European Commission v Czech Republic.
Date: 2013-06-25
23. As the FEU Treaty abolished the reasoned opinion stage in infringement proceedings under Article 260(2) TFEU, the reference date for assessing whether there has been an infringement for the purpose of Article 260 TFEU is the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 260(2) (see Case C‑610/10 Commission  v Spain  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 67, and the judgment of 19 December 2012 in Case C‑279/11 Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 19).
40. An order to pay a lump sum is based essentially on the assessment of the effects on public and private interests of the failure of the Member State concerned to comply with its obligations, in particular where the breach has persisted for a long period after the judgment initially establishing it was delivered (see, inter alia, Case C‑121/07 Commission  v France  [2008] ECR I‑9159, paragraph 58; Case C‑407/09 Commission  v Greece  [2011] ECR I‑2467, paragraph 28; and Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 65).
41. Moreover, the question of whether such an order should be made and the fixing, if necessary, of the amount of the lump sum must, in each individual case, depend on all the relevant factors pertaining to both the particular nature of the infringement established and the individual conduct of the Member State involved in the procedure instigated pursuant to Article 260 TFEU (see, inter alia, Commission  v France , paragraph 62; Commission  v Greece , paragraph 30; and Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 67).
42. That provision confers in that regard a wide discretion upon the Court in deciding whether or not to impose such a penalty and determining, if necessary, its amount ( Commission  v Spain , paragraph 141). In particular, an order requiring a Member State to pay a lump sum cannot be made automatically (see, to that effect, Commission  v France , paragraph 63).
43. For that purpose, the Commission’s suggestions cannot bind the Court and are merely guidance. Likewise, guidelines concerning orders for payment of lump sums, such as those appearing in the 2005 communication, which the Commission relied on in the present case, do not bind the Court, but may contribute to ensuring that the Commission’s actions are transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty (see, to that effect, Commission  v France , paragraph 61, and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 116 and the case-law cited).
44. Here, for the purposes of ruling on the claim for an order requiring the Czech Republic to pay a lump sum, it should be recalled that, although Article 260 TFEU does not specify the period within which a judgment must be complied with, the action required to give effect to a judgment must be set in motion immediately and be completed as soon as possible (see, in particular, Commission  v Greece , paragraph 34).
45. That is all the more the case since the entry into force of the FEU Treaty, because, as was pointed out in paragraph 23 of the present judgment, that treaty abolished the reasoned opinion stage in infringement proceedings under Article 260(2) TFEU.
48. It should, however, be pointed out that a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations arising under European Union law (see, inter alia, Case C‑568/07 Commission  v Greece [2009] ECR I‑4505, paragraph 50, and Commission  v Greece , cited above, paragraph 36).
54. In particular, the complete transposition of Directive 2003/41 is intended principally to inform interested persons in the event that, as the Court observed in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Commission  v Czech Republic , the national retirement pension system develops in that regard.