This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0526
Case C-526/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Case C-526/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Case C-526/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
OJ C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 31–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.2.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 44/31 |
Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-526/08)
(2009/C 44/51)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and N. von Lingen, Agents)
Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Form of order sought
|
— |
declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and properly with Articles 4 and 5, in conjunction with Annex II A(1) and Annex III 1(1), Annex II A(5) and Annex III 1(2), and Annex II A(2) and Annex II A(6), of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
|
— |
order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission raises four complaints in support of its action.
By its first complaint, the Commission criticises the defendant for not complying with the procedures and periods for land application, as laid down in the directive. Although the prohibition on land application during certain periods should cover both organic and artificial fertilisers, the Luxembourg legislation refers solely to organic fertilisers. In addition, the prohibition on the land application of fertilisers during certain periods should relate to all agricultural land, including prairies, which are omitted from the national implementing measures. The Commission also claims that the national legislation should define, with greater precision, those circumstances which may give rise to a derogation from the land application prohibition, as this was not envisaged in the directive.
By its second complaint, the Commission claims that the national legislation does not lay down any requirement for a minimum manure storage capacity for all installations, but refers only to new installations or those being modernised. Such an implementing measure does not comply with the Directive in so far as the existing installations also present pollution risks. The national legislation should, therefore, impose a minimum storage capacity for all installations.
By its third complainant, the Commission claims that, in the context of the prohibition of land application on steeply sloping ground, the national legislation should include all fertilisers, and not only organic fertilisers.
By its fourth and final complaint, it is alleged that the defendant did not adopt sufficient measures concerning land application techniques, in particular, to ensure a uniform and efficient application of fertilisers.