1. The present request for a preliminary ruling, submitted by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), concerns the interpretation of Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of 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. ( 2 )
Provisional text
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RANTOS
delivered on 11 June 2026 ( 1 )
Case C ‑ 391/25
Land Niedersachsen,
Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
v
Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.,
in the presence of:
Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany))
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – EU action in the field of water policy – Directive 2000/60/EC – Groundwater – Article 13 – River basin management plan – Article 4 – Environmental objectives – Extension of the deadline for achieving the objectives – Conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) – Obligation to state reasons – Non-compliance – Legal consequences )
Introduction
1. The present request for a preliminary ruling, submitted by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), concerns the interpretation of Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of 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. ( 2 )
2. More precisely, the referring court asks, in essence, whether those provisions, which lay down a number of conditions under which an extension of the deadline may by granted for the phased achievement of the environmental objectives applicable to bodies of water, must be interpreted as meaning that a failure to provide adequate reasons and sufficient explanations may render such an extension without legal effect, where that extension is provided for in a river basin management plan adopted on the basis of that directive with a view to achieving the necessary improvements in the status of several bodies of groundwater in that river basin.
3. That question was raised in proceedings on an appeal on a point of law ( Revision ) before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) by the Länder of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia (‘the Länder ’) against the decision of the Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court, Germany) upholding the action brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. against those Länder , on the ground that they had not adequately explained the reasons for extending the deadline for achieving the necessary improvements of the status of several bodies of groundwater in the German part of the EMS river basin.
4. The present case will lead the Court to interpret, for the first time, the conditions set out in Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 and to clarify the margin of discretion of the competent national authorities when they decide to extend the deadline for achieving the environmental objectives set by that directive, in particular the objective of improving the status of bodies of water. That issue is particularly sensitive in the light of the pressures on aquatic resources and the number of bodies of water subject to deadline extensions in the European Union. ( 3 )
Legal framework
E uropean U nion law
Directive 2000/60
5. As set out in recitals 25, 26 and 30 of Directive 2000/60:
‘(25) Common definitions of the status of water in terms of quality and, where relevant for the purpose of the environmental protection, quantity should be established. Environmental objectives should be set to ensure that good status of surface water and groundwater is achieved throughout the Community and that deterioration in the status of waters is prevented at Community level.
(26) Member States should aim to achieve the objective of at least good water status by defining and implementing the necessary measures within integrated programmes of measures, taking into account existing Community requirements. Where good water status already exists, it should be maintained. For groundwater, in addition to the requirements of good status, any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant should be identified and reversed.
…
(30) In order to ensure a full and consistent implementation of this Directive any extensions of timescale should be made on the basis of appropriate, evident and transparent criteria and be justified by the Member States in the river basin management plans.’
6. Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Purpose’, is worded as follows:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:
(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
…
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
…’
7. Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Environmental objectives’, states:
‘1. In making operational the programmes of measures specified in the river basin management plans:
…
(b) for groundwater
…
(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);
…
4. The time limits laid down in paragraph 1 may be extended for the purposes of phased achievement of the objectives for bodies of water, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water when all the following conditions are met:
(a) Member States determine that all necessary improvements in the status of bodies of water cannot reasonably be achieved within the timescales set out in that paragraph for at least one of the following reasons:
(i) the scale of improvements required can only be achieved in phases exceeding the timescale, for reasons of technical feasibility;
(ii) completing the improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately expensive;
(iii) natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the body of water.
(b) Extension of the deadline, and the reasons for it, are specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan required under Article 13.
(c) Extensions shall be limited to a maximum of two further updates of the river basin management plan except in cases where the natural conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within this period.
(d) A summary of the measures required under Article 11 which are envisaged as necessary to bring the bodies of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, the reasons for any significant delay in making these measures operational, and the expected timetable for their implementation are set out in the river basin management plan. A review of the implementation of these measures and a summary of any additional measures shall be included in updates of the river basin management plan.
…
7. Member States will not be in breach of this Directive when:
– failure to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status or, where relevant, good ecological potential or to prevent deterioration in the status of a body of surface water or groundwater is the result of new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, or
– failure to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surface water is the result of new sustainable human development activities
and all the following conditions are met:
…
(b) the reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan required under Article 13 and the objectives are reviewed every six years;
…’
8. Article 11 of that directive, entitled ‘Programme of measures’, provides:
‘1. Each Member State shall ensure the establishment for each river basin district, or for the part of an international river basin district within its territory, of a programme of measures, …, in order to achieve the objectives established under Article 4. Such programmes of measures may make reference to measures following from legislation adopted at national level and covering the whole of the territory of a Member State. Where appropriate, a Member State may adopt measures applicable to all river basin districts and/or the portions of international river basin districts falling within its territory.
2. Each programme of measures shall include the “basic” measures specified in paragraph 3 and, where necessary, “supplementary” measures.
…’
9. According to Article 13 of Directive 2000/60, entitled ‘River basin management plans’:
‘1. Member States shall ensure that a river basin management plan is produced for each river basin district lying entirely within their territory.
2. In the case of an international river basin district falling entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan. Where such an international river basin management plan is not produced, Member States shall produce river basin management plans covering at least those parts of the international river basin district falling within their territory to achieve the objectives of this Directive.
…
6. River basin management plans shall be published at the latest nine years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.
7. River basin management plans shall be reviewed and updated at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter.’
