- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-143/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0143
62012CN0143
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
9.6.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 165/12
(Case C-143/12)
2012/C 165/20
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)
Defendant: French Republic
Form of order sought
—declare that, by failing to issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8, to reconsider and, if appropriate, to update the existing permits and to ensure that all the existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and 9b) and 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) (1);
—order French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007.
On 3 November 2009, the Commission sent a letter before action, taking the view that the defendant permitted the operation of a large number of existing installations (1647 installations) which did not have a permit complying with the requirements of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive. At the time the reasoned opinion was sent, 784 existing installations were still without a permit in accordance with Article 5(1) of the directive.
Although the situation has since improved, at the time the present application was lodged, four installations continue to be operated in the French Republic without a permit in accordance with the directive.
Therefore, the Commission takes the view that the French Republic has not yet put an end to the infringement of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive.
(1) OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.