Case C-328/16
European Commission
v
Hellenic Republic
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Urban waste-water treatment – Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations – Non-implementation – Article 260 (2) TFEU – Pecuniary penalties – Lump sum – Periodic penalty payment)
Summary – Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 22 February 2018
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations–Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations–Period for implementation–Reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations
(Art. 260(2) TFEU)
Member States–Obligations–Implementation of directives–Failure to fulfil obligations–National system pleaded as justification–Not permissible
(Art. 258 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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Imposition of a penalty payment–Condition–Persistence of the failure to fulfil obligations until the date of 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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Determination of the form to be taken and of 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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Calculation of the amount–Criteria–Seriousness of the infringement–Failure to comply with a judgment concerning the treatment of urban waste water
(Art. 260(2) TFUE; Council Directive 91/271)
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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Calculation of the amount–Criteria–Duration of the infringement
(Art. 260(1) 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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Calculation of the amount–Criteria–Ability to pay–Date of assessment
(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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Calculation of the amount–Sliding-scale periodic penalty payment
(Art. 260(2) TFEU; Council Directive 91/271)
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–Pecuniary penalties–Periodic penalty payment–Lump sum–Whether the two penalties should be cumulated–Lawfulness
(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–Pecuniary penalties–Imposition of a lump sum payment–Discretion of the Court–Criteria for assessment
(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–Pecuniary penalties–Lump sum–Calculation of the amount–Criteria–Seriousness of the infringement–Repetition of unlawful conduct by the Member State concerned–Mitigating circumstances
(Art. 260(2) TFEU; Council Directive 91/271)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 49)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 53, 124)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 82, 88)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 89-92)
Regarding the amount and the form of the lump sum payment to be imposed on a Member State for failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to comply with Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste-water treatment, it should be borne in mind, concerning the seriousness of the infringement, that that directive is intended to protect the environment. A lack or shortage of urban waste water treatment plants is likely to harm the environment and must be regarded as particularly serious. It is also necessary to cite as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the judgment has not yet been fully complied with, which is equivalent to a delay of almost 20 years, in so far as the obligation to ensure that the secondary treatment of the urban waste water in the Member State concerned should have been fulfilled on 31 December 1998 at the latest. Accordingly, the Court cannot but confirm the particularly lengthy character of an infringement which, in the light of the objective mentioned above, is also a matter of indisputable gravity.
However, in so far as the situation in that Member State has improved compared to that prevailing when the infringement proceedings which gave rise to the judgment finding a failure to fulfil obligations were brought and the extent of the damage to human health and the environment depends on the number of sites affected by the infringement, that damage is therefore less extensive than the damage to human health and the environment caused by the initial failure. In addition, it must be considered to be a mitigating factor that the area concerned of that Member State is home to an important archaeological heritage and that, because of archaeological excavations and the discovery of archaeological remains, the secondary network had been completed, with the exception of a part thereof.
(see paras 93, 94, 96-98)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 99, 100)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 101)
Even if, in order to ensure full compliance with a judgement of the Court’s judgment establishing a failure to comply with Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the penalty payment should 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.
With regard to the periodicity of the penalty payment, the phased reduction component of the periodic penalty payment is fixed on a six-monthly basis, since the provision of proof of compliance with Directive 91/271 may require a certain period of time and in order to take account of any progress made by the Member State concerned. It is therefore necessary to reduce the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion representing the number of population equivalent units which have actually been brought into line with the judgment establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations.
(see paras 103, 106)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 116)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 117-120)
For the purposes of determining the lump sum to be imposed on a Member State for failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to comply with Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste-water treatment, regard must be had to the large number of judgments which have established failures by the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations in relation to the treatment of urban waste water. Repetition of unlawful conduct by a Member State is all the more unacceptable where it takes place in a sector in which the effects on human health and the environment are particularly significant. In that regard, where a Member State repeatedly engages in unlawful conduct in a specific sector, this may be an indication that effective prevention of future repetition of similar infringements of EU law may require the adoption of a dissuasive measure, such as a lump sum payment.
However, in this respect, difficulties connected with archaeological excavations and the discovery of archaeological remains in the area concerned of the defendant Member State and the effects of the economic crisis suffered by that Member State on its ability to pay, may constitute mitigating factors.
(see paras 126, 127)