10. Annex V to that directive includes point 2.3.2, entitled ‘Definition of good groundwater chemical status’, in which the table under the heading ‘General’ states, in particular, that ‘the chemical composition of the groundwater body is such that the concentrations of pollutants … do not exceed the quality standards applicable under other relevant Community legislation in accordance with Article 17 …’.
11. Pursuant to Article 25 of that directive, entitled ‘Entry into force’, the directive entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
Directive 2006/118/EC
12. Article 1 of Directive 2006/118/EC, ( 4 ) entitled ‘Purpose’, provides, in paragraph 1(a):
‘This Directive establishes specific measures as provided for in Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60/EC in order to prevent and control groundwater pollution. These measures include in particular:
(a) criteria for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status’.
13. Article 3 of Directive 2006/118, entitled ‘Criteria for assessing groundwater chemical status’, states, in paragraph 1(a), that ‘for the purposes of the assessment of the chemical status of a body or a group of bodies of groundwater pursuant to Section 2.3 of Annex V to [Directive 2000/60], Member States shall use the following criteria: (a) groundwater quality standards as referred to in Annex I;’
14. Annex I to Directive 2006/118, entitled ‘Groundwater quality standards’, includes point 1, which sets at ‘50 mg/l’ the quality standard for the pollutant ‘Nitrates’.
National law
15. The Gesetz zur Ordnung des Wasserhaushalts (Law on the management of water resources) of 31 July 2009 (‘the WHG’), ( 5 ) in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, ( 6 ) transposes Directive 2000/60 into German law.
16. Paragraph 5(1) of the Verordnung zum Schutz des Grundwassers (Groundwater Protection Ordinance) of 9 November 2010 (‘the GrwV’), ( 7 ) as last amended by the Ordinance of 12 October 2022, ( 8 ) read in conjunction with line 1 of Annex II to the GrwV, transposes Directive 2006/118 into German law, and sets at ‘50 mg/l’ the quality standard for the pollutant ‘Nitrates (NO³)’.
The main proceedings, the question referred for a preliminary ruling and the procedure before the Court
17. The Ems river basin district covers an area of approximately 18 000 km 2 . Although the main part of that river basin lies within German territory, including 70% in Lower Saxony and 30% in North Rhine-Westphalia, part of it lies within the territory of the Netherlands and another part, the Ems-Dollart area, in the Ems estuary, is managed jointly by Germany and the Netherlands. In addition, that river basin includes 42 bodies of groundwater, 40 of which lie within German territory.
18. In order to manage the German part of the Ems river basin, the Länder concluded, in 2007, the Verwaltungsvereinbarung über die Bildung einer Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Ems zur Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in der Flussgebietseinheit Ems (Administrative Agreement on the formation of an Ems river basin community for the implementation of [Directive 2000/60]). In order to achieve the environmental objectives set for that river basin, an international management plan and a national action programme for the 2010 to 2015 management period were published in 2009 and then carried forward for the 2015 to 2021 and 2021 to 2027 management periods.
19. It is apparent from the international management plan for 2021 to 2027 that, at the beginning of that period, the threshold value applicable to nitrates was exceeded in 13 of the 40 bodies of groundwater within German territory. As regards those bodies of water, the competent authorities had recourse to extensions of deadlines in that international management plan, which provided, in essence, that, because of the ‘delay in restoring water quality’, the objectives of good chemical status were to be achieved only ‘after 2045’.
20. On 20 November 2019, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, a recognised environmental protection association, brought an action before the Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court), claiming that the Länder had not correctly implemented their water management obligations in the Ems river basin. More specifically, in establishing the programme of measures, those Länder had not taken the measures required in order to achieve the environmental objectives applicable to groundwater, as provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2000/60. Those objectives include, inter alia, achieving good chemical status of the bodies of groundwater in respect of nitrates (‘the enhancement obligation’), preventing their deterioration and reversing any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of nitrate in groundwater.
21. The Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court) upheld the action. It considered, with regard to the enhancement obligation, that the Länder had not adequately explained the reasons for extending the deadline for achieving the management objectives. ( 9 ) In its view, the requirement to state reasons is of ‘substantial importance’, ( 10 ) so that failure to provide adequate reasons renders the extension of the deadline without effect and prevents the achievement of the corresponding management objectives.
22. The Länder lodged an appeal on a point of law ( Revision) before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), the referring court. In support of their appeal, they maintain that the extension of the deadline and the grounds on which it is based were set out, for each of the bodies of water, in the annexes to the international management plan. Furthermore, an inadequate explanation in that management plan does not, in their contention, render the extensions of the deadline in question without effect.
23. As regards the latter point of law concerning the possible lack of effect, the referring court is uncertain as to the interpretation of the requirements of EU law.
24. In the first place, that court considers that, in this instance, the extensions of the deadline provided for in the international management plan for the Ems river basin do not comply with the requirements set out in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60.
25. First, as regards Article 4(4)(b) of that directive, which states that extension of the deadline, and the reasons for it, must be specifically set out and explained in the management plan, that court observes that, while the German legislature did not employ that form of words in the WHG, point 2 of the second sentence of Paragraph 83(2) of the WHG must be interpreted in conformity with Article 4(4)(b) and take account of the requirements laid down therein. In that regard, the referring court observes that it follows from the wording of that provision, read in conjunction with the introductory part of Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60, which provides that any extension of the deadline must relate to an ‘affected body of water’, that, when a Member State relies on ‘natural conditions’, within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a)(iii) of that directive, as the reason for extending the deadline, it must set out, for each body of water, the nature of those conditions and the causes making it impossible to meet the statutory deadline for achieving the threshold value. The statement of reasons and the explanation provided should be both comprehensible and capable of verification. In that regard, the referring court considers that, in order to limit the administrative burden, reference may be made to documents made accessible by means of a link. In so doing, it would not be inconceivable for the same explanation to be provided for several bodies of water. In such a case, however, the Member State would have to make clear that the same conditions and causal chain apply to a specified group of bodies of water, which must be expressly identified, and it would be required to explain why that is so. Those conditions would enable the public and the European Commission to understand the circumstances in which the deadline was extended without having to consult further sources.
