EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0648
Case C-648/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Case C-648/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Case C-648/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
OJ C 45, 15.2.2014, p. 25–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 45/25 |
Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-648/13)
2014/C 45/42
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and E. Manhaeve, Agents)
Defendant: Republic of Poland
Form of order sought
|
— |
declare that, by failing to transpose, incompletely transposing, or incorrectly transposing Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27, Article 8(1), Article 9(2), Article 10(3) and Article 11(5) of, and Annex V (points 1.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4 and 2.4.1) and Annex VII (Part A, points 7.2 to 7.10) to, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and under Article 24 of that directive; |
|
— |
order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27
The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has failed correctly and fully to transpose the definitions contained in Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27 of Directive 2000/60/EC.
Article 8(1)
The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that the Polish provisions do not set out requirements corresponding to the specifications for Natura-2000 sites.
Article 9(2)
In the Commission’s view, Article 9(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC was not fully or properly transposed in so far as concerns the obligation to include, in the river basin management plans, a report on the steps planned for effecting recovery of costs which will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of that directive.
Article 10(3)
The Commission takes the view that the Republic of Poland has not transposed the obligation set out in Article 10(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, even though transposition of that provision is crucial to achieving the objectives of the water directive.
Article 11(5)
The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has incorrectly transposed the provision contained in Article 11(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC inasmuch as the scope of the corresponding Polish provisions is narrower than in the directive.
Annex V
The Commission takes the view that, although Annex V was in large measure transposed, a number of points in that annex were not satisfactorily transposed in Polish law. The criticism of incorrect transposition relates in particular to the inclusion of estimates with regard to the degree of reliability in the river management plans (points 1.3, 1.3.4 and 2.4.1), the monitoring of habitats and species in protected areas (point 1.3.5) and the exclusion of hydromorphological elements in the classification of water status (point 1.4.2).
Annex VII
The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that it incorrectly transposed points 7.2 to 7.10 of Part A of Annex VII, since the provisions on the national water-protection programme must be distinguished from the river basin management plans within the terms of Annex VII to Directive 2000/60/EC. For that reason, in the Commission’s view, the national provisions adopted by the Polish authorities which constitute transposition of Article 11 of the directive are insufficient to ensure transposition of the requirements set out in points 7.2 to 7.10 of Annex VII.