Commission of the European Communities, applicant, v. French Republic, defendant

Resumen

The Commission of the European Communities requested the Court to declare that: – by failing to take all appropriate measures to prevent, abate and combat heavy and prolonged pollution of the Étang de Berre, and – by failing to take due account of the requirements of Annex III to the Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from land-based sources, approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 83/101/EEC of 28 February 1983, the French Republic had failed to fulfill its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 8 of the Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution, approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 77/585/EEC of 25 July 1977, under Article 6(1) and (3) of the Protocol and under Article 300(7) EC. The Étang de Berre was a saltwater marsh of 15 000 hectares which communicated directly with the Mediterranean Sea through the Caronte Canal. The volume of water in the Étang de Berre was 900 000 000 m3. The French Government submitted that the Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the action on the ground that the obligations which the French authorities were alleged to have infringed did not fall within the scope of Community law. It stated that no Community directive regulated discharges of fresh water and alluvia into a saltwater marsh, so that the provisions of the Convention and the Protocol that covered such discharges did not fall within Community competence. The Court emphasized that the Convention and the Protocol were concluded by the Community and its Member States under shared competence. In accordance with case-law, mixed agreements concluded by the Community, its Member States and non-member countries had the same status in the Community legal order as purely Community agreements in so far as the provisions fell within the scope of Community competence. In ensuring compliance with commitments arising from an agreement concluded by the Community institutions, the Member States fulfilled, within the Community system, an obligation in relation to the Community, which had assumed responsibility for the due performance of the agreement. In the present case, the provisions of the Convention and the Protocol covered a field which fell within Community competence. Environmental protection, which was the subject-matter of the Convention and the Protocol, was in very large measure regulated by Community legislation. The Court therefore had jurisdiction to assess a Member State’s compliance with those articles in proceedings brought before it under Article 226 EC. In conclusion, given the strict nature of the obligation set out in Article 6(1) of the Protocol, the Court considered the complaints to be well founded. The application was granted.

Texto completo

form.pl

Referencias

Cita

Convenio para la protección del mar mediterráno contra la contaminación

Tratado | Multilateral | Barcelona | Feb 16, 1976

Palabra clave: Zona de pesca prohibida, Temporadas, Institución, Manejo y conservación pesquera, Recopilación de datos/informes, Aparejos de pesca/métodos de pesca, Uso sostenible, Volumen admisible de captura

Fuente: IUCN (ID: TRE-000543)

Protocolo sobre la protección del mar Mediterráneo contra la contaminación de origen terrestre

Tratado | Multilateral | Athens | May 17, 1980

Palabra clave: Monitoreo, Fortalecimiento de la capacidad, Normas, Inventarios, Sustancias peligrosas, Reforma legal/armonización/desregulación, Zona marítima, EIA, Solución de controversias, Contaminación marina (desde tierra), Recopilación de datos/informes, Relaciones internacionales/cooperación, Emisiones, Contaminación marina, Investigación, Responsabilidad/indemnización, Normas sobre emisión, Fondo marino profundo

Fuente: IUCN (ID: TRE-000544)