26. In this case, the referring court considers that the international management plan for 2021 to 2027 does not adequately contain the information required in Article 4(4)(b) of Directive 2000/60. According to the referring court, that plan does admittedly provide, in Annex 4.2, an analysis, in tabular form, of the various bodies of water. Code ‘10-0-N1’, which, according to the key, corresponds to ‘delay in restoring water quality’, shows that, for each of the 13 bodies of water mentioned, the Länder rely on the reason for the deadline extension set out in point 1 of the first sentence of Paragraph 29(2) of the WHG, concerning ‘natural conditions’. That table also states, by reference to a specific year, the date on which the objective is expected to be achieved, namely ‘after 2045’. However, the international management plan for 2021 to 2027 contains no further explanations, specific to each body of water, of the circumstances that justify extending the deadline.
27. Second, as regards Article 4(4)(d) of Directive 2000/60, which lays down an obligation to include in the management plan a summary of the measures required to achieve the objectives, to state the reasons for any significant delay in making those measures operational and to draw up a timetable for the implementation of the necessary measures, the referring court considers that, in this case, a mere reference to the year in which those objectives are intended to be met (‘after 2045’) clearly does not satisfy those requirements, especially since that reference to the year, preceded by the preposition ‘after’, is particularly imprecise. Furthermore, that reference is also inadequate because it is not provided individually for each body of water, contrary to the requirements laid down in that provision.
28. In the second place, as regards the legal consequences of non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60, the referring court has serious doubts about the position adopted previously by another Chamber of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) in a judgment of 2 November 2017. According to the reasoning followed in that judgment, it is possible, having regard to the scheme of Directive 2000/60 and its transposition into German law, first, to distinguish the substantive requirements laid down in Paragraph 29(2) to (4) of the WHG from those relating to the statement of reasons for the extension of the deadline and to the summary and timetable of the measures necessary to achieve those environmental objectives within the deadline thus extended, referred to in point 2 of the second sentence of Paragraph 83(2) of the WHG and, second, to conclude that failure to comply with those requirements does not render the extension of the deadline without effect. In that regard, the referring court observes that Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 does not expressly provide that an extension of the deadline would be without effect in the event of failure to comply with the requirements which it lays down and that thus far the Court of Justice has not had the opportunity to rule on that issue.
29. In those circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Is Article 4(4) of [Directive 2000/60] to be interpreted as meaning that an extension of the deadline for achieving the management objectives, as provided for in the programme of measures, is ineffective if the information in the [international] management plan does not meet the setting out and explanation requirements under Article 4(4)(b) of [that directive] or the requirements relating to the summary, referred to in Article 4(4)(d) of [that directive], of the measures required under Article 11 which are envisaged as necessary to bring the bodies of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, the reasons for any significant delay in making these measures operational and the expected timetable for their implementation?’
30. Written observations were submitted to the Court by the Länder , Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the Polish and Norwegian Governments, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority and the Commission.
Analysis
31. By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that an extension of the deadline set in a management plan that does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive renders that extension without effect.
32. Owing to the technical nature of this area of law, it is appropriate to make some preliminary observations.
Preliminary observations
33. I would point out at the outset that Directive 2000/60 is a framework directive that establishes common principles and an overall framework for action in relation to water protection. It coordinates, integrates and, in a longer perspective, develops the overall principles and structures for protection and sustainable use of water in the European Union. ( 11 ) Those principles and that framework are to be made concrete by the Member States by means of the adoption of individual measures that comply with the time limits provided for by that directive. ( 12 )
34. As set out in subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 2000/60, the purpose of that directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems. ( 13 ) From that standpoint, that directive seeks to achieve, by coordinated action, ‘good status’ for all EU waters, including groundwater, which is at issue in the context of the main proceedings.
35. In that context, the environmental objectives which the Member States are required to achieve are specified in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60. ( 14 ) Paragraph 1 of that article sets out the environmental objectives which the Member States are to achieve when making operational the programmes of measures specified in the river basin management plans for surface waters, for groundwater and for protected areas.
36. As regards groundwater, the only category at issue in the present case, ( 15 ) the environmental objectives which the Member States are required to achieve are set out in Article 4(1)(b) of that directive, which lays down two distinct, albeit intrinsically linked, obligations. First, under point (i) of that provision, Member States are to 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 ( obligation to prevent deterioration ). ( 16 ) Second, under points (ii) and (iii) of that provision, Member States are, respectively, to protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater and to implement the measures necessary progressively to reduce pollution of groundwater, the aim being to achieve good status by no later than the end of 2015 ( enhancement obligation ). ( 17 )
37. Both the obligation to prevent deterioration and the obligation to enhance the status of the bodies of water are intended to achieve the qualitative objective pursued by the EU legislature, namely to achieve, by coordinated action, ‘good status’ for all EU surface waters and groundwater by 2015. ( 18 ) It is common ground that only the enhancement obligation is at issue in the present case. ( 19 )
38. In that regard, Article 4(1)(b)(ii) of Directive 2000/60 provides that Member States are to protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater, ensuring 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 that directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V. ( 20 ) Thus, that objective was, in principle, to be achieved at the latest by 22 December 2015.
