Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség.
Date: 2016-06-09
34


Thus, in order to facilitate the tracking of shipments of such waste, Article 18 of Regulation No 1013/2006 obliges the person be under the jurisdiction of the country of dispatch who arranges the shipment to ensure that the waste is accompanied by the accompanying document, which may be required by the competent national authorities for the purposes of inspection, enforcement of the regulation, planning or statistics (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 December 2013 in Ragn-Sells, C‑292/12, EU:C:2013:820, paragraph 65). As that document is the sole source of detailed information on waste shipment provided for by that regulation in order to enable the competent authorities of the countries concerned to carry out their mission of supervision and control under that regulation, it must be duly completed by the party arranging such a shipment.
50


According to settled case-law, in the absence of harmonisation of EU legislation in the field of penalties applicable where conditions laid down by arrangements under that legislation are not complied with, Member States are empowered to choose the penalties which seem to them to be appropriate. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with EU law and its general principles, and, consequently, in accordance with the principle of proportionality (judgment of 9 February 2012 in Urbán, C‑210/10, EU:C:2012:64, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
51


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in order to assess whether the penalty in question is consistent with the principle of proportionality, account must be taken inter alia of the nature and the degree of seriousness of the infringement which the penalty seeks to sanction and of the means of establishing the amount of the penalty (see, inter alia, judgment in Rodopi-M 91, C‑259/12, EU:C:2013:414, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). The Member States are thus required to comply with the principle of proportionality also as regards the assessment of the factors which may be taken into account in the fixing of a fine (judgment of 9 February 2012 in Urbán, C‑210/10, EU:C:2012:64, paragraph 54).
52


However, it is ultimately for the national court, by taking into account all the factual and legal circumstances of the case before it, to assess whether the amount of the penalty does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation in question. As regards the specific application of that principle of proportionality, it is for the national court to determine whether the national measures are compatible with EU law, the competence of the Court of Justice being limited to providing the national court with all the criteria for the interpretation of EU law which may enable it to make such a determination as to compatibility (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2010 in Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Jóźwiak, Orłowski, C‑188/09, EU:C:2010:454, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
53


As regards the penalties imposed for infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 1013/2006, which aims to ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health, the Court held, in its judgment of 26 November 2015 in Total Waste Recycling (C‑487/14, EU:C:2015:780, paragraph 55), that the national court is required, in the context of the review of the proportionality of such penalty, to take particular account of the risks which may be caused by that infringement in the field of protection of the environment and human health.
55


However, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the imposition of a fine penalising a shipment of waste for which the accompanying document contains incorrect or inconsistent information, the basic amount of which is the same as the fine imposed for infringement of the obligation to complete that document, is considered proportionate if the circumstances of the infringement make it possible to find that they involve equally serious infringements in the light of the risks they entail for protection of the environment and human health, which it is for the national court to ascertain (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 November 2015 in Total Waste Recycling, C‑487/14, EU:C:2015:780, paragraphs 54 and 56).
58


In that regard, according to settled case-law, the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate (judgments of 13 March 2014 in FIRIN, C‑107/13, EU:C:2014:151, paragraph 29, and of 6 October 2015 in Capoda Import-Export, C‑354/14, EU:C:2015:658, paragraph 23).
59


In the context of that cooperation, questions concerning EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgments of 13 March 2014 in FIRIN, C‑107/13, EU:C:2014:151, paragraph 30; and of 5 March 2015 in Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, C‑667/13, EU:C:2015:151, paragraph 36).