The effectiveness of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services jeopardized by the European Court of Justice - Annotations on the judgment in C-525/12

Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 80-94

  Lindhout, P E ^a   Van Rijswick, H F M W ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Article 9 Water Framework Directive; Cost Recovery; Economic Instruments; Polluter Pays Principle; Water Services; Water Uses

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926158818     PISSN: 16137272     EISSN: 18760104     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01201006     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. See on the consequences of a very broad interpretation of water services: P.E. Lindhout, 'A wider notion of the scope of water services in EU water law, Boosting payment for water related ecosystem services to ensure sustainable water management?', Utrecht Law Review, (2012).
2. JEEPL 10.4 (2013) 355-377.
3. The paper is part of a special issue on cost recovery for water services and includes also contributions from the Netherlands: P.E. Lindhout, Application of the Cost Recovery Principle on Water Services in the Netherlands, JEEPL 10.4 (2013) 309-332 and Portugal
4. Alexandra Aragão, Water Pricing and Cost Recovery in Water Services in Portugal, JEEPL 10.4 (2013) 333-354.
5. See on the increasing importance of the travaux preparatoires for interpretation: K. Lenaerts & J. Gutiérrez Fons, 'To Say What The Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice', AEL 2013/9.
6. C-525/12 European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany ECLI:EU:C:2014:2202, para. 48.
7. These are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden (European Commission, Press release IP/12/536).
8. See for an extensive outline of the rationale for cost recovery: W. Howarth, 'Cost recovery for water services and the polluter pays principle', ERA Forum (2009), para. 2.
9. In other cases the ECJ in a contextual interpretation approach does refer explicitly to the purposes as included in the directive concerned; for example C-195/12 Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA, 26 September 2013, para. 54-55.
10. Illustrative regarding methods of interpretation in this respect, see C-195/12 Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA, 26 September 2013, (rapporteur A. Prechal), para. 54-55, where the Court of Justice, with regard to the contextual interpretation of subject and purpose of the legal act explicitly starts at the purpose as defined in the legal act. Considerations of the preamble support the interpretation of the defined purpose to that end.
11. See P.E. Lindhout 'A wider notion of the scope of water services in EU water law, Boosting payment for water related ecosystem services to ensure sustainable water management?', Utrecht Law Review, (2012)
12. See also E. Gawel, W. Köck et al. 'Reform der Abwasserabgabe: Optionen, Szenarien und Auswirkungen einer fortzuentwickelnden Regelung' Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Raktorsicherheit, Texte 55/2014, p. 89
13. Furthermore E. Gawel, 'Cost recovery for 'water services' / Critical review of the EU Court of Justice conclusions of Advocate General Jääskinen in case C-525/12', Europäische Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, 19 August 2014, considering: 'Rather, the responsibility for costs pursuant to Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive is a fundamental principle of order in a world of scarce resources, and as such it is an independent part of the framework of order established by the Water Framework Directive as a whole, as per Article 1 of the Directive.'
14. Not putting a price on a scarce resource like water can be regarded as an environmentally-harmful subsidy, Blueprint, com (2012) 673.
15. C-525/12 Commission vs Federal State of Germany ECLI:EU:C:2014:2202, para. 56-57.
16. C-14/06 and C-295/06 European Parliament and the Kingdom of Denmark vs Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:C:2008:176, paras. 71-75
17. C-57/94 Commission of the European Communities vs Italian Republic, ECLI:EU:C:1995:150, para. 23
18. C-375/05 Geuting ECLI:EU:C:2007:574, para. 52.
19. See forthcoming P.E. Lindhout, Cost recovery as a policy instrument to achieve sustainable and equitable water use in Europe and the Netherlands, Utrecht University, PhD Thesis, expected 2015.
20. C-187/87 Saarland a.o., ECLI:EU:C:1998:439, para. 19
21. C-434/97 Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:2000:98, para. 21
22. C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon a.o., ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, para. 47.
23. Lenaerts & Gutiérrez Fons consider in respect of a contextual interpretative approach by the ECJ: 'This means that each provision of EU law must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee that there is no conflict between it and the general scheme of which it is part. As a token of rationality, the EU legislater must also avoid useless duplication. Accordingly, no provision of EU law should be redundant. Instead, each and every provision of law must be interpreted in light of its 'effet utile'; K. Lenaerts & J. Gutiérrez Fons, 'To Say What The Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice', AEL 2013/9, p. 14.