39. However, the deadline prescribed for achieving that objective – which entails, in particular, compliance with the quality standards necessary to achieve good chemical status for groundwater, including a maximum value of 50 mg/l for nitrates – is, in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of that directive, fixed, in particular, ‘subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4’.
40. Thus, under Article 4(4) of that directive, the time limits laid down in paragraph 1 thereof may be extended for the purposes of phased achievement of the objectives for bodies of water, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water ( 21 ) when all the conditions set out in points (a) to (d) of that provision are met.
41. In submitting its question, the referring court proceeds from the premiss that, in this instance, the extensions of deadlines provided for in the Ems river basin international management plan for 2021 to 2027 do not meet the requirements referred to in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60. It has already observed that the reasons and explanations for the extension of the deadline applicable to 13 bodies of groundwater with concentrations in nitrates higher than the threshold value of 50 mg/l were inadequate. ( 22 )
42. It is precisely the scope of those conditions that is central to the present analysis, as the answer to the question of the consequences stemming from a failure to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60 depends primarily on the very nature of those conditions.
43. In that regard, two opposing arguments are put forward. On the one hand, the Länder , and also the Polish and Norwegian Governments, maintain, in essence, that the conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) are of a purely formal nature, with the result that failure to comply with them cannot render the extension in question without effect. On the other hand, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Commission contend that those requirements are substantive in nature, in that they constitute conditions determining whether the extension is well founded and lawful, with the result that failure to comply with them must render the extension without effect.
44. In the light of those factors, and in order to provide an answer that will be of use to the referring court, it is necessary to analyse the nature of the conditions laid down in Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60, before examining the legal consequences flowing from failure to comply with them, as those two aspects are closely linked.
The nature of the conditions laid down in Article 4 (4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60
45. The scope of Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60 must be determined by reference not only the wording of those provisions, but also to their context and the objectives pursued by the legislation of which they form part. ( 23 )
The literal interpretation
46. In the first place, as regards the interpretation of the wording of that provision , it is clear from the introductory sentence to Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 that ‘the time limits laid down in paragraph 1 may be extended for the purposes of phased achievement of the objectives for bodies of water, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water when all the following conditions [laid down in subparagraphs (a) to (d)] are met ’. ( 24 ) Interpreted a contrario , that introductory sentence indicates unequivocally that failure to comply with any one of the conditions laid down in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of that provision precludes an extension of the time limit. A fortiori, that applies to the conditions laid down in points (b) and (d) of that provision, since according to that first introductory sentence an extension of the deadline is subject to the cumulative satisfaction of all the conditions listed in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of that provision, without distinction according to their substantive or procedural nature and without establishing any hierarchy between them.
47. That interpretation is supported by an analysis of the actual content of the conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(a) to (d) of Directive 2000/60, which provides that:
– Member States are authorised to extend the deadline when all necessary improvements in the status of bodies of water cannot reasonably be achieved within the timescales set out in Article 4(1) for at least one of the following reasons: (i) the scale of improvements required can only be achieved in phases exceeding the timescale, for reasons of technical feasibility; (ii) completing the improvements with the timescale would be disproportionately expensive; and (iii) natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the body of water ( subparagraph (a) );
– extension of the deadline, and the reasons for it, are specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan ( subparagraph (b) );
– extensions are to be limited to a maximum of two further updates of the river basin management plan except in cases where the natural conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within this period ( subparagraph (c) ); and
– a summary of the measures required under Article 11 of that directive which are envisaged as necessary to bring the bodies of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, the reasons for any significant delay in making these measures operational, and the expected timetable for their implementation are set out in the river basin management plan. A review of the implementation of these measures and a summary of any additional measures are to be included in updates of the river basin management plan ( subparagraph (d) ).
48. It follows that, while Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 lists, in subparagraph (a), the three substantive grounds that may justify extending the time limits – namely when the necessary improvements in the status of bodies of water must be postponed for reasons relating to ‘technical feasibility (point (i)), to ‘disproportionate expense’ (point (ii)) and/or to ‘natural conditions’ (point (iii)) – the general scheme of that provision shows that merely relying on one or more of those three grounds cannot in itself suffice to justify such an extension. An interpretation to the contrary would deprive the other conditions laid down in subparagraphs (b) to (d) of that provision of their practical effect.
49. First, as regards the requirement to specifically set out and explain the reasons for the extension of the deadline , as laid down in Article 4(4)(b) of Directive 2000/60, its purpose is to permit effective review of the merits of recourse to such an extension on the basis of one of the three abovementioned grounds. That review is significant not only in theory but also in practice. I note, in particular, that, according to Article 4(4)(c) of that directive, the extension is, in principle, limited to a maximum of two updates of the river basin management plan, except where the ‘natural conditions’, within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a)(iii) of that directive, are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within the prescribed period. Thus, while extensions based on ‘technical feasibility’ or ‘disproportionate expense’, in accordance with Article 4(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of that directive are necessarily limited in time, namely until 22 December 2027, ( 25 ) no equivalent time limit is expressly laid down for extensions justified by ‘natural conditions’. In those circumstances, it appears even more essential that the extension of the deadline and the specific grounds justifying it are expressly set out and explained, pursuant to Article 4(4)(b) of Directive 2000/60. Such a requirement is, in particular, indispensable in order to ensure that, where, as in the present case, the extension of the deadline is based on reasons relating to ‘natural conditions’, that ground is subject to rigorous justification and is not relied on, in the context of the discretion recognised to the competent authorities of the Member States, to a degree that is excessive or indeed abusive.
