(AGENPARL) - Roma, 2 Marzo 2023

(AGENPARL) – gio 02 marzo 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case C-723/21 | Stadt Frankfurt (Oder) and FWA:
Drinking water policy: according to Advocate General Medina, Member States are obliged not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration in the quality of a body of water
Approval of a project is possible only where its implementation does not adversely affect the quality of the drinking water provided to the inhabitants in the affected area
Kind regards,
Natassa Mouzouki
Press and Information Unit, Ireland / Malta
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
[logo-en]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press

and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No
41
/23

Luxembourg, 2 March 2023

Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C
–
723/21 | Stadt Frankfurt (Oder)
and
FWA

Drinking w
ater policy: according to
Advocate General Medina
,
Member
States
are obliged
not

to
authorise a project that may caus
e a
the quality
of
a
body
of water

A
pproval of a project is possible only where its implementation does not adversely
affect
the
quality of
the
drinking
water provided to the inhabitants in the affected area

The Regional Office for Mining,

Geology and Raw Materials, Cottbus (Germany) approved
an
application
submitted
by Lausitz Energie Bergbau AG
for the construction of a
n artificial

lake. The lake,
created by flooding

a pit
resulting
from

the extraction of lignite, would have an overflow t
hat
would
flow into the
River
Spree.
Upon creation of the
lake, the
water leaving the overflow will have a significantly higher sulphate concentration than the water already in
the Spree.

The Spree is
one of

the sources Frankfurter Wasser
–

und Abwasserges
ellschaft

(FWA)

uses to produce drinking water

and
the river’s
water
already
has
a high concentration of sulphate
, originating

from closed open
–
cast mines. The
drinking water fed into the supply lines is subject to a
certain
sulphate value,
a requirement
w
hich has so far been
only
narrowly complied with by FWA.
The
City
of

Frankfurt (Oder) and FWA fear that, due to
the planned
inflow into
the water of the Spree
,
that river
’s sulphate concentration will exceed the limit

and

they will have to stop producing
d
rinking water

at that point or fundamentally overhaul
production
.
The
City
of

Frankfurt (Oder) and FWA therefore
brought an action against the

planning approval decision.

T
he Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus (Administrative Court, Cottbus
, Germany
)

refer
red

sev
eral

questions to the Court of
J
ustice for a preliminary ruling

aimed at
ing
for the first time
Article

7(3) of

the Water Framework Directive
1
.

According to that
provision
,
Member States
are to

ensure the necessary protection for the bodies of wa
ter identified
in the production of drinking water
, and they

m
ay establish safeguard zones for those bodies of water.

In today’s Opinion
, Advocate General

Laila Medina

de
livers her
observations
recalling

the importance
that

EU
primary law
attaches
t
o environmental protection.

With

regard

to

the issue of
legal standing,
t
he
Advocate General
posits
that
the legal persons tasked, under
natio
nal law, with the production and purification treatment of drinking water, or those persons who have
been entrusted with such production and purification treatment, have a right to require that a competent
authority
, responsible for approving a project tha
t is liable to have an adverse impact on the purification level of
drinking water
, observe the obligations laid down in
the Water Framework Directive
. If necessary, such legal
persons may do so by bringing an action before a competent court
.

1

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

(OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

Advocate Gene
ral Medina
then
specifies the scope of the Member States’ obligation to
ensure the necessary
protection
of bodies of water used for the

production of drinking water. I
n her
view
,
that obligation has
binding
character

and is relevant with regard to the appr
oval of individual projects.

Member States must take the
necessary measures in order to achieve the specific objectives of the W
ater
F
ramework
D
irective
.
Moreover,

the
use of the terms

‘
the necessary protection
’ in Article 7(3)
,

in light of the prevention
principle, indicate
s

that, before the competent authority approves an individual project, it must first assess that that project
will not have adverse effects on the quality of water bodies used for the production of drinking water
.

Member States must tak
e necessary
protection
measures
with the aim of a
ct
ing

preventively and avoid
ing

reducing

the level of
the
purification treatment
,

th
ereby

ensur
ing

a sustainable use of
water resources
,

and prevent
ing

the deployment of remedi
al actions.
Th
at duty is

that water body is inside or outside safegua
rd zones within the meaning of
the
Water Framework Directive
.

The
Advocate General
next
considers that deterioration in water quality

arises where a pr
oject is liable to exceed the
established p
for drinking water quality
under
the
Drinking Water
Directive
.

2

H
owever, in
a
case
involving

,

a
possible

risk for human health

should be established
.

Finally,
A
dvocate General

Medina
assesses
in deciding

whether
to
approve a

project.
Specifically
,
the authority is obliged
quality of the water

body
used for
the

production of
drinking water
.

Article 7
(2)

of t
he

Water Framework
Directive
adds an additional point

to the balancing of interests under the Water Framework Directive
: the
approval of a project is possible only where its implementation does not affect adv
ersely the water provided
(through the tap) to the inhabitants in the affected area
.
In

the
Advocate General
’s view
,
that
means

that a

in order
to ensure
that com
pliance with the D
rinking Water Directiv
e

is not adversely affected.

NOTE:

The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
o the cases for which they are responsible. The
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States,

in disputes which
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
nati
onal court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of J
ustice.

The
full text

of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
✆
(+352) 4303 3355

2

Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330 5.12.1998, p.
32).