Language of document :

Action brought on 12 October 2018 – European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-637/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen y K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit value applicable to the concentration of PM10 in parts of Budapest (HU0001) and the valley of Sajó (HU0008) each year from 1 February 2005, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; 1

declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit values applicable to the concentration of PM10 in the area of Pécs (HU0006) each year from 11 June 2011 – with the exception of 2014 – Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;

declare that, from 11 June 2010, Hungary has failed to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XV to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe which provides, in particular, in the second paragraph of that article, that the exceedance period of those limit values should be kept as short as possible;

order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

From 1 February 2005, the daily limit value of PM10 was exceeded in two air quality zones and, from 11 June 2011, in one additional zone. In spite of that infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50, Hungary, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, has not adopted any appropriate measures within the air quality plans so that the exceedance period could be kept as short as possible.

The ineffectiveness of the measures at issue is clear from, inter alia, the period of exceeding the limit values, the level and evolution of those limit values, and from the detailed examination of the air quality plans adopted by the Hungarian authorities.

____________

1 OJ 2008 L 152, p.1.