50. In that regard, I consider it useful to point out that, although the same reason may certainly justify extending the deadline for several bodies of water, it nonetheless follows from a reading of the introductory part to Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 in conjunction with Article 4(4)(b) thereof that the affected bodies of water must be identified individually with a sufficient degree of precision. The extension is also subject to the requirement that ‘no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water ’, ( 26 ) which implies a specific examination of each of the bodies of water in question. Furthermore, when, as in the present case, a Member State relies on the ground for an extension based on ‘natural conditions’, as the referring court observes, ( 27 ) it must in all logic set out, for each affected body of water, the precise nature of those conditions and the actual reasons why they prevent compliance with the statutory deadline set for achieving the applicable threshold value. In any event, it seems extremely doubtful that pollution consisting of a high concentration of nitrates may be attributed to ‘natural causes’, which further reinforces the obligation to state reasons and provide justification. ( 28 )
51. Second, as regards the requirements arising under Article 4(4)(d) of Directive 2000/60 , that provision states that the river basin management plan must contain a summary of the measures required under Article 11 of that directive ( 29 ) which are envisaged as necessary to bring the bodies of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, and also the reasons for any significant delay in making those measures operational and the expected timetable for their implementation. It follows from that provision that the Member States cannot merely extend indefinitely the deadline set for achieving the environmental objectives, but, on the contrary, are required to ensure that appropriate measures intended to permit the enhancement of the chemical status of the bodies of water within the extended deadline are adopted and made operational. To that end, the river basin management plan must not only contain a summary of the measures envisaged and the timetable for their implementation, but must also set out the reasons for any significant delay in making them operational.
52. Accordingly, it follows from the literal interpretation of Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 that the conditions laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of that provision, the mandatory nature of which, moreover, is not disputed by any of the interested parties, cannot be regarded as mere formal requirements. Contrary to the argument put forward by, in particular, the Länder , whose position seems to follow the interpretation adopted by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) in its judgment of 2 November 2017, ( 30 ) those requirements constitute genuine substantive requirements, which, like the other conditions laid down in subparagraphs (a) and (c) of that provision, determine whether the competent authorities of the Member States may grant an extension of the deadline.
The contextual interpretation
53. In the second place, that interpretation is supported by the context of Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60.
54. I recall, first, that the environmental objectives set out in Article 4(1) of that directive are binding obligations. ( 31 ) Therefore, the ability to extend the deadline laid down in Article 4(4) of that directive represents an exception to the obligation, set out in Article 4(1)(b)(ii) thereof, to achieve good groundwater status ‘at the latest [by 22 December 2015]’. As a derogation from the obligation of principle to achieve the enhancement within the deadline set, Article 4(4) of that directive must therefore be interpreted restrictively. ( 32 ) Those considerations argue in favour of an interpretation according to which all the conditions set out in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60 must be fully and strictly observed by the Member States when they decide to extend the deadline. Consequently, failure to comply with at least one of those conditions precludes any effective extension of the deadline. It follows that an extension applied in breach of one of those requirements must be regarded as contrary to that directive and thus without effect.
55. Second, that interpretation is borne out by a comparison between the obligations laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60 and those set out in Article 4(7) of that directive. Article 4(7) provides, in effect, that failure to comply with the enhancement obligations and with the prohibition on deterioration laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive may, exceptionally, be justified if a whole set of conditions are satisfied. Like Article 4(4), Article 4(7) of that directive sets out, in its introductory indents, several substantive conditions, before adding a set of conditions, introduced by the expression ‘and all the following conditions are met’, ( 33 ) which is also used in Article 4(4). More specifically, Article 4(7)(b) of Directive 2000/60 requires, in a manner comparable to Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive, that the reasons for those derogations are, inter alia, ‘specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan required under Article 13’. ( 34 ) The Court has recognised that all the conditions laid down in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60 have the same value, holding that ‘when a project is liable to have adverse effects on water, consent may be given to it if the conditions set out in Article 4(7) (a) to (d) of that directive are satisfied’. It has also found that, where authorisation was issued without the competent authority having examined whether the conditions laid down in Article 4(7)(a) to (d) of that directive have been complied with, the national court may find that ‘the contested measure is unlawful’. ( 35 ) That case-law is fully transposable to Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive, in the sense that the conditions laid down there must be satisfied and constitute a precondition of the lawfulness of the extension of the deadline. ( 36 )
56. Third, I note that, in accordance with Article 4(8) of Directive 2000/60, when applying, inter alia, paragraph 4 of that article, a Member State must ensure that such application does not permanently exclude or compromise the achievement of the objectives of that directive in other bodies of water within the same river basin district and is consistent with the implementation of other EU environmental legislation. It follows from that requirement that extensions of deadlines must concern the affected bodies of water individually. ( 37 ) From that standpoint, it appears essential that the obligations stemming from Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive are also complied with in full.
