31.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/14

Action brought on 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-220/10)

()

2010/C 209/22

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

—

A declaration that:

—

by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and all the coastal waters of the Island of Porto Santo without applying the criteria laid down in Annex II to Directive 91/271/EEC, (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of that directive, and, in particular, without carrying out comprehensive studies indicating that the respective discharges do not adversely affect the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira, without carrying out comprehensive studies indicating that those discharges do not adversely affect the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 and treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Beja, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Chaves, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to five agglomerations along the estuary of the River Tagus, Barreiro/Moita, Fernão Ferro, Montijo, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3; by failing to ensure, in six agglomerations discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Fernão Ferro, Montijo, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Elvas, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Tavira, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Viseu, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 and treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

—

an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

There are several agglomerations that do not meet the requirements of the Directive, seven in respect of the requirements under Article 3 and 12 in respect of those under Article 5.

Some of the agglomerations in question undertake no treatment whatsoever of their waste water.

So far as discharges of urban waste water in sensitive areas are concerned, the Directive requires treatment of waste water more stringent than that required in respect of water discharged in other areas.

In accordance with Part B of Annex II, a marine water body or area may be identified as a less sensitive area if the discharge of waste water does not adversely affect the environment as a result of morphology, hydrology or specific hydraulic conditions in that area.

Article 6(2) of the Directive lays down the conditions on which urban waste water discharged into less sensitive areas may be subject to less stringent treatment. In particular, it provides that urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 10 000 and 15 000 discharged into coastal waters may be subjected to less stringent treatment only if comprehensive studies have been carried out and indicate that such discharges will not adversely affect the environment and if the Commission has been provided with the relevant information concerning those studies.

(1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).