Eu - Workbook

Front 1

Water Framework Directive

Back 1

Takes holistic approach to water policy.

Aims for sustainability by focusing on reducing demand rather than increasing supply.

Requires water pricing that incentivises efficient use (i.e. metering - not clear whether universal metering required).

Polluter pays principle. Awareness raising among public as to cost and availability of water.

Front 2

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Back 2

Requires MS to identify urban areas based on population densities. More stringent requirements for more densely populated areas.

Collection and treatment of water in those areas. Authorisation of industrial discharges. Control of sewage disposal (CSOs); control of re-use of treated wastewater; performance monitoring of treatment facilities.

Front 3

Commission v UK (UWWTD)

Back 3

Formal non-compliance.

UK missed implementation deadline in relation to provisions relating to areas at risk of eutrophication.

Front 4

Commission v Ireland (UWWTD) (formal)

Back 4

Formal non-compliance.

Excuse: much work already done; delays due to administrative difficulties.

Not accepted - practical difficulties and conditions in domestic legal order ≠ excuse.

Front 5

Commission v Belgium (UWWTD)

Back 5

Formal non-compliance.

Belgium cited budgetary, technical and material conditions preventing implementation.

C had already granted extra time, but problems in domestic legal order ≠ excuse.

Front 6

Commission v Ireland (UWWTD)

Back 6

Practical non-compliance.

Litany of non-compliant practices:

- dumping and storage of waste in wetlands and lagoons

- landspreading of waste

- operation of landfills by unauthorised persons

- operation of facilities in designated green areas

- waste collection by private collectors

Excuse: did not have time to implement a permit system. These requirements actually existed since previous Directive in 1970s.

Front 7

Commission v Greece (Chania Waste)

Back 7

TFEU/260 proceedings.

Greece operated rubbish tip near mouth of river in Crete. Had told C that it would not close old non-compliant site until new one built (though implementation deadline passed).

C sought daily penalty. Greece argued this would be retrospective (breach and original TFEU/258 litigation pre 1993, when fines introduced).

CJEU: not retrospective as 260 litigation all occurred post 1993.

Reduced suggested daily penalty to €20,000 / day, due to steps already taken by MS.

Total amount paid: 5.4 million.

Front 8

Commission v Ireland (Penalties)

Back 8

Penalties

Re disposal of domestic wastewater through septic tanks and other systems.

CJEU took economic crisis into account as affecting Ireland's ability to pay penalty.

Front 9

Griffin v SWW (DE)

Back 9

Held that SWW was an emanation of the state - had special powers, provided public service, under state control.

State control - don't look at legal form and commercial purposes - q was whether the service rather than the body is under state control.

Front 10

Difesa della Cava (DE)

Back 10

First PRF regarding whether environmental Directive (Waste FD) had Direct Effect.

Held that it didn't - wasn't sufficiently clear and precise or unconditional. Merely set out a general policy framework requiring further work from MS.

CJEU adopted narrow approach here.

Holder: environmental Directives struggle with DE more than financial/employment ones. They are inevitably not directed at persons as clearly; and given diverse nature of MS' environmental profiles, provisions likely to be more vague and conditional. No one has yet succeeded in giving measure DE.

Front 11

Bowden v SWW (SL)

Back 11

Q was whether BWD, UTWWD, or Shellfish Directive were intended to confer rights on individuals (Brasserie 1) --> state liability.

BWD and UTWWD clearly not passed with fishermen in mind. But Shellfish Dir directly intended to protect shellfish populations, with a view to ensuring that competition did not become unequal. Allowed Court to infer that C might be intended to have rights (arguable). Strike out appeal upheld.

Front 12

Bathing Water Directive

Back 12

- Bathing waters (internal or external) - those with large number of bathers

- Requires MS to measure faecal coliforms in water. Must be below mandatory minimum. Also a higher 'guideline' standard. During bathing season.

- MS must publicise water quality and report to EU.

Front 13

Commission v UK (BWD)

Back 13

UK failed in respect to two bathing waters.

Argued Dir was not sufficiently precise - took extra time to interpret which bathing areas fell within Dir. CJEU: was sufficiently clear, particularly with regards to areas in question (Blackpool) which were clearly bathing waters.

Argued Dir only actually required steps to be taken (measurements), rather than actual outcome to be achieved. CJEU: had to achieve the stated outcomes (unless, perhaps, impossible to do so).

Front 14

Commission v Spain (BWD) (penalties)

Back 14

Penalty sought for failure to implement BWD.

CJEU ordered annual penalty payment to reflect timing of reporting required by BWD.

But noted that it was difficult for any MS to 100% implement Directive - so penalty should be reduced proportionate to progress made by MS.

Kramer: Commission misinterpreted judgment and BWD - because Spain attained 95% of bathing waters meeting required standard, no further action. In fact, BWD stated that all waters needed to have 95% of measurements meeting required standards.

Front 15

Commission v UK (UWWTD - CSOs)

Back 15

Use of CSOs.

Question over interpretations of various terms in UWWTD which were, CJEU acknowledged, very vague. E.g. what constituted 'sufficient performance', 'unusually heavy rainfall' 'storm water' and 'best technical knowledge and not entailing excessive costs.'

CJEU took narrow interpretation. Exceptional circumstances had to be truly exceptional. UK had to ensure 100% coverage of adequate sewage in normal conditions before relying on them.

If exceptional circumstances did not pertain, had to consider whether measures met BTKNEEC.

Technical improvements in N England water would have resulted in minimal improvements -> excessive costs.

Same did not apply in London - where technical knowledge existed and had been proposed, UK merely complained as to length of time it would take to implement. Not an excuse.