Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:625
Date: 2007-10-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957);Treaty on European Union (1992)
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs;Transport
Concepts: Maritime transport;Common transport policy;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Summary of the Judgment 1. Transport – Common policy – Competence of the Community (Arts 6 EC, 71(1) EC and 80(2) EC) 2. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Approximation of laws and regulations on maritime safety (Art. 80(2) EC, Council Framework Decision 2005/667, Arts 2 to 6) 1. Article 80(2) EC does not lay down any explicit limitations as to the nature of the specific common rules which the Council may adopt on that basis. The Community legislature therefore has broad legislative powers under that provision and is competent, by virtue of that provision and in keeping with the other provisions of the Treaty relating to the common transport policy, in particular Article 71(1) EC, to lay down, inter alia, measures to improve transport safety and any other appropriate provisions in the field of maritime transport. The existence of that competence is, moreover, not dependent on the decision of the legislature actually to exercise it. Since requirements relating to environmental protection, which is one of the essential objectives of the Community, must, according to Article 6 EC, be integrated into the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities, such protection must be regarded as an objective which also forms part of the common transport policy. The Community legislature may therefore, on the basis of Article 80(2) EC and in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by that provision, decide to promote environmental protection. When the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, the Community legislature may require the Member States to introduce such penalties in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down in that field are fully effective. (see paras 58-60, 66) 2. Under Article 47 EU, none of the provisions of the EC Treaty is to be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. The same rule is laid down in the first paragraph of Article 29 EU, which introduces Title VI of the EU Treaty, entitled ‘Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’. It is the task of the Court to ensure that acts which, according to the Council, fall within the scope of Title VI do not encroach upon the powers conferred by the EC Treaty on the Community. Framework Decision 2005/667 to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, which requires Member States to apply criminal penalties to certain forms of conduct, is, as is demonstrated by its preamble and Articles 2, 3 and 5 thereof, intended to enhance maritime safety and improve protection of the marine environment against pollution and could, at least as regards those provisions, have been validly adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) EC, with the result that it infringes Article 47 EU. Provisions such as Articles 4 and 6 of Framework Decision 2005/667, which relate to the type and level of criminal penalties, do not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence and could not therefore have been validly adopted by it. Since there is an inextricable link between Articles 4 and 6 of Framework Decision 2005/667 and Articles 2, 3 and 5 of that framework decision, and between all those articles and Articles 7 to 12 of the latter, the said framework decision must be annulled in its entirety. (see paras 52-53, 62, 69-74)