57. Fourth, it must be stated that in other areas of EU environmental law the Court has also emphasised the importance of the obligations to state reasons where deadlines are extended. ( 38 ) Furthermore, as the Commission observes, EU directives on environmental matters do not, as a general rule, explicitly set out the consequences that will follow when the competent authorities of the Member States rely on provisions that derogate from a directive, even when the conditions laid down for that purpose are not satisfied. ( 39 ) Such an approach seems to me to be consistent. More broadly, in administrative law, compliance with the statutory conditions required to produce a specific legal effect is not limited to merely listing the circumstances that may justify a derogation. Those circumstances must be described in detail and supported by precise, specific and sufficiently substantiated reasons. Only then can citizens and the courts be in a position to exercise effective review of the lawfulness of the existence of and the reliance placed on those particular circumstances. Otherwise, the legal rule would lose all normative impact and thus its raison d’être .
The teleological interpretation
58. In the third and final place, the interpretation set out in point 52 of this Opinion is consistent with both the objectives pursued by Directive 2000/60 and the actual purpose of Article 4(4)(b) and (d) thereof.
59. As may be seen from points 33 to 37 of this Opinion, both the enhancement obligation and the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water pursue the qualitative objectives set by the EU legislature, namely the preservation or restoration of good status, good ecological potential and good chemical status of surface waters. ( 40 ) Thus, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, it follows from the wording, scheme and purpose of Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 that those two obligations are binding ( 41 ) in such a way that they may be described as laying down an obligation as to the result to be achieved. ( 42 ) Article 4(1)(b) of that directive does not merely set out, in programmatic terms, water management planning objectives, but has legally binding effects, since the status of the affected body of water is determined at each stage of the procedure prescribed by that directive. ( 43 ) Consequently, that provision is not limited to laying down obligations in principle, , but also applies to specific situations, including individual projects that may affect the bodies of water concerned. ( 44 )
60. In that context, I note that recital 30 of that directive states that ‘ in order to ensure a full and consistent implementation of this Directive any extensions of timescale should be made on the basis of appropriate, evident and transparent criteria and be justified by the Member States in the river basin management plans’. ( 45 ) Thus, that recital indicates that the requirements in respect of reasoning and an indication of the grounds for extending a deadline, laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60, are of particular importance ‘in order to ensure a full and consistent implementation’ of that directive.
61. In that regard, I also note that those obligations seek, in particular, to ensure that the public and the Commission have complete information about extensions of deadlines so that they might better understand the management of the river basins in question without the need for recourse to further sources.
62. First, according to Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2000/60, ‘Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of [that directive]’ by making available for comments to the public, including users, ‘draft copies of the river basin management plan, at least one year before the beginning of the period to which the plan refers’, making clear that ‘on request, access shall be given to background documents and information used for the development of the draft river basin management plan’. Therefore, in so far as the information necessary in order to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive must be available at the stage of the preparation of the draft plan, in order to allow the public to comment, that information cannot be produced or regularised after the management plan has been adopted.
63. Second, as set out in Article 15 of that directive, Member States are required to send the river basin management plans to the Commission and to any other Member State concerned within three months of their publication. That requirement also confirms that the obligations laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60 must be complied with at the time of publication of the management plan, without it being possible to remedy any shortcomings subsequently by means of supplementary information or ex post regularisation measures.
64. In the light of all of the foregoing, I propose to conclude that it follows from the wording, context and purpose of Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 that failure to comply with at least one of the conditions laid down in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of that provision renders any extension of the deadline set for the purposes of the progressive achievement of the objectives applicable to bodies of water without effect, in such a way that all of those conditions, including those laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of that provision, are regarded as substantive conditions on which the effectiveness of such an extension depends.
The legal consequences flowing from failure to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 (4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60
65. Such an interpretation means that an extension of a deadline that does not meet the requirements laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60 must be regarded as without effect under that directive, with the consequence that the competent authorities of the Member States cannot rely on it.
66. In so far as, for the reasons stated by the referring court, it seems difficult to imagine that the extension of the deadline applicable to the 13 affected bodies of groundwater, as adopted by the river basin management plan for 2021 to 2027 of the German part of the Ems, might satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of Directive 2000/60, the Länder will be required to remedy, within the framework of their powers, the failure to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive. To that end, they will have to take the necessary measures to limit, as much as possible, the harmful effects of the unwarranted delay in achieving the objective of enhancing the bodies of water, which ought to have been achieved long ago, namely by the end of 2015. ( 46 )
67. It will therefore be for the referring court to determine, in accordance with the rules of its national law, the specific consequences should the extension of the deadline prove to be without effect in the light of Directive 2000/60. Under the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States, it is for the domestic legal order to determine the detailed procedural rules and the effects attached to such a situation, provided however that those rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred by the EU legal order (principle of effectiveness). ( 47 )
68. In that regard, it follows from the settled case-law of the Court that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of all provisions of EU law, the primacy principle requires, inter alia, national courts to interpret, to the greatest extent possible, their national law in conformity with EU law. Only when it is unable to interpret national law in compliance with the requirements of EU law is the national court which is called upon within the exercise of its jurisdiction to apply provisions of EU law under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for that court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means, provided that the provision of EU law has direct effect. ( 48 )
69. In this instance, it is apparent from the order for reference that the German legislature did not employ the precise wording of Article 4(4)(b) of Directive 2000/60, but it nonetheless appears that an interpretation of national law in conformity with that provision can be envisaged, without any need for an interpretation contra legem . ( 49 ) In those circumstances, it will be for the referring court to interpret and apply the relevant national provisions in such a way as to ensure the full achievement of the objectives pursued by that directive, irrespective of the means adopted by the national legislature to transpose that provision into domestic law, ( 50 ) in particular by declaring that the international management plan for 2021 to 2027 is without effect in so far as it concerns the extension of the deadline.
70. Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, I am of the view that Article 4(4) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that an extension of the deadline set in a river basin management plan for the achievement of the environmental objectives applicable to bodies of water is without effect when the information in that management plan does not satisfy all the requirements laid down in that provision, including those set out in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive.
Conclusion
71. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the question for a preliminary ruling referred by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), as follows:
Article 4(4) of 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
must be interpreted as meaning that an extension of the deadline set in a river basin management plan for the achievement of the environmental objectives applicable to bodies of water is without effect when the information in that management plan does not satisfy all the requirements laid down in that provision, including those set out in Article 4(4)(b) and (d) of that directive.
1 Original language: French.
2 OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.
3 See, in that regard, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 4 February 2025 on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) (COM(2025) 2 final, pp. 35 and 36), in which it is stated, first, that, given the limited progress in reaching good water status in the European Union, a large majority of bodies of water are covered by various exemptions set out in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60, the number of exemptions based on, inter alia, Article 4(4) of that directive having increased, and, second, that not all Member States provide sufficiently detailed information at the level of the affected water body and only about half of the assessed Member States provide sufficient details in all river basin management plans.
4 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19).
5 BGBl. I, p. 2585.
6 WHG as amended by the Law of 22 December 2023 (BGBl. I No 409).
7 BGBl. I, p. 1513.
8 BGBl. I, p. 1802.
9 According to that court, the inadequacy of the reasons provided for extending the time limit results from the following factors. Pursuant to the first sentence of Paragraph 82(1) of the WHG, a programme of measures is to be established for each river basin district in accordance with subparagraphs 2 to 6 of that paragraph in order to achieve the management objectives set out in paragraphs 27 to 31, 44 and 47 of the WHG. Those objectives, for groundwater, the only bodies of water of interest in the present case, are defined in Paragraph 47(1) of the WHG and include a prohibition on any deterioration (point 1), an obligation to reverse any upward trend in the concentration of pollutants resulting from the impact of human activity (point 2) and a principle of enhancement, consisting in achieving and maintaining good quantitative and chemical status (point 3). As regards this last principle, for the purposes of assessing the chemical status of groundwater, the first sentence of Paragraph 5(1) of the GrwV refers to the threshold values set out in Annex 2 to that law. The threshold value applicable to nitrate (NO3) referred to in that annex is set at 50 mg/l, in accordance with point 1 of Annex I to Directive 2006/118.
10 See, for more details, decision of the Oberverwaltungsgericht Niedersachsen (Higher Administrative Court, Lower Saxony, Germany), of 21 November 2023, ref. 7 KS 8/21, DE:OVGNI:2023:1121.7KS8.21.00.
11 See, in that regard, recital 11 of Directive 2000/60.
12 See, to that effect, judgments of 4 May 2016, Commission v Austria (C‑346/14, EU:C:2016:322, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited), and of 24 June 2021, Commission v Spain (Deterioration of the Doñana natural area) (C‑559/19, ‘the judgment in Commission v Spain ’, EU:C:2021:512, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
13 See, to that effect, judgments of 28 May 2020, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (C‑535/18, ‘the judgment in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ’, EU:C:2020:391, paragraph 67); of 21 March 2024, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Spittal an der Drau (C‑671/22, ‘the judgment in BSadD ’, EU:C:2024:256, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited); and of 25 April 2024, Sweetman (C‑301/22, ‘the judgment in Sweetman ’, EU:C:2024:347, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). See also, in that regard, recital 25 of Directive 2000/60.
14 See, to that effect, the judgments in Sweetman (paragraph 44 and the case-law cited) and in Commission v Spain (paragraph 38).
15 The Court has recognised, however, that the objectives pursued by Directive 2000/60 for surface waters and for groundwater are ‘similar’. See, in that regard, the judgment in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (paragraph 70).
16 On the concept of ‘deterioration’ and its scope, see the judgment in Commission v Spain (paragraphs 48 and 49).
17 See, to that effect, judgment of 20 November 2025, Commission v Ireland (Water Framework Directive) (C‑204/24, ‘the judgment in Commission v Ireland ’, EU:C:2025:912, paragraphs 82 and 83 and the case-law cited). See also, by analogy, the judgment in Sweetman (paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
18 See, to that effect, the judgment in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (paragraph 71 and the case-law cited).
19 While the obligation to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of water is imposed, in accordance with the ultimate objective of that directive, consisting in achieving and maintaining at least ‘good water status’, as stated in recital 26 of that directive, the Court has made clear that that obligation was granted autonomous ranking by the EU legislature and is not merely an instrument placed at the service of the obligation to enhance the status of bodies of water (see judgment of 5 May 2022, Association France Nature Environnement (Temporary impacts on surface water) (C‑525/20, ‘the judgment in Association FNE ’, EU:C:2022:350, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)).
20 In order to determine the scope of the enhancement obligation applicable to bodies of groundwater, Article 4(1)(b)(ii) of Directive 2000/60 refers to the groundwater ‘status’. The concept of ‘groundwater status’ is defined in Article 2(19) of that directive as ‘the general expression of the status of a body of groundwater, determined by the poorer of its quantitative status and its chemical status’. It follows that ‘good groundwater status’ within the meaning of Article 2(20) of that directive is achieved when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’, that is to say, when the conditions laid down in Tables 2.1.2 and 2.3.2, respectively, of Annex V are satisfied (see, by analogy, the judgment in BSadD (paragraph 42 and the case-law cited)).
