Report 2011 - EFTA Court

15 in its reply to the reasoned opinion dated 17 December 2010,
iceland disagreed with ESA’s assessment, contending that it was
not in breach of the Directive. ESA was not satisfied with that
reply and accordingly decided to bring the present action.
IV PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
16 The present application was lodged at the Court Registry on
11 April 2011. iceland’s statement of defence was registered
at the Court Registry on 16 June 2011. On 5 July 2011, ESA
submitted a reply to the defence lodged by iceland. The rejoinder
was lodged on 8 August 2011.
17 Pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court, written
observations were received from the European Commission.
18 After having received the express consent of the parties, the
Court, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur, decided to
dispense with the oral procedure.
V ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
19 ESA asserts that Article 7(1) of the Directive explicitly provides for
the mapping of both large agglomerations and major sources of
noise pollution, regardless of whether the sources are within the
large agglomeration or not. Secondly, ESA contends that Article
8(1) of the Directive lays down an unambiguous requirement to
draw up noise action plans to manage noise both in places near
the major roads and in agglomerations. The interpretation that
the national authorities shall make maps and noise plans for
both major roads of more than six million vehicle passages a
year and agglomerations is confirmed by the requirements laid
down in Annex vi to the Directive. ESA contends that according
to Annex vi to the Directive, EFTA States must provide ESA with
information on the agglomerations crossed by major roads and
information concerning the effects of noise from the roads inside
agglomerations. if the Directive had intended to exclude roads
with agglomerations from the mapping requirement, it would
not have required the State to provide information on the noise
Case E-8/11 EFTA Surveillance xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Authority v iceland
Summary Judgment
CAse Case
e-xx/x
e-8/11
475