JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
25 January 2007 (*)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisance – Lack of measures to ensure the adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations)
In Case C-405/05,
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 November 2005,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by S. Pardo Quintillán, X. Lewis and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by C. White, acting as Agent,
defendant,
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, A. Tizzano and A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: Y. Bot,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the written procedure,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By its application, the Commission of the European Communities requests the Court to declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtownabbey, Omagh and Portrush by 31 December 2000 at the latest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40, ‘the directive’).
2 Article 3(1) of the directive provides inter alia that the Member States are to ensure that all agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water by 31 December 2000 at the latest.
3 According to Article 4(1) of the directive, Member States are to ensure that, for all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment by 31 December 2000 at the latest. In accordance with Article 4(3) discharges from urban waste-water treatment plants described in Article 4(1) must satisfy the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to the directive.
4 Since the Commission considered that urban waste water from a number of agglomerations in the United Kingdom was not the subject of adequate treatment by 31 December 2000, it initiated the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations. On 14 December 2004, after giving the United Kingdom formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion inviting that Member State to take the necessary measures to comply with it within a period of two months from receipt. Taking the view that the situation continued to be unsatisfactory, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
5 The United Kingdom Government accepts that the action brought by the Commission is well founded. It nevertheless refers, in respect of some agglomerations, to difficulties of an internal nature and states that steps are being taken to remedy the situation which is the subject of the present proceedings.
6 It is necessary at the outset to state that, in the present case, the parties agree that urban waste water from the 13 agglomerations mentioned above was, on expiry of the time-limit laid down in the reasoned opinion, not the subject of treatment in accordance with the requirements of Article 4(1) and (3) of the directive.
7 Moreover, in accordance with settled case-law, a Member State may not seek to rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal order in order to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, inter alia, Case C-114/02 Commission v France [2003] ECR I-3783, paragraph 11).
8 In those circumstances, the action brought by the Commission must be considered well founded.
9 Consequently, it must be held that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtownabbey, Omagh and Portrush by 31 December 2000 at the latest, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of the directive.
Costs
10 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the Commission applied for costs and the United Kingdom has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:
1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtownabbey, Omagh and Portrush by 31 December 2000 at the latest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;
2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
[Signatures]