which does not presuppose human activity. Nor is it to be found in the concept of ‘ecosystem services’, which emerged long after Directive 2000/60.
43. It should be borne in mind, as a preliminary point, that in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the interpretation of a provision of EU law requires that account be taken not only of its wording and the objectives it pursues, but also its context and the provisions of EU law as a whole. The origins of a provision of EU law may also provide information relevant to its interpretation (see, inter alia, judgment in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others  v Parliament and Council , C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).
50. In that regard, it must be noted that Directive 2000/60 is a framework directive adopted on the basis of Article 175(1) EC (now Article 192 TFEU). It establishes the common principles and an overall framework for action in relation to water protection and coordinates, integrates and, in a longer perspective, develops the overall principles and structures for protection and sustainable use of water in the European Union. The common principles and overall framework for action which it lays down are to be developed subsequently by the Member States, which are to adopt a series of individual measures in accordance with the timescales laid down in the directive. However, the directive does not seek to achieve complete harmonisation of the rules of the Member States concerning water (judgment in Commission  v Luxembourg , C‑32/05, EU:C:2006:749, paragraph 41).
53. Thus, as observed by the Advocate General inter alia in point 72 of his Opinion, Directive 2000/60 is based essentially on the principles of management per river basin; the setting of objectives per body of water; plans and programmes; an economic analysis of the detailed arrangements governing water pricing; the taking into account of the social, environmental and economic effects of cost recovery, and also the geographic and climatic conditions of the region(s) concerned.
55. It is thus clear that measures for the recovery of the costs for water services are one of the instruments available to the Member States for qualitative management of water in order to achieve rational water use.