- 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-346/14: Action brought on 18 July 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0346
62014CN0346
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
13.10.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 361/3
(Case C-346/14)
2014/C 361/03
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Republic of Austria
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU, in so far as by granting permission for the construction of a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm (Black Sulm) it incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD);
—order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Austria sees to avoid the prohibition of deterioration which is laid down in Article 4(1) as a fundamental principle and thereby failed to satisfy the conditions for receiving an exception under Article 4(7) WFD.
The application of the directive ratione temporis is based on the Court’s case-law, according to which during the period allowed for transposition of a directive, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive (Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU).
The defendant bases its new decision solely on an amended assessment of the water status of the Schwarze Sulm. That amended classification (‘good’ water status instead of ‘very good’ water status) is not compatible with the original management plan. Findings and assessments in the management plan may not simply be amended as the result of an ad-hoc administrative decision based on new criteria. Otherwise, fundamental substantive provisions of the Water Framework Directive, such as in this case the prohibition of deterioration, and important procedural provisions, such as those on public participation, could be easily avoided.
(<span class="super">1</span>) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).