Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:115
Date: 2010-03-04
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Obligation for the Member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Arts 5(1) and 7(3)) 2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Obligation for the competent authorities to draw up one or more waste management plans – Criteria governing the location of disposal installations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 5(2)) 3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Obligation for the Member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations – Choice of waste management plans on a regional basis (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 7(1)) 4. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Force majeure – Conditions (Art. 258 TFEU) 5. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Obligation for the Member States to ensure the recovery or disposal of waste (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 4(1)) 1. Under Article 5(1) of Directive 2006/12 on waste, Member States are to take appropriate measures to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations, so as to enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal and the Member States to move towards that aim individually. To that end, Member States must take into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste. For the purposes of establishing such an integrated network, the Member States enjoy a measure of discretion as to the territorial basis which they consider appropriate if they are to achieve national self-sufficiency in terms of waste disposal capacity, and thus enable the Community itself to ensure disposal of its waste. The characteristics of certain categories of waste, such as hazardous waste, can be so specific that it may be appropriate to treat waste belonging to such a category all together, with a view to its disposal at one or more dedicated national installations, or even – as expressly provided for under Articles 5(1) and 7(3) of Directive 2006/12 – within the framework of cooperation with other Member States. (see paras 61-63) 2. One of the most important measures that the Member States must adopt as part of their obligation under Directive 2006/12 on waste to establish waste management plans which may, in particular, provide for appropriate measures to encourage rationalisation of the collection, sorting and treatment of waste, is that provided for in Article 5(2) of that directive, under which the network established must enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. The criteria governing the location of waste disposal sites must be determined in the light of the objectives pursued by Directive 2006/12, which include the protection of health and the environment and the establishment of an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, which must, in particular, enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. Those location criteria should accordingly relate, inter alia, to the distance of such sites from inhabited areas where the waste is produced; the prohibition on establishing installations in the vicinity of sensitive areas; and the existence of adequate infrastructure for the shipment of waste, such as connections to transport networks. Regarding non-hazardous urban waste, which does not, as a rule, require specialised installations like those required for the treatment of hazardous waste, Member States must therefore endeavour to have a network which makes it possible to meet the need, in terms of waste disposal installations, as close as possible to the places where the waste is produced, although that does not alter the fact that it is also possible to organise such a network within the framework of inter-regional or even cross-border cooperation, where that is consistent with the principle of proximity. (see paras 64-66) 3. Where a Member State has specially opted, as part of one or more of its waste management plans within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/12 on waste, to organise the equipping of its territory on a regional basis, it should be inferred from this that each region with a regional plan must, as a rule, ensure the treatment and disposal of its waste as close as possible to the place where it is produced. The principle that environmental damage should, as a matter of priority, be remedied at source – laid down in Article 191 TFEU as a basis for Community action in relation to the environment – entails that it is for each region, municipality or other local authority to take appropriate steps to ensure that its own waste is collected, treated and disposed of and that that waste must accordingly be disposed of as close as possible to the place where it is produced, in order to limit as far as possible the transportation of waste. Consequently, in such a national network as defined by a Member State, if one of the regions lacks, in telling measure and for a significant length of time, infrastructure sufficient to meet its waste disposal needs, it is legitimate to conclude that such serious deficiencies at regional level are likely to compromise the national network of waste disposal installations, which will then no longer be integrated and adequate, as required under Directive 2006/12, or capable of meeting the obligation to enable the Member State concerned to move individually towards the aim of self-sufficiency as defined in Article 5(1) of that directive. (see paras 67-68) 4. The procedure provided for in Article 258 TFEU presupposes an objective finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty or secondary legislation. Where such a finding has been made, it is irrelevant whether the failure to fulfil obligations is the result of intention or negligence on the part of the Member State responsible, or of technical difficulties encountered by it. With regard to the local inhabitants’ opposition to the establishment of certain waste disposal installations, a Member State may not plead internal situations, such as difficulties of implementation which emerge at the stage of putting a Community measure into effect, including difficulties relating to opposition on the part of certain individuals, in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down by Community law. The same holds true as regards the presence of criminal activity, or of persons described as operating on the fringes of the law, active in the waste management sector. With regard to the non-performance of contractual obligations by the undertakings entrusted with the construction of certain waste disposal infrastructures, although the notion of force majeure is not predicated on absolute impossibility, it nevertheless requires the non-performance of the act in question to be attributable to circumstances, beyond the control of the party claiming force majeure, which are abnormal and unforeseeable and the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due diligence. (see paras 81-85) 5. Whilst Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/12 on waste does not specify the actual content of the measures which must be taken in order to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, it is none the less true that that provision is binding on the Member States as to the objective to be achieved, whilst leaving to the Member States a margin of discretion in assessing the need for such measures It follows that, in principle, it cannot be inferred directly from the fact that a situation is not in conformity with the objectives laid down in said Article 4(1) that the Member State concerned has necessarily failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision, that is to say, to take the requisite measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment. However, if that situation persists and, in particular, if it leads to a significant deterioration in the environment over a protracted period without any action being taken by the competent authorities, this may be an indication that the Member States have exceeded the discretion conferred on them by that provision. (see paras 96-97)