Action brought on 17 January 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-22/20)
Language of the case: Swedish
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, C. Hermes, E. Ljung Rasmussen and K. Simonsson)
Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union by not providing the Commission with the information necessary for it to assess the accuracy of the claims that the agglomerations Habo and Töreboda satisfy the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, 1
declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 15 of Directive 91/271/EEC by not ensuring that, before it is discharged, urban waste water from the agglomerations Lycksele, Malå, Mockfjärd, Pajala, Robertsfors and Tänndalen is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in accordance with the requirements of the directive;
declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 15 of Directive 91/271/EEC by not ensuring that, before it is discharged, urban waste water from the agglomerations Borås, Skoghall, Habo and Töreboda is subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4 of the directive in accordance with the requirements of the same directive, and
order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Member States are, according to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC, to ensure that urban waste water from agglomerations of a certain size is before discharge subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment.
Member States are moreover, according to Article 5 of the directive, obliged to ensure that waste water from agglomerations of a certain size is before discharge into sensitive areas subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4.
Article 4(3) in conjunction with point B.2 and Table 1 of Annex I to the directive — as well as Article 5(3) in conjunction with point B.3 and Table 2 of Annex I to the directive for cases of discharges from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalents — sets out the requirements applicable for discharges of treated waste water (‘discharge requirements’). These requirements establish, in so far as is relevant to this case, limit values for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and nitrogen.
Article 15 in conjunction with point D of Annex I to the directive sets out the requirements that apply for the monitoring and assessment of conformity with the discharge requirements. Those requirements specify the number of annual samples and sample collection intervals (‘control requirements’).
Article 10 of the directive sets out the requirements that apply for design, construction, operation and maintenance of the plants that are built to comply with the discharge requirements.
The Commission considers, after assessing the information that Sweden has submitted, that Sweden does not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 15 of the directive in question in the case of six agglomerations in so far as the discharge requirements and/or control requirements are not fulfilled.
The Commission also considers, after assessing the information that Sweden has submitted, that Sweden does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 15 of the directive in the case of an additional four agglomerations in so far as the discharge requirements are not fulfilled.
Sweden contends, in respect of two of the agglomerations, that the discharge requirements for nitrogen are satisfied on the basis of natural retention. Sweden has not, however, provided the Commission with the information necessary for it to assess the accuracy of Sweden’s claims about the extent of the natural retention and conformity with the directive’s requirement of nitrogen removal on that basis. The Commission considers Sweden to have thereby violated the principle of loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.
____________
1 OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.