17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/33

(Case C-304/23)

(2023/C 252/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and C. Schembri, agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claim that the Court should:

—declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that for the Malta South and Malta North agglomerations, urban waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of the Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment;

—declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that for the Malta North agglomeration, urban wastewater entering collecting systems is, before discharge into sensitive areas or catchments of sensitive areas, made subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Articles 5 of the Directive;

—declare that, by not monitoring discharges of urban waste waters for the Malta South and Malta North agglomerations to verify compliance with the requirements of Annex I.B., in accordance with the control procedures laid down in Annex I.D, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Article 15 and Annexes I.B and I.D of the Directive, and

—order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 31 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 for the Malta North and Malta South agglomerations respectively.

Article 4(1) of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that urban waste-water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment. The Commission claims that the Malta South and the Malta North agglomerations do not comply with the requirements of this provision essentially because the treatment plant's capacity for both agglomerations remain insufficient to treat the reported load.

The Commission also claims that the Republic of Malta’s breach of Article 4 of the Directive inevitably implies an infringement of Article 10 of the same Directive, on the basis that those agglomerations that cannot attain an adequate level of treatment of urban waste water in conformity with Article 4 are a fortiori unable to ensure sufficient performance under varying local climatic conditions.

As regards Malta North agglomeration, the Commission argues additionally a violation of article 5 of the Directive. The treatment plant for this agglomeration discharges into areas which have been designated as sensitive areas to nitrogen by the Maltese authorities on 22 April 2005, and therefore the Republic of Malta had to comply with Article 5 and apply a more stringent treatment by 22 April 2012 (i.e. within seven years after identification of the sensitive area). Given the lack of capacity of the treatment plant, as described above, which means that part of the generated load is discharged without any treatment, the Commission claims that article 5 is also breached for this agglomeration.

Finally, the Commission considers that both Malta South and Malta North agglomerations fail to comply with the requirements of article 15 of the Directive, as the breach of Article 4 and 5 of the Directive inevitably implies that compliance of the discharges is not being monitored in accordance with Annexes I.B and I.D of the Directive and therefore an infringement of article 15.

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).