Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2467
Date: 2014-12-18
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 18 December 2014 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Examination of the compatibility of national law with EU law — Not included — Providing the national court with full guidance on the interpretation of EU law — Included (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Periods for implementation — National transposition law deferred pending the adoption of a subsequent internal measure — Adoption of that internal measure after the end of the transposition period in the absence of a derogation in that respect in the directive –Unlawful — Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/98, Art. 40(1)) 3. Environment — Waste — Directive 2008/98 — Obligation of Member States to ensure the recovery or disposal of waste — Implementation of a waste management system — Discretion of the Member States — Limits — Observance of the principle of proportionality (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/98, Arts 4, 13 and 15(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 31, 32) 2. EU law and Directive 2008/98 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which transposes into national law a provision of that directive, but the entry into force of which is deferred pending the adoption of a subsequent internal measure, if that entry into force takes place after the end of the transposition period prescribed by that directive. The obligation of a Member State to take all the measures necessary to achieve the result prescribed by a directive is a binding obligation imposed by the third paragraph of Article 288 EC and by Directive 2008/98 itself. In that regard, even in cases where Member States have a broad discretion, when transposing directives, as to the choice of method, they are nevertheless under a duty to ensure that the directive is fully effective and to meet the deadlines set therein, so that implementation is achieved uniformly throughout the European Union. In addition, Directive 2008/98 does not allow a derogation under the terms of which Member States may lawfully defer to a date subsequent to that set by Article 40(1) thereof the entry into force of transposition measures adopted before that date. (see paras 36-40, operative part) 3. Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98 on waste and repealing certain Directives, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which no provision is made permitting a waste producer or waste holder to dispose of that waste independently and accordingly to be exempted from liability for payment of a municipal tax for the disposal of waste, provided that that legislation meets the requirements entailed by the principle of proportionality. As regards the obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure that the original waste producer or waste holder carries out the treatment of that waste, Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98 allows Member States to choose between a number of options and the reference to Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98 cannot be construed as narrowing the discretion thereby conferred on Member States so as to compel them to recognise that an original waste producer or waste holder has the right to carry out the treatment of that waste independently and accordingly to be relieved of the obligation to contribute to the funding of the waste management system established by the public services. In that respect, in the absence of any rules of EU law imposing a specific method upon the Member States for financing the cost of waste management, that cost may, in accordance with the choice of the Member State concerned, equally well be financed by means of a tax or a charge or in any other manner, and that national legislation, which, for the purposes of financing the management of such a system, for example, provides for a tax calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated and not on the basis of the quantity of waste actually produced and presented for collection, cannot be considered contrary to Directive 2008/98. However, while it is true that, in consequence, the competent national authorities have a broad discretion in determining the manner in which a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings is to be calculated, the fact remains that the tax so determined must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued. (see paras 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, operative part)