Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-528/09)

2010/C 63/44

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 concerns the treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Having analysed the measures by which that directive is transposed into Estonian law, the Commission considers that the Republic of Estonia has not transposed as required Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive.

Article 3(i)(iii) of the directive defines producers of electrical and electronic equipment. The Estonian legal provisions concerning waste electrical and electronic equipment contain two different definitions of producers, thereby making more difficult the comprehension and application of the rules on the treatment of waste.

The third subparagraph of Article 8(2) of the directive lays down that the costs of collection, treatment and environmentally sound disposal are not to be shown separately to purchasers at the time of sale of new products. The Commission considers that the Republic of Estonia has not transposed that requirement into its national law.

The second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive lays down the obligation of the Member States to ensure that, for a transitional period of eight years after the entry into force of the directive, producers are allowed to show purchasers, at the time of sale of new products, the costs of collection, treatment and disposal in an environmentally sound way of waste, in which case the costs mentioned must not exceed the actual costs. The Commission takes the view that Estonia has not transposed that obligation into its national law.

The Republic of Estonia agreed with those complaints and promised in its reply to the Commission’s reasoned opinion to eliminate the infringement of Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive by a law amending the law on waste. Since the Republic of Estonia has not as yet, to the Commission’s knowledge, enacted the promised law amending the law on waste, or at least has not notified it to the Commission, the Commission considers that the Republic of Estonia has not yet transposed into its national law as required Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under the directive.