Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:216
Date: 2008-04-10
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Concepts: General;Environment;Defences
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Formal notice (Art. 226 EC) 2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring proceedings – Exercise of that right not dependent on a specific interest in bringing an action (Art. 226 EC) 3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Late implementation of a directive as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) 4. Environment – Waste – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Arts 2 to 13) 5. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Period set for the Member State in the reasoned opinion – Default subsequently remedied – Interest in continuing the proceedings (Art. 226 EC) 6. Environment – Waste – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 14(d)(i)) 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, secondly, to enable the Member State to comply before proceedings are brought before the Court. Accordingly, when the Commission sends a Member State a supplementary letter of formal notice laying down a new time-limit for that State to submit its observations, before sending it a reasoned opinion based on the same complaints as those in the supplementary letter of formal notice, it does not prejudice the rights of the defence, since that Member State has been given the opportunity to prepare its defence before receiving the reasoned opinion. (see paras 22-23) 2. A Member State which has not transposed, within the period prescribed, a Community directive and against which infringement proceedings have been brought in respect not of the failure to transpose but of the failure to fulfil an obligation flowing from that directive cannot plead the fact that it has not taken the necessary measures to implement the directive in order to object to the admissibility of the action, arguing that the Commission lacks a legal interest in bringing proceedings. (see paras 30-31) 3. A Member State may not plead its late implementation of a directive as justification for failure to fulfil, or late fulfilment of, other obligations imposed by that directive. When a directive lays down unequivocal obligations on the competent national authorities, Member States which have not transposed the directive cannot consider themselves relieved from compliance with those obligations after the period for transposition has expired and cannot exclude, by a transitional provision, the application of the provisions of that directive. To allow the State such a right would have the effect of allowing it to defer the time-limit for transposition by it. (see para. 33) 4. A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste when it adopts and maintains in force national legislation which does not provide for the application of Articles 2 to 13 of that directive, which relate to new landfills, to landfills authorised subsequent to the date of expiry of the period for transposition of that directive and prior to the date of the entry into force of the national legislation. (see paras 34-35, 51, operative part) 5. Whether or not a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Even where the infringement has been remedied after that period has expired, there is still an interest in pursuing the action in order to establish the basis of liability which a Member State may incur, as a result of its infringement, to, amongst others, persons who derive rights from the infringement. (see para. 42) 6. A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste when it lays down transitional provisions concerning the treatment of hazardous waste which apply only to new landfills and do not lay down any transitional rule for the treatment of that waste in existing landfill sites. By so doing, it does not secure the transposition of Article 14(d)(i) of that directive, which provides, irrespective of the duration of the procedure for adapting existing landfill sites which must be completed on 16 July 2009, for a period of one year after the date of expiry of the period for transposition of the directive, namely from 16 July 2002, for the application of the transitional provisions in Articles 4, 5 and 11 of the directive and Annex II thereto to existing landfill sites for hazardous waste. (see paras 46-47, 51, operative part)