- 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
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 16 February 1993. # Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court - Protection of groundwater. # Case C-174/91.
ECLI:EU:C:1993:57
61991CC0174
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
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
delivered on 16 February 1993 (*1)
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
1.In this case the Commission seeks a declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 June 1987 in Case 1/86 Commission v Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty. In that judgment the Court held that Belgium had failed to comply within the prescribed period with Council Directive 80/68 of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances.
2.In support of its claims the Commission sets out several complaints in its application. Belgium has contested only one of them and it was subsequently withdrawn by the Commission.
3.As regards the others, Belgium explained in its defence that the rules required for a correct implementation of Directive 80/68 had already been adopted or submitted as a proposal. In its rejoinder Belgium indicated that some of the proposals had subsequently been adopted. In those circumstances the Commission, in response to a question from the Court, withdrew several of the complaints.
4.During the hearing the Commission stated that, having obtained additional information from the Belgium Government, it could also withdraw certain elements of its final complaint. The Commission therefore maintains only one complaint, namely that the Belgian Decree of 30 April 1990 does not implement the Directive correctly in so far as it does not refer to the substances in list II of the Directive, whereas it is clear from Article 5 that the Member States must take positive measures with regard to the discharge of those substances. The Commission furthermore maintains its application for costs.
5.The Belgian Government stated at the hearing that it did not contest the aforesaid complaint or the Commission's application for costs.
Conclusion
6.For those reasons, I propose that the Court allow the Commission's application and order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(*1) Original language: Danish.
[1987] ECR 2797
OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Commission's reply to the Court's question.
See paragraph 3 to 5 and 8 to 9 of the Commission's reply to the Court's question.
See section B of the Commission's reply to the Court's question.
See paragraph 24 of the application.