Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 2007-10-25
17. For the purposes of the investigation of the second complaint the Commission addressed a letter to Ireland on 8 May 2001, mentioning the report referred to above.
44. In consequence, the requirements laid down in Article 5 of the Directive, which, as stated in paragraph 39 above, are designed solely to ensure compliance with the obligation set out in Article 3(b) of the Directive, have not been satisfied either.
53. What is more, the environment receiving the discharges forms the subject of the prior investigations referred to in Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive.  With regard to that specific subject-matter, Article 7 of the Directive requires those investigations to have a specific objective also, that is to say, examination of the hydrogeological conditions of the area concerned, the possible purifying powers of the soil and subsoil and the risk of pollution and deterioration of the groundwater by the discharges, in order to establish whether discharges into groundwater are a satisfactory solution from the point of view of the environment.  Article 7 thus makes the grant of authorisation subject to precise and detailed conditions which must be regarded as mandatory in order to achieve the aim of the Directive (see Case C-360/87 Commission  v Italy  [1991] ECR I‑791, paragraph 23).
64. First, the Commission may seek a finding that provisions of a directive have not been complied with because a general practice contrary thereto has been adopted by the authorities of a Member State, using particular situations to shed light on that practice (see, to that effect, Case C‑494/01 Commission  v Ireland  [2005] ECR I‑3331, paragraph 27).
65. In particular, the Court has held that, although a State’s action consisting in an administrative practice contrary to the requirements of Community law can amount to a failure to fulfil obligations for the purposes of Article 226 EC, that administrative practice must be, to some degree, of a consistent and general nature (see, inter alia, Case C‑441/02 Commission  v Germany  [2006] ECR I‑3449, paragraph 50, and Case C‑342/05 Commission  v Finland  [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 33).
66. Secondly, in proceedings under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose ( Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 41 and the case-law there cited, and Commission  v Germany , paragraph 48).
67. However, the Member States are required, under Article 10 EC, to facilitate the achievement of the Commission’s tasks, which consist in particular, according to Article 211 EC, in ensuring that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied ( Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 42, and the case-law there cited).
68. From that point of view, account is to be taken of the fact that, when it is a question of checking whether the national provisions intended to ensure effective implementation of the directive are correctly applied in practice, the Commission is largely reliant on the information provided by any complainants and by the Member State concerned ( Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 43).
69. It follows, in particular, that when the Commission has adduced sufficient evidence to show that the authorities of the defendant Member State have developed a repeated and persistent practice which is contrary to the provisions of a directive, it is incumbent on that Member State to challenge in substance and in detail the information produced and the consequences flowing therefrom ( Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 47).
115. None the less, such defective application, geographically confined as it is, cannot provide grounds for inferring that there exists throughout the Irish countryside an administrative practice relating to indirect discharges into groundwater of effluents from septic tanks that possesses the characteristics required by the Court’s case-law and violates Articles 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of the Directive (see, to that effect, Case C‑287/03 Commission  v Belgium  [2005] ECR I‑3761, paragraph 30).