Case C-526/08 European Commission V Grand Duchy Of

Case C-526/08

European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Non bis in idem — Res judicata — Articles 226 EC and 228 EC — Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure — Language of the case — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Non-compliance of national measures with the rules relating to the periods, conditions and techniques of land application of fertiliser — Minimum storage capacity for liquid manure — Prohibition on land application on steeply sloping ground — Techniques ensuring a uniform and effective land application of fertiliser)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 28 January 2010 I - 6154 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 29 June 2010 I - 6180

Summary of the Judgment

1. Procedure — Rules on languages — Presentation of evidence or documents in a language different from the language of the case — Community law (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 29(2)(a) and (3))

2. Procedure — Res judicata — Scope

I - 6151 SUMMARY — CASE C-526/08

3. Environment — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Directive 91/676 (Council Directive 91/676, Arts 4 and 5, Annex II A(1), (2), (5) and (6), and Annex III(1) (1) and (2))

1. Pursuant to Article 29(2)(a) and the in accordance with the request made by first and second subparagraphs of Art the Court Registry. icle 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the written pleadings and the annexes thereto must be submitted in the language of the case. Therefore, documents drafted in another language must (see paras 16, 17, 19, 20) be accompanied by a translation in the language of the case.

2. The principle of res judicata is applicable to infringement proceedings. However, res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily set- However, under the third subparagraph tled by the judicial decision in question. of Article 29(3) of those rules, in the case In the context of infringement proceed- of lengthy documents, translations may ings against a Member State, that State be confined to extracts. Furthermore, the may not validly plead res judicata in the Court may, of its own motion or at the light of an earlier judgment when those request of a party, at any time call for a two cases are not essentially identical in complete or fuller translation. fact and in law, and that in the light of the content of the complaints put forward by the Commission.

Therefore, there is no need to remove from the file the two annexes submitted (see paras 27, 34) in a language other than the language of the case when the action was lodged, the relevant passages of which were translat- ed and reproduced in the application and the translation of which into the language 3. By failing to provide, in its national leg- of the case was produced at a later stage, islation, for periods of prohibition of the

I - 6152 COMMISSION v LUXEMBOURG land application of all types of fertiliser, sloping ground, only the land applica- including chemical fertilisers; by laying tion of organic fertiliser without includ- down that the periods during which the ing chemical fertiliser in that prohibition; land application of certain types of fer and by failing to lay down rules covering tiliser is prohibited do not apply to grass- the procedures for the land application, land; by allowing the competent minis- including rate and uniformity of spread- ters discretion to provide exceptions to ing, of both chemical fertilizer and live- the prohibition periods in the event of stock manure, that will maintain nutrient extreme climatic conditions or in the case losses to water at an acceptable level, a of exceptional events affecting farms; by Member State fails to fulfil its obliga- failing to provide, concerning existing fa- tions under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive cilities for livestock manure that have not 91/676 concerning the protection of been modernised, for rules relating to the waters against pollution caused by capacity of storage vessels for livestock nitrates from agricultural sources, in con manure or that that capacity must exceed junction with Annex II A(1), (2), (5) that required throughout the longest and (6), and Annex III(1)(1) and (2) period during which land application in thereto. the vulnerable zone is prohibited, except where it can be demonstrated that any quantity of manure in excess of the actual storage capacity will be disposed of in a manner which will not cause harm to the (see paras 54, 55, 58, 60, 62-66, 68, environment; by prohibiting, on steeply 70, 71, operative part)

I - 6153