Case C‑196/13
European Commission
v
Italian Republic
‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Waste management — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 2 December 2014
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Special judicial procedure for the enforcement of judgments of the Court — Treatment of failures to fulfil obligations which the Court has found to be established on the basis of Article 258 TFEU
(Arts 258 TFEU and 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Reasoned opinion finding that a judgment of the Court has not been duly complied with — Subsequent extension — Not permissible
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Period for complying with the judgment — Reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations
(Art. 228(2) EC; Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Obligation on Member States to ensure the recovery or disposal of waste — Scope — Member States’ discretion as to the measures to be adopted — Limits — Persistence of a non-compliant situation over a protracted period resulting in a significant deterioration in the environment — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 75/442, Art. 4, first para.)
Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Obligations incumbent on Member States in relation to holders of waste — Non-compliance in the case of an illegal site — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 75/442, Art. 8)
Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Implementation by Member States — Obligation to achieve a result — Obligation on operators to obtain a permit prior to any waste disposal operations — Obligation on Member States to conduct checks
(Council Directive 75/442, Art. 9)
Environment — Waste — Directive 91/689 — Hazardous waste — Obligation to record and identify hazardous waste discharged on the territory — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 91/689, Art. 2(1))
Environment — Waste — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 — Measure authorising the operation of a landfill without an approved site conditioning plan — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 14(a) to (c))
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Imposition of a penalty payment — Condition — Persistence of the failure to fulfil obligations up to the delivery of the judgment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Determination of the form and the amount — Discretion of the Court — Criteria
(Arts 258 TFEU and 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Determination of the amount — Decreasing penalty payment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment — Imposition of both penalties — Permissible
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment — Discretion of the Court — Criteria for assessment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 32)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 34)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 45, 46)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 51-56)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 57-60)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 61-64)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 65-67)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 68, 69)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 87, 94)
As regards the amount and the form of the penalty payment to be imposed on a Member State, it is for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to set the penalty payment in such a way that it is both appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate to the infringement established and the ability of the Member State concerned to pay.
The Commission’s suggestions concerning the penalty payment cannot bind the Court and constitute merely a useful point of reference. Similarly, guidelines such as those set out in the communications of the Commission are not binding on the Court but contribute to ensuring that the Commission’s own actions are transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty when that institution makes suggestions to the Court. In proceedings under Article 260(2) TFEU relating to a failure to fulfil obligations on the part of a Member State that has persisted notwithstanding the fact that that same failure to fulfil obligations has already been established in a first judgment delivered under Article 226 EC or Article 258 TFEU, the Court must remain free to set the penalty payment to be imposed in an amount and in a form that the Court considers appropriate for the purposes of inducing that Member State to bring to an end its failure to comply with the obligations arising under that first judgment of the Court. Such a penalty must be decided upon according to the degree of pressure needed in order to persuade the defaulting Member State to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations and to alter its conduct in order to bring to an end the infringement complained of.
Accordingly, in the assessment carried out by the Court, the criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that penalty payments have coercive force and that EU law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, assessed by reference to the time when the Court assesses the facts, not the time when the case is brought before it by the Commission, its degree of seriousness and the ability of the Member State concerned to pay, taking account of recent trends in its gross domestic product at the time of the Court’s examination of the facts. In applying those criteria, the Court is required to have regard, in particular, to the effects on public and private interests of the failure to comply and to the urgent need for the Member State concerned to be induced to fulfil its obligations.
(see paras 95-97, 102, 104)
In order to ensure full compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice, the penalty payment must be payable in its entirety until such time as the Member State has taken all the measures necessary to bring to an end the failure to fulfil obligations established. Nevertheless, in certain specific cases, a penalty which takes account of the progress that the Member State may have made in complying with its obligations may be envisaged.
As regards the determination of the method for calculating that penalty payment and the schedule for payment, a decreasing penalty payment established on a six-monthly basis enables the state of progress of the measures for compliance with the judgment of the Court to be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period in question.
