Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2002-05-02
39 Plainly, the duty to draw up waste management plans, in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, is an obligation as to the result to be achieved. It cannot be satisfied by steps preparing for or contemplating the drafting of such plans or by the creation of an appropriate regulatory framework for attaining that objective. However, as the French Government itself acknowledges, when the two-month period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, waste management plans had not in fact been adopted for the whole of the territory of the French Republic.
41 In this connection, it should be observed that the inclusion of the words as soon as possible in Article 7(1) is an indication that the period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 91/156 for the transposition of that directive does not relate to the obligation to draw up waste management plans. If that were the case, the words would be meaningless. It thus follows that the words as soon as possible are to be interpreted as stipulating, in principle, a reasonable period for compliance by the competent authorities of each Member State with that particular obligation, that period being unconnected with the period laid down for transposition of the directive.
44 Next, considering the objectives pursued by the obligation laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, it is clear from the very wording of that provision that the obligation is necessary in order for the objectives set out in Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that directive to be fully attained (see, by analogy, Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-5047, paragraph 95). Chief among those objectives is the protection of public health and the environment, which is the essence of Community legislation relating to waste. That is the reason why, according to the case-law, a failure to fulfil the obligation to draw up waste management plans must be regarded as serious, even if the failure relates to only a very small part of a Member State's territory, such as a single department (see, to that effect, Commission v Greece, cited above, paragraphs 94 or 95), or a single area within a valley (see, to that effect, Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraph 69).
47 As regards, first of all, the judicial annulment of certain plans that had been adopted and the technical difficulties attributable to the remoteness or complex geography of certain departments or regions, suffice it to recall that, according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead internal circumstances, such as difficulties of implementation which emerge at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect, to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down by Community law (see, inter alia, Commission v Greece, cited above, paragraph 70).
48 Secondly, the fact that a Member State claims that it has set itself more ambitious objectives than those pursued by a given directive does not relieve that Member State of its obligation to comply, at the very least, with the requirements laid down in that directive within the period allowed.