1. By its application, the European Commission requests the Court to declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the correct and complete transposition of Article 2.13, Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), Article 6(3), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Legal context European Union legislation
2. Article 1 of Directive 2000/53, entitled ‘Objectives’, states that the directive lays down measures which aim, as a first priority, at the prevention of waste from vehicles and, in addition, at the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of end-of-life vehicles and their components so as to reduce the disposal of waste, as well as at the improvement in the environmental performance of all of the economic operators involved in the life cycle of vehicles, especially the operators directly involved in the treatment of end-of-life vehicles.
3. Article 2.13 of that directive defines ‘dismantling information’ as ‘all information required for the correct and environmentally sound treatment of end-of-life vehicles. It shall be made available to authorised treatment facilities by vehicle manufacturers and component producers in the form of manuals or by means of electronic media (e.g. CD-ROM, online services)’.
4. Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53 is worded as follows: ‘Member States shall ensure that materials and components of vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003 do not contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium other than in cases listed in Annex II under the conditions specified therein’.
5. Article 5(2) to (4) of Directive 2000/53 provide: ‘2. Member States shall … take the necessary measures to ensure that all end‑of-life vehicles are transferred to authorised treatment facilities. 3. Member States shall set up a system according to which the presentation of a certificate of destruction is a condition for deregistration of the end-of-life vehicle. This certificate shall be issued to the holder and/or owner when the end-of-life vehicle is transferred to a treatment facility. Treatment facilities which have obtained a permit in accordance with Article 6 shall be permitted to issue a certificate of destruction. Member States may permit producers, dealers and collectors on behalf of an authorised treatment facility to issue certificates of destruction provided that they guarantee that the end-of-life vehicle is transferred to an authorised treatment facility and provided that they are registered with public authorities. Issuing the certificate of destruction by treatment facilities or dealers or collectors on behalf of an authorised treatment facility does not entitle them to claim any financial reimbursement, except in cases where this has been explicitly arranged by Member States. … 4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the delivery of the vehicle to an authorised treatment facility in accordance with paragraph 3 occurs without any cost for the last holder and/or owner as a result of the vehicle’s having no, or a negative, market value. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers meet all, or a significant part of, the costs of the implementation of this measure and/or take back end-of-life vehicles under the same conditions as referred to in the first subparagraph. Member States may provide that the delivery of end-of-life vehicles is not fully free of charge if the end-of-life vehicle does not contain the essential components of a vehicle, in particular the engine and the coachwork, or contains waste which has been added to the end-of-life vehicle. The Commission shall regularly monitor the implementation of the first subparagraph to ensure that it does not result in market distortions, and if necessary shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council an amendment thereto.’
6. Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 provides: ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any establishment or undertaking carrying out treatment operations fulfils at least the following obligations in accordance with Annex I: (a) end-of-life vehicles shall be stripped before further treatment or other equivalent arrangements are made in order to reduce any adverse impact on the environment. Components or materials labelled or otherwise made identifiable in accordance with Article 4(2) shall be stripped before further treatment; (b) hazardous materials and components shall be removed and segregated in a selective way so as not to contaminate subsequent shredder waste from end‑of-life vehicles; (c) stripping operations and storage shall be carried out in such a way as to ensure the suitability of vehicle components for reuse and recovery, and in particular for recycling. Treatment operations for depollution of end-of-life vehicles as referred to in Annex I(3) shall be carried out as soon as possible.’
7. Article 7(l) of Directive 2000/53 provides: ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to encourage the reuse of components which are suitable for reuse, the recovery of components which cannot be reused and the giving of preference to recycling when environmentally viable, without prejudice to requirements regarding the safety of vehicles and environmental requirements such as air emissions and noise control.’
8. Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53 provides: ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers provide dismantling information for each type of new vehicle put on the market within six months after the vehicle is put on the market. …’ National legislation
9. Directive 2000/53 was transposed into French law by Decree No 2003‑727 of 1 August 2003 on vehicle construction and disposal of end-of-life vehicles ( JORF of 5 August 2003, p. 13487) (‘Decree No 2003‑727’), and by the following implementing orders: Order of 24 December 2004 on the provisions relating to the construction of vehicles, components and equipment for the disposal of end-of-life vehicles ( JORF of 31 December 2004, p. 22743); Order of 15 March 2005 on the authorisation of operators of facilities for the storage, depollution, dismantling, shearing or shredding of end-of-life vehicles ( JORF of 14 April 2005, p. 6688); Order of 6 April 2005 laying down the rules for drawing up the receipt for the acceptance for destruction and the certificate of destruction of an end-of-life vehicle ( JORF of 24 May 2005, p. 8915); and Order of 13 May 2005 on the detailed rules governing the payment of compensation to authorised shredders ( JORF of 31 May 2005, p. 9716).
10. Article 2 of Decree No 2003‑727 provides: ‘For the application of the present Decree: ... 3. “Demolishers” shall be understood to mean persons who ensure the acceptance, storage, depollution and dismantling of the vehicles; 4. “Shredders” shall be understood to mean persons who ensure the acceptance, storage, shearing or shredding of the vehicles, both operations being preceded, if necessary, by the depollution and dismantling of the vehicles; ...’
11. Article 4 of that decree provides: ‘End-of-life vehicles may be delivered by their holders only to demolishers or shredders who have been approved pursuant to Article 9 of the present Decree or to collection centres established by the manufacturers.’
12. Article 5 of Decree No 2003‑727 provides: ‘Shredders and collection centres, as well as demolishers who have accepted delivery of the vehicles, may not impose any charge on holders who deliver their end-of-life vehicle to the entrance of their facilities unless the vehicle does not have its essential components, in particular the engine and the catalytic converter for vehicles which were so equipped when they were placed on the market, or the bodywork, or if it contains non-approved waste or parts which were added to it and which, by their nature or quantity, increase the cost of treating end-of-life vehicles.’
13. According to Article 6 of Decree No 2003‑727: ‘Each manufacturer is required to compensate, for its brand of vehicles, the deficit which the application of Article 5 may entail for an authorised shredder or to take back itself its vehicles under such conditions as it may consider to be appropriate. The deficit shall be established by a third-party body designated jointly by the manufacturer and the authorised shredder. The evidence establishing the deficit shall be submitted without delay to the commission referred to in Article 18 of the present Decree together with the manufacturer’s proposals for compensation. A joint order of the Ministers responsible for transport, the environment, the economy and industry shall lay down the detailed rules for the application of the first two paragraphs of the present Article, including the rules governing separate accounting for the different activities which may be pursued by shredders.’
14. Article 7 of that decree provides: ‘The reuse of the components of end-of-life vehicles shall, where possible, occur in keeping with the requirements of vehicle safety and environmental protection, including the reduction of air and noise pollution. The traceability of the reused components as covered by those requirements must be ensured through the affixing of appropriate marking, where technically possible, