7. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Characteristics of Dutch water management
2. WFD implementation in the Netherlands
3. Pending breach of EU law
4. Qualification of Article 4 WFD
10. THE NETHERLANDS:
CHARACTERISTICS
• A delta of rivers, 18% of the land
area consists of surface water
• Países Bajos: land taken from the
sea. Over 3000 ‘polders’ must be
drained, over 50% of the country
threatened by floods
11. THE NETHERLANDS:
CHARACTERISTICS
• A delta of rivers, 18% of the land
area consists of surface water
• Países Bajos: land taken from the
sea. Over 3000 ‘polders’ must be
drained, over 50% of the country
threatened by floods
• High population density (400/km2);
11 million people live in an area with
a high flood risk
12. THE NETHERLANDS:
CHARACTERISTICS
• A delta of rivers, 18% of the land
area consists of surface water
• Países Bajos: land taken from the
sea. Over 3000 ‘polders’ must be
drained, over 50% of the country
threatened by floods
• High population density (400/km2);
11 million people live in an area with
a high flood risk
• Hence: extensive flooding protection
(3291km of dikes, 268km of dunes,
808 artificial water works)
13. THE NETHERLANDS:
CHARACTERISTICS
• A delta of rivers, 18% of the land
area consists of surface water
• Países Bajos: land taken from the
sea. Over 3000 ‘polders’ must be
drained, over 50% of the country
threatened by floods
• High population density (400/km2);
11 million people live in an area with
a high flood risk
• Hence: extensive flooding protection
(3291km of dikes, 268km of dunes,
808 artificial water works)
• A long history of water management
14. THE NETHERLANDS:
CHARACTERISTICS
• A delta of rivers, 18% of the land
area consists of surface water
• Países Bajos: land taken from the
sea. Over 3000 ‘polders’ must be
drained, over 50% of the country
threatened by floods
• High population density (400/km2);
11 million people live in an area with
a high flood risk
• Hence: extensive flooding protection
(3291km of dikes, 268km of dunes,
808 artificial water works)
• A long history of water management
15. THE NETHERLANDS:
CHARACTERISTICS
• A delta of rivers, 18% of the land
area consists of surface water
• Países Bajos: land taken from the
sea. Over 3000 ‘polders’ must be
drained, over 50% of the country
threatened by floods
• High population density (400/km2);
11 million people live in an area with
a high flood risk
• Hence: extensive flooding protection
(3291km of dikes, 268km of dunes,
808 artificial water works)
• A long history of water management
20. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
21. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
22. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
• Provinces
23. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
• Provinces
Strategic regional planning, coordination & supervision of municipalities
24. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
• Provinces
Strategic regional planning, coordination & supervision of municipalities
• Municipalities
25. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
• Provinces
Strategic regional planning, coordination & supervision of municipalities
• Municipalities
Urban water management
26. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
• Provinces
Strategic regional planning, coordination & supervision of municipalities
• Municipalities
Urban water management
• Water boards
27. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Water management is a shared responsibility of the following authorities:
• Minister of Infrastructure and Environment
Larger water systems, including the marine environment
• Provinces
Strategic regional planning, coordination & supervision of municipalities
• Municipalities
Urban water management
• Water boards
Regional water system and groundwater
30. WFD IMPLEMENTATION
The WFD is implemented in:
• One integrated Water Act (Waterwet, good status: Article 2)
• One Order in Council (Waterbesluit)
• One Ministerial Order (Waterregeling)
• (Water plans (policy documents: self binding & hierarchical binding))
The environmental quality standards are based on:
• Environment Management Act (Wet milieubeheer, good status: Article 5)
• Order in Council (Besluit kwaliteitseisen en monitoring water 2009)
31. IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT?
So far, implementation is right in time
• Article 5 (description of river basins and human impacts)
• Designation of water bodies (very few though)
• River basin management plans (December 2009)
• Programmes of Measures (December 2009)
• Environmental quality standards (December 2009)
32. IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT?
So far, implementation is right in time
• Article 5 (description of river basins and human impacts)
• Designation of water bodies (very few though)
• River basin management plans (December 2009)
• Programmes of Measures (December 2009)
• Environmental quality standards (December 2009)
Future compliance?
38. ARTICLE 4: DIFFERENT VIEWS
Country Obligation of...
Netherlands First: best efforts, now: results
Germany (Nordrhein-Westfalen) Results
France Results
UK (England & Wales) Results (probably)
Denmark ?
Luxembourg Results
Belgium (Flanders) Best efforts (probably)
Belgium (Wallonia) Best efforts
Italy Results (probably)
Romania Results (probably)
Spain Results
Portugal Best efforts
39. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
40. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures
41. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• Allreasonable measures
• Targeted action
42. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures
• Targeted action
• sincerely
43. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures
• Targeted action
• sincerely
• coherent whole
44. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures
• Targeted action
• sincerely
• coherent whole
• Of no importance whether
result is actually achieved
45. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures • Achievethe result within
• Targeted action the deadline
• sincerely
• coherent whole
• Of no importance whether
result is actually achieved
46. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures • Achieve the result within
• Targeted action the deadline
• sincerely • Reasonableness doesn’t
seem to play a role
• coherent whole
• Of no importance whether
result is actually achieved
47. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures • Achieve the result within
• Targeted action the deadline
• sincerely • Reasonableness doesn’t
seem to play a role
• coherent whole
• Exemptions
• Of no importance whether
result is actually achieved
48. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:
• All reasonable measures • Achieve the result within
• Targeted action the deadline
• sincerely • Reasonableness doesn’t
seem to play a role
• coherent whole
• Exemptions
• Of no importance whether
• (Absolute physical
result is actually achieved
impossibility)
49. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO OBLIGATIONS: ECJ
Obligation of best efforts: Obligation of results:e?
na bl
• All reasonable measures • Achieveea so within
the result
i sr
• Targeted action at
the deadline
whReasonableness doesn’t
• sincerely in es •
te rm seem to play a role
• coherent e
d whole
W ho • Exemptions
• Of no importance whether
• (Absolute physical
result is actually achieved
impossibility)
52. TWO TYPES OF OBLIGATIONS
• The wording indicates that Member States take the necessary measures to
achieve some required water status
53. TWO TYPES OF OBLIGATIONS
• The wording indicates that Member States take the necessary measures to
achieve some required water status
• The directive poses a deadline to reaching this water status, which is longer
than the time needed to transpose the directive in order to enable Member
States to actually achieve the goal
54. TWO TYPES OF OBLIGATIONS
• The wording indicates that Member States take the necessary measures to
achieve some required water status
• The directive poses a deadline to reaching this water status, which is longer
than the time needed to transpose the directive in order to enable Member
States to actually achieve the goal
• The directive indicates several exclusive exemptions which would excuse
Member States to not reach the required water status within the deadline
55. TWO TYPES OF OBLIGATIONS
• The wording indicates that Member States take the necessary measures to
achieve some required water status
• The directive poses a deadline to reaching this water status, which is longer
than the time needed to transpose the directive in order to enable Member
States to actually achieve the goal
• The directive indicates several exclusive exemptions which would excuse
Member States to not reach the required water status within the deadline
• The required result should be very precise and specific, formulated in clear
and unequivocal terms and supplemented by detailed requirements
56. ARTICLE 4 (1) WFD
In making operational the programmes of measures specified in the river basin management plans:
(a) for surface waters
(i) Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water, subject to the
application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8;
(ii) Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, subject to the application of subparagraph (iii) for artificial and
heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this
Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph
4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;
(iii) Member States shall protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential
and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions
laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6
and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;
(iv) Member States shall implement the necessary measures in accordance with Article 16(1) and (8), with the aim of progressively reducing
pollution from priority substances and ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances
without prejudice to the relevant international agreements referred to in Article 1 for the parties concerned;
(b) for groundwater
(i) Member States shall implement the measures necessary to prevent or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater and to prevent the
deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater, subject to the application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8 of this
Article and subject to the application of Article 11(3)(j);
(ii) Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater, ensure a balance between abstraction and recharge of groundwater,
with the aim of achieving good groundwater status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the
provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application of
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8 of this Article and subject to the application of Article 11(3)(j);
(iii) Member States shall implement the measures necessary to reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any
pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity in order progressively to reduce pollution of groundwater.
Measures to achieve trend reversal shall be implemented in accordance with paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of Article 17, taking into account the applicable
standards set out in relevant Community legislation, subject to the application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8;
(c) for protected areas
Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive,
unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established.
57. ARTICLE 4 (1) WFD
1. Prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water
2. Good surface water chemical status in 2015
3. Good surface water ecological status in 2015
4. Good ecological potential of all artificial and heavily modified bodies of
water in 2015
5. A progressive reduction of pollution from priority substances and
ceasing out emissions etc
6. Prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater
7. Good groundwater chemical status in 2015
8. Good groundwater quantitative status in 2015
9. Reverse any significant and sustained upward trend of pollution
10. Achieve compliance with all standards and objectives for protected
areas
59. CONCLUSIONS
Obligation Deadline Exemptions Wording Conclusion
1 x
2 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements in the form of limit values Obligation of results
3 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements (which are set at the Member State level) Obligation of results
4 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements (which are set at the Member State level) Obligation of results
Obligation of best
5 Not formulated in clear and unequivocal terms; vague (‘progressive reduction’)
efforts
6 x
7 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements (except for ‘significant damage’) in the form of limit values Obligation of results
No intrusions: results;
8 x x No detailed requirement (‘long term’, ‘significant damage’), except for the requirement of no intrusions
rest undecided
probably one of best
9 x No clear and unequivocal terms; vague (‘progressive reduction’)
efforts
10 x ? See obligations 1-9 See obligations 1-9
60. ARTICLE 4 (1) WFD
1. Prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water
2. Good surface water chemical status in 2015
3. Good surface water ecological status in 2015
4. Good ecological potential of all artificial and heavily modified bodies of
water in 2015
5. A progressive reduction of pollution from priority substances and
ceasing out emissions etc
6. Prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater
7. Good groundwater chemical status in 2015
8. Good groundwater quantitative status in 2015
9. Reverse any significant and sustained upward trend of pollution
10. Achieve compliance with all standards and objectives for protected
areas
61. CONCLUSIONS
Obligation Deadline Exemptions Wording Conclusion
1 x
2 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements in the form of limit values Obligation of results
3 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements (which are set at the Member State level) Obligation of results
4 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements (which are set at the Member State level) Obligation of results
Obligation of best
5 Not formulated in clear and unequivocal terms; vague (‘progressive reduction’)
efforts
6 x
7 x x Precise and specific results; detailed requirements (except for ‘significant damage’) in the form of limit values Obligation of results
No intrusions: results;
8 x x No detailed requirement (‘long term’, ‘significant damage’), except for the requirement of no intrusions
rest undecided
probably one of best
9 x No clear and unequivocal terms; vague (‘progressive reduction’)
efforts
10 x ? See obligations 1-9 See obligations 1-9
63. QUESTIONS
Question to you:
What does your Member State think
about the legal qualification of Article 4?
Editor's Notes
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
Water management in Netherlands\nmore specifically: implementing WFD\nHere you see pictures of Holland\nCountry with lots of influence from water\n
two parts\n1&2 - 3&4\n\n\n
two parts\n1&2 - 3&4\n\n\n
two parts\n1&2 - 3&4\n\n\n
two parts\n1&2 - 3&4\n\n\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
1580\n1700\n2000\n\n>3 million people\n
This spring dryest ever\nCouple years ago: Wilnis\nwater hierarchy (‘verdringingsreeks’)\n-safety & prevention of irreparable damage\n-public services: drinking water & energy\n-high end use: irrigation, industry, cities\n-other use\n\n
\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
Red ones: WFD competent authorities\nmunicipalities: sewage treatment\n
\n
act: shared competence of government and parliament\nOiC: government\nMO: one minister\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
\n
\n
Fear of obligations of results\n
2008 survey\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
come from Roman law\nnational private law\nECJ -> European concepts\nelementen noemen\n\nFirst, I tried to find a definition of the terms. Although these terms did already exist in the national private law of several Member States for quite some years, it is important to note that the ECJ constructed its own view on this distinction.\n\nAccording to the ECJ, an obligation of best efforts requires Member States to take all reasonably possible measures to achieve the result. In other words, they have to do everything which is in their power to do, unless it would be unreasonable. This entails taking targeted action which in turn requires that the measures be taken sincerely to specifically reach the result and to form a coherent whole. It is insufficient to take some unrelated measures which each do contribute in some way to the target, but are actually meant to achieve other goals. No, measures should be specifically designed to reach the goal and they should interlink with an underlying plan in mind.\n\nIf then, after a Member State has done all this, the result is not achieved, the ECJ considers the Member State to be in compliance with the specific obligation.\n\nNot so for obligations of results. The only thing that counts there, is if the result was actually achieved or not. If the obligation to reach good chemical status of all surface water turns out to be an obligation of results, and in 2015 not all maximum allowed concentrations are reached, the respective Member State is in breach of EU law.\n\nIt seems that reasonableness doesn’t play a role here. What if it is extremely difficult or costly, or maybe impossible to guarantee that in 2015 there will be an X amount of salmon in the Rhine? Woulnd’t it be unreasonable to hold Member States to that?\n\nWell, reasonableness does play a role, also when it comes to obligations of results. Obligations of results are typically accompanied by detailed exemptions which would excuse the Member States for not reaching the goal. One could say that the reasonableness of the obligation is incorporated within these exemptions, sometimes explicitly. It is, for instance, in some circumstances allowed to delay the deadline of reaching good ecological status, or to suffice with lower standards.\n\nOne more thing. In its case law, the ECJ continuously leaves open the possibility that a Member State is also excused for not achieving the result, in case it is absolutely materially impossible for that Member State to reach the result. However, such a plea has never been excepted and it is unclear what the requirements for such a plea actually are.\n\nSo in my view, obligations of best efforts and obligations of results are not so much different. They both aim to let Member States achieve a certain result. And obligations of result are no piece of cake either. It’s a serious obligation to do all that is reasonably possible. The principal difference is in the excuses Member States can use. In case of obligations of results, only a limited number of excuses is allowed. If it is not in the directive, then it is not a valid excuse. Obligations of best efforts give a bit more room for Member States to come up with their own tailor made excuses, because they are not restricted to a limited set.\n\nOne could say that, with obligations of results, it is the European legislator who determines in advance what is reasonable or not, whereas with obligations of best efforts, it is the Member State in dialogue with the ECJ, who determine ad hoc what is reasonable.\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
bij punt 2: aansluiten bij opinie dat maatregelen nemen doel is. Was ook niet zo bij oudere directives\n\nOK, so now we know what obligations of results and obligations of best efforts are, the question is: how do we recognize them? How to tell what kind of obligations Article 4 contains?\n\nWell, the first one is easy: if the ECJ has already ruled that an obligation is one of best efforts or of results, then we know. The difficulty there is, however, that the ECJ is not always very explicit in this. Often, the ECJ is clearly of the opinion that an obligation is one of results, but it doen’t actually say so.\n\nSecond, I’ve observed case law on older obligations in environmental directives and I’ve distinguished several factors that make the ECJ conclude that an obligation is one of results. I will hereafter use these factors in determining the legal status of Article 4.\n\nFirst, the wording of obligations of result mostly indicates that Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve some result.\n\nSecond, the Court tends to explicitly mention the fact that a deadline is involved. This, therefore,is an indication that the obligation is one of results. This makes sence, because, without a deadline, it would be quite impossible to determine wheter the result is achieved or not.\n\nThirdly, the precense of exclusive exemptions indicates that we are dealing with an obligation of results. The court continuously mentions this, but to me it is yet unclear if the absence of exemptions automatically means that the reasonableness is to be filled in by the Court, or that the obligation is in itself already determined reasonable and still one of results.\n\nFourthly, the wording of the obligation matters. According to the Court, precise and specific results, which are formulated in clear and unequivocal terms and supplied by detailed requirements, indicate the presence of an obligation of results.\n
OK, here we see one more time Article 4 paragraph 1. To start with our scheme: has the ECJ already judged the qualification of this text?\n\nThe answer is: not really. Only indirectly, when giving a judgenment on Article 2, has the Court said that the combination of the two Articles poses obligations on Member States which are precise and specific and which involve a deadline. One could say that the Court seems to be of the opinion that the Article contains obligations of results. In my view however, these indications are too vague. Moreover, Article 4 is very diverse. It is simply impossible to give a qualification on so high a level.\n\n
Instead, I have split the Article up into 10 different obligations.\n\nNoemen!!!\n\nFor every obligation, I shall now look for the factors that the ECJ used in previous case law to see, if I conclude anything regarding the legal qualification.\n
