19.3.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/8

(Case C-607/10)

2011/C 89/15

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

—Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) 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, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

—order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It follows from Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive that Member States are to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control 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. In the view of the Commission, that obligation is to be understood as covering all existing installations in the Member State in question.

In accordance with established case-law, a question whether there is a breach of the Treaties is to be assessed against the background of the situation prevailing in the Member State concerned at the time of expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. It follows from Sweden’s reply to the reasoned opinion that 33 existing installations did not meet the requirements in the IPPC Directive at the time of the reply.

Furthermore, it is apparent from the attachment to Sweden’s supplementary reply to the reasoned opinion that in October 2010, nearly three years after expiry of the period in the IPPC Directive, there remained 23 existing installations which did not meet the requirements under the directive.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.