(see paras 106-108)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 113)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 114-119)
Case C‑196/13
European Commission
v
Italian Republic
‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Waste management — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 2 December 2014
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Special judicial procedure for the enforcement of judgments of the Court — Treatment of failures to fulfil obligations which the Court has found to be established on the basis of Article 258 TFEU
(Arts 258 TFEU and 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Reasoned opinion finding that a judgment of the Court has not been duly complied with — Subsequent extension — Not permissible
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Period for complying with the judgment — Reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations
(Art. 228(2) EC; Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Obligation on Member States to ensure the recovery or disposal of waste — Scope — Member States’ discretion as to the measures to be adopted — Limits — Persistence of a non-compliant situation over a protracted period resulting in a significant deterioration in the environment — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 75/442, Art. 4, first para.)
Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Obligations incumbent on Member States in relation to holders of waste — Non-compliance in the case of an illegal site — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 75/442, Art. 8)
Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Implementation by Member States — Obligation to achieve a result — Obligation on operators to obtain a permit prior to any waste disposal operations — Obligation on Member States to conduct checks
(Council Directive 75/442, Art. 9)
Environment — Waste — Directive 91/689 — Hazardous waste — Obligation to record and identify hazardous waste discharged on the territory — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 91/689, Art. 2(1))
Environment — Waste — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 — Measure authorising the operation of a landfill without an approved site conditioning plan — Failure to fulfil obligations
(Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 14(a) to (c))
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Imposition of a penalty payment — Condition — Persistence of the failure to fulfil obligations up to the delivery of the judgment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Determination of the form and the amount — Discretion of the Court — Criteria
(Arts 258 TFEU and 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Determination of the amount — Decreasing penalty payment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment — Imposition of both penalties — Permissible
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment — Discretion of the Court — Criteria for assessment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 32)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 34)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 45, 46)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 51-56)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 57-60)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 61-64)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 65-67)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 68, 69)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 87, 94)
As regards the amount and the form of the penalty payment to be imposed on a Member State, it is for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to set the penalty payment in such a way that it is both appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate to the infringement established and the ability of the Member State concerned to pay.
The Commission’s suggestions concerning the penalty payment cannot bind the Court and constitute merely a useful point of reference. Similarly, guidelines such as those set out in the communications of the Commission are not binding on the Court but contribute to ensuring that the Commission’s own actions are transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty when that institution makes suggestions to the Court. In proceedings under Article 260(2) TFEU relating to a failure to fulfil obligations on the part of a Member State that has persisted notwithstanding the fact that that same failure to fulfil obligations has already been established in a first judgment delivered under Article 226 EC or Article 258 TFEU, the Court must remain free to set the penalty payment to be imposed in an amount and in a form that the Court considers appropriate for the purposes of inducing that Member State to bring to an end its failure to comply with the obligations arising under that first judgment of the Court. Such a penalty must be decided upon according to the degree of pressure needed in order to persuade the defaulting Member State to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations and to alter its conduct in order to bring to an end the infringement complained of.
Accordingly, in the assessment carried out by the Court, the criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that penalty payments have coercive force and that EU law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, assessed by reference to the time when the Court assesses the facts, not the time when the case is brought before it by the Commission, its degree of seriousness and the ability of the Member State concerned to pay, taking account of recent trends in its gross domestic product at the time of the Court’s examination of the facts. In applying those criteria, the Court is required to have regard, in particular, to the effects on public and private interests of the failure to comply and to the urgent need for the Member State concerned to be induced to fulfil its obligations.
(see paras 95-97, 102, 104)
In order to ensure full compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice, the penalty payment must be payable in its entirety until such time as the Member State has taken all the measures necessary to bring to an end the failure to fulfil obligations established. Nevertheless, in certain specific cases, a penalty which takes account of the progress that the Member State may have made in complying with its obligations may be envisaged.
As regards the determination of the method for calculating that penalty payment and the schedule for payment, a decreasing penalty payment established on a six-monthly basis enables the state of progress of the measures for compliance with the judgment of the Court to be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period in question.
(see paras 106-108)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 113)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 114-119)