Important legal notice

62000C0427

European Court reports 2001 Page I-08535

Opinion of the Advocate-General

I - The Directive

3. Article 3 requires Member States to set, for all bathing areas or for each individual bathing area, the values applicable to bathing waters for the physical, chemical and microbiological parameters given in the Annex to the Directive. In accordance with Article 2, those parameters form an integral part of the Directive.

5. Under Article 13 of the Directive, as amended, Member States are required to send the Commission a report on their bathing waters and the most significant characteristics thereof.

II - Facts

8. The United Kingdom authorities responded by letter of 30 March 1999, in which they stated that they were determined to comply with the Directive's mandatory standards as quickly as possible and indicated the measures that were being taken to improve the quality of bathing water.

9. Since it considered that response inadequate, the Commission sent the United Kingdom a reasoned opinion, granting it a two-month period in which to comply with its obligations.

11. The Commission brought the present action since it was of the opinion that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the United Kingdom remained in breach of its obligations.

III - Arguments of the parties and the procedure before the Court of Justice

12. The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should declare that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, since it has not ensured that its bathing water conforms to the limit values set in Article 3 in conjunction with the Annex, and order it to pay the costs.

13. For its part, the United Kingdom Government accepts the position as regards the bathing seasons referred to in the Commission's application.

14. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, and with the express agreement of the parties, the Court of Justice, under Article 44a of the Rules of Procedure, decided to dispense with the oral part of the procedure.

IV - The infringement

15. The United Kingdom Government admits the facts of which the Commission complains, that is to say, that during the 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons United Kingdom bathing water did not conform in its entirety to the values provided for in Article 3 of the Directive in conjunction with the Annex thereto. Consequently, the Court of Justice should treat the allegation of failure to fulfil obligations as proven and make a declaration to that effect in its judgment.

17. Although significant efforts may have been made to comply with the Directive, a single instance of non-compliance in a single season, which cannot be put down to compliance being absolutely impossible, is sufficient to constitute an infringement of the Directive.

18. Accordingly, I propose that the Court of Justice should declare that - as the latter itself admits - it has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, since during the 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons its bathing water did not conform in its entirety to the limits set out in Article 3 in conjunction with the annex.

V - Costs

19. Since the Commission's action has been upheld, the defendant must be ordered to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

VI - Conclusion