You are on page 1of 1

5.9.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 278/27

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Article 7 of the Directive. However, the Commission
also points out that the national decision to adopt an
integrated strategy to combat pollution rather than
Under Article 20 of Directive 78/686/EEC, Member States evaluating the situation substance by substance makes it
which require their own nationals to complete a difficult to verify whether Article 7 is being complied
preparatory training period in order to become eligible for with, in particular as regards the 99 priority substances, if
appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security the information forwarded to the Commission is not set
scheme could, for a period of eight years following out in an orderly and transparent or at least non-
notification of the Directive, impose a training period of a contradictory fashion.
maximum of six months on nationals of other Member
States. That eight-year period expired on 28 July 1986.
However, under Article 17 of the Zulassungsordnung für In any event, the Commission has reason to conclude that
Vertragszahnärzte (Rules on Admission for Appointed the Portuguese Republic has not completed identification
Dental Practitioners) the German authorities require of the substances existing in Portugal which appear on
applicants from other Member States to attend one or the list of 99 substances and, in relation to those which
three-day courses, in which linguistic proficiency and it has identified, it has not adopted genuine reduction
knowledge of German social security law are also tested. programmes and has only partially set quality objectives.
In that respect, the Commission considers that the few
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1. voluntary agreements with some industrial sectors are
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10. not binding and cannot in any event be regarded as
programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the
Directive. But even if they were, they do not cover all the
industrial sectors and still less do they reduce pollution
deriving from various sources.

Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the In addition, as far as the plans for de-pollution of the
European Communities against the Portuguese Republic River AÂ gueda, Bacia do Guadiana and Bacia de Alcanena
(Case C-261/98) are concerned, although they may contribute to improving
water quality, they do not constitute, from the point of
(98/C 278/48) view either of geographical cover or of content, timetabled
programmes for the reduction of pollution from the 99
priority substances, with clear quality objectives and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought emission standards.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho, (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
to the Commission summaries of the programmes for (Case C-262/98)
the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
objectives and the corresponding results in respect of (98/C 278/49)
the 99 priority substances mentioned in the first indent
of List II in the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/
EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
environment of the Community (1), the Portuguese on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
Article 7 of that Directive and the third paragraph of Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: that the Court should:

The Commission recognises that the Portuguese Ð declare that, by failing to communicate the laws,
authorities have been making efforts to comply with regulations and administrative measures necessary in