Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:197
Date: 2010-04-15
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 2000/53 – End-of-life vehicles – Definitions (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53, Arts 2.13, and 8(3)) 2. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 2000/53 – End-of-life vehicles – Collection (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53, Art. 5(3)) 3. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 2000/53 – End-of-life vehicles – Collection (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53, Art. 5(4)) 4. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 2000/53 – End-of-life vehicles – Collection (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53, Art. 5(2) and (4)) 5. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 2000/53 – End-of-life vehicles – Treatment operations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53, Art. 6(3)) 6. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 2000/53 – End-of-life vehicles – Reuse and recovery of waste (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53, Art. 7(1)) 1. It is clear from the wording of Article 2.13 of Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life vehicles that dismantling information refers to all information required for the treatment of end-of-life vehicles and that Article 8(3) of that directive must be read in the light of Article 2.13 with regard to the detailed rules governing the provision of such information. (see para. 25) 2. Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life vehicles provides a precise description of the procedure to be followed for cancelling the registration of an end-of-life vehicle, in order to ensure, as stated by recital 2 in the preamble to the directive, coherence between national approaches. In the context of that procedure, a very specific function is given to a key document entitled ‘certificate of destruction’. That function of the document may not be altered. Even if it were to be conceded that a national system affords better traceability of end-of-life vehicles, such an alteration, if it gives the certificate of destruction a function different from that laid down in Article 5(3) of that directive, is liable to jeopardise the coherence between the national approaches and, consequently, the functioning of the internal market. Likewise, the issue of a document different from the certificate of destruction provided for in Article 5(3) of that directive and intended to fulfil the function of that certificate is liable to give rise to confusion capable of undermining the achievement of the objective pursued by that provision. (see paras 36-38) 3. It is clear from the actual wording of Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life vehicles that the delivery of an end-of-life vehicle to an authorised treatment facility must be free of charge, the related costs being borne by the manufacturers. It immediately follows that, for any demolisher accepting voluntarily an end-of-life vehicle for destruction, the national system must make provision for a system of compensation for the costs of treatment, in this case the same as that provided for treatment facilities that are obliged under the national system to accept such vehicles. (see paras 48-49) 4. There is nothing either in the wording of Article 5(2) of Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life vehicles, according to which the Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that all end‑of-life vehicles are transferred to authorised treatment facilities, or in that of Article 5(4) of that directive, according to which Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that the delivery of the vehicle to an authorised treatment facility occurs without any cost for the last holder and/or owner of the vehicle, to the effect that transfer to ‘facilities’ is to be interpreted as meaning that all facilities are obliged to accept end-of-life vehicles. That directive does not, therefore, prevent certain treatment facilities from opting whether or not to accept, provided that the number of treatment facilities obliged to accept end-of-life vehicles delivered is sufficient to allow, in practice, for a transfer to such a facility. Thus, by providing for the obligation for shredders and collection centres to accept end-of-life vehicles, on the one hand, and for severe sanctions incurred in the case of abandonment of such a vehicle, on the other, a Member State introduces a system for the acceptance of end-of-life vehicles which cannot be regarded as being incompatible with Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53. (see paras 51-52, 55-57) 5. Despite the fact that there is no definition of the concept of ‘stripping’ in Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life vehicles, both stripping operations and depollution operations relate to vehicle components containing hazardous substances that, in order to reduce any negative impact on the environment, must be dismantled before any other treatment takes place. Therefore, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that stripping is to be regarded as being the operation by which the treatment operations for depollution commence, while at the same time forming part of those operations. Consequently, by imposing the principle that depollution must precede all other treatment, without, however, specifying, through the introduction of the term ‘stripping’, that depollution begins with the dismantling of components which are easy to dismantle, a Member State does not fail to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of that directive. (see paras 61, 63) 6. As regards the content of the recycling obligation, laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life vehicles, the expression ‘when environmentally viable’ cannot be regarded as equivalent to that used in a national implementing provision which reduces environmental viability to economic-type considerations and allows for recycling only where it is technically feasible. Even though it may be accepted that the concepts of environmental viability and economic feasibility have certain aspects in common, it is clear that they are not equivalent. (see paras 69, 72-74)