Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:203
Date: 2010-04-20
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;External relations;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Pollution
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment Member States – Obligations – Duty of loyal cooperation with the Community institutions (Art. 10 EC) The duty of genuine cooperation provided for in Article 10 EC is of general application and does not depend either on whether the Community competence concerned is exclusive or on any right of the Member States to enter into obligations towards non-member countries. When it is apparent that the subject‑matter of an agreement or convention falls partly within the competence of the Community and partly within that of its Member States, it is essential to ensure close cooperation between the latter and the Community institutions, both in the process of negotiating and concluding and in the fulfilling of the commitments entered into. That obligation to cooperate flows from the requirement of unity in the international representation of the Community. Member States are subject to special duties of action and abstention in a situation in which the Commission has submitted to the Council proposals that, although they have not been adopted by the Council, represent the point of departure for concerted Community action. In such circumstances an infringement of the duty of cooperation in good faith is constituted by the unilateral proposal of a Member State to list a substance in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, therefore dissociating that Member State from a concerted common strategy within the Council although, having regard to the institutional and procedural framework of that convention, such a proposal has consequences for the Union, inter alia as regards exercising rights. Under the provisions of that convention a regional economic integration organisation, such as the Union, is not to exercise its right to vote if any of its Member States exercises its right to vote, and vice versa. Furthermore, in the case of such an organisation, one or more of whose member States is, like that organisation, a Party to that Convention, the organisation and the member States are not to be entitled to exercise rights under the Convention concurrently. Such a situation is likely to compromise the principle of unity in the international representation of the Union and its Member States and weaken their negotiating power with regard to the other parties to the Convention concerned. By unilaterally submitting such a proposal, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC. (see paras 71, 73-74, 91-93, 103-104, operative part 1)