Important legal notice

61995C0262

European Court reports 1996 Page I-05729

Opinion of the Advocate-General

In the present action for failure to fulfil obligations, the Commission complains that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations by not adopting the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3 of the following five directives, adopted on the basis of Article 6 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community: (1)

- Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry; (2)

- Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges; (3)

- Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry; (4)

- Council Directive 84/491/EEC of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane; (5)

- Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC. (6)

Under each of the aforementioned directives, the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:

- Directive 82/176, before 1 July 1983 (Article 6(1)),

- Directive 83/513, before 28 September 1985 (Article 6(1)),

- Directive 84/156, before 18 March 1986 (Article 7(1)),

- Directive 84/491, before 1 April 1986 (Article 6(1)), - Directive 86/280, before 1 January 1988 (Article 7(1)).

However, under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/656/EEC of 4 December 1990 on the transitional measures applicable in Germany with regard to certain Community provisions relating to the protection of the environment, (7) the Federal Republic of Germany was authorized not to apply the provisions laid down in the abovementioned directives to industrial installations located in the new Laender until after 31 December 1995.

The defendant does not deny that the transposition of the abovementioned directives by means of administrative circulars of no binding effect cannot be considered to be adequate. It claims that transposition by means of legislative measures could be achieved by inserting into the law on the use and protection of water an enabling provision for the adoption of regulations. It expects the amending legislation to be adopted in spring 1996.

In the circumstances, I cannot but propose that the Court should declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative measures to transpose Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry, Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges, Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry, Council Directive 84/491/EEC of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane and Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. I further propose that the Federal Republic of Germany should be ordered to pay the costs.

(1) - OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23.

(2) - OJ 1982 L 81, p. 29.

(3) - OJ 1983 L 291, p. 1.

(4) - OJ 1984 L 74, p. 49.

(5) - OJ 1984 L 274, p. 11.

(6) - OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16.

(7) - OJ 1990 L 353, p. 59.