Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Pre-litigation procedure - Letter of formal notice - Purpose

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Pre-litigation procedure - Purpose - Time granted to the Member State concerned - Requirement that a reasonable length of time be allowed - Criteria for assessment

(Art. 226 EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Commission decision to bring an action before the Court - Application of the principle of collegiality - Effect - Deliberation required of the college

(Art. 226 EC)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance with Commission decisions - Grounds of defence - Challenge to the decisions' legality - Inadmissible

(Arts 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC)

5. Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification based on its internal legal system - Not permissible - Force majeure - Lack of clarity and precision in the obligations imposed - Conditions

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. The proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure laid down in Article 226 EC constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also so as to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter.

It follows from that function that the purpose of the letter of formal notice is, first, to delimit the subject-matter of the dispute and to indicate to the Member State, which is invited to submit its observations, the factors enabling it to prepare its defence and, second, to enable the Member State to comply before proceedings are brought before the Court.

( see paras 53-54 )

2. In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law or to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the complaints made by the Commission.

That dual purpose requires the Commission to allow Member States a reasonable period to reply to letters of formal notice and to comply with reasoned opinions, or, where appropriate, to prepare their defence. In order to determine whether the period allowed is reasonable, account must be taken of all the circumstances of the case. Thus, very short periods may be justified in particular circumstances, especially where there is an urgent need to remedy a breach or where the Member State concerned is fully aware of the Commission's views long before the procedure starts.

( see paras 64-65 )

3. The principle of collegiality is based on the equal participation of the Commissioners in the adoption of decisions, from which it follows in particular that decisions should be the subject of collective deliberation and that all the members of the college of Commissioners should bear collective responsibility at the political level for all decisions adopted. Accordingly, a decision by the Commission to bring infringement proceedings against a Member State must be the subject of collective deliberation by the college of Commissioners and all the information on which that decision is based must be available to the members of the college.

( see paras 79-80 )

4. The system of remedies set up by the Treaty distinguishes between actions under Articles 226 EC and 227 EC, which are directed to obtaining a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations, and those under Articles 230 EC and 232 EC, which are directed to obtaining judicial review of measures adopted by the Community institutions or of failure to act on their part. Those remedies have different objectives and are subject to different rules. In the absence of a provision of the Treaty expressly permitting it to do so, a Member State cannot, therefore, properly plead the unlawfulness of decisions addressed to it as a defence to infringement proceedings arising out of its failure to implement those decisions.

( see para. 101 )

5. It is settled case-law that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with its obligations under Community law.

Furthermore, a Member State which encounters temporarily insuperable difficulties preventing it from complying with its obligations under Community law may plead force majeure only for the period necessary in order to resolve those difficulties.

Where there are difficulties in interpreting and consequently in implementing a decision since the requirements imposed on all the Member States are neither clear nor precise, a Member State may, however, no longer plead force majeure once it has been fully informed by the Commission of the extent of its obligations under the decision and has had a reasonable period for implementing the decision, as interpreted and clarified.

( see paras 130-131, 134-136 )