21 The Court has held that the possibility of postponing achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2000/60 is applicable only to the enhancement obligation laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(ii) of that directive, and therefore not to the obligation to prevent deterioration referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(i) of that directive (see the judgment in Commission v Spain (paragraph 45)).
22 See points 24 to 27 of this Opinion.
23 See judgment of 1 July 2015, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (C‑461/13, ‘the judgment in Bund für Umwelt’ , EU:C:2015:433, paragraph 30).
24 Emphasis added.
25 Under Article 13(6) of Directive 2000/60, river basin management plans were to be published at the latest nine years after the date of entry into force of that directive, or no later than 22 December 2009. Under Article 13(7) of that directive, those plans were to be reviewed at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of that directive, or no later than 22 December 2015, and every 6 years thereafter, or no later than 22 December 2021 and 22 December 2027.
26 Emphasis added.
27 See point 25 of this Opinion.
28 In that regard, I note that it follows from the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 4 February 2025 on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) (COM(2025) 2 final, p. 10), that, as regards bodies of groundwater, the most commonly reported pollutants leading to poor chemical status are nitrates, of which the average nitrate concentration has not changed significantly since 2021. These nitrates come mainly from intensive agriculture and livestock farming through the improper or excessive use of fertilisers and slurries/manures, all of which contain nitrogen and phosphorus.
29 According to Article 11 of Directive 2000/60, the river basin management plan is to contain a programme of measures to ensure that the environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of that directive are achieved and that programme is to include ‘basic’ measures and, where necessary, ‘supplementary’ measures.
30 See point 28 of this Opinion.
31 See, to that effect, the judgment in Bund für Umwelt (paragraph 43), and point 59 of the present Opinion.
32 See, to that effect, judgment of 19 January 2023, Pesticide Action Network Europe and Others (C‑162/21, EU:C:2023:30, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
33 Emphasis added.
34 Pursuant to Article 13(4) of Directive 2000/60, the practical measures required by Article 4(7)(a) of that directive must also be recorded in the management plan. See the judgment in Bund für Umwelt (paragraph 46).
35 See judgment of 1 June 2017, Folk (C‑529/15, EU:C:2017:419, paragraphs 36 and 38 and the case-law cited). Emphasis added.
36 Contrary to the assertion made, in essence, by the Länder , that conclusion cannot be called into question by the Court’s case-law relating to the authorisation of projects based on Article 4(7)(b) of Directive 2000/60, according to which that condition ‘may be regarded as satisfied where the reasons behind the project concerned are set out, at the date of authorisation of that project, only in the decision authorising it’ (see the judgment in Association FNE , paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). The Court accepts that an authorisation is effective when, on the date on which it is adopted, the reasons that justify the project are set out only in the authorisation decision and when the pertinent information is subsequently recorded in the management plan. However, that case-law cannot be transposed to extensions of deadlines. The grounds that justify extensions of deadlines are provided only in the management plan itself and there is no act capable of predating the management plan that would extend the deadline and that might already, like the situation in the cases examined by the Court, contain a sufficient statement of reasons.
37 See, by analogy, the judgment in Sweetman (paragraphs 59 to 61).
38 See, by way of example, judgment of 22 February 2018, Commission v Poland (C‑336/16, EU:C:2018:94, paragraphs 101 and 102), in which the Court stated that the Republic of Poland had not indicated or justified the reasons why it had set particularly long periods for putting an end to the exceedance of the limit values laid down in Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).
39 See also, by way of illustration, the derogating provision laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7). That provision sets out the detailed conditions for the exceptional authorisation of a project that will adversely affect the status of the water or of an activity that will adversely affect a protected species, without explicitly stating the impact of failure to comply compliance with those conditions on the effectiveness of the authorisations in question.
40 See the judgment in BSadD (paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
41 See the judgment in Commission v Spain (paragraph 42 and the case-law cited). The Court has held that the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the statuses of bodies of surface water remains binding at each stage of implementation of that directive and is applicable to ‘every surface water body type’ and status for which a management plan has or ought to have been adopted (see, to that effect, the judgment in Sweetman , paragraphs 43 and 54 and the case-law cited). That interpretation also applies to the obligation to prevent deterioration of bodies of groundwater (see the judgment in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen , paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
42 See, by analogy, the judgment in Commission v Ireland (paragraph 118).
43 See the judgments in Commission v Spain (paragraph 43), and in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (paragraph 73).
44 See, by analogy, the judgment in BSadD (paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
45 Emphasis added.
46 See, by analogy, the judgment in Association FNE (paragraphs 38 and 39 and the case-law cited). I also recall that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of obligations to transpose a decision (see, to that effect, the judgment in Commission v Ireland , paragraph 146 and the case-law cited).
47 See judgment of 7 January 2004, Wells (C‑201/02, EU:C:2004:12, paragraph 67).
48 See judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski (C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraphs 57, 58, 61 and 68 and the case-law cited).
49 See judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski (C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraphs 76 and 77 and the case-law cited). See also point 32 of this Opinion.
50 See, by analogy, the judgment in Commission v Ireland (paragraphs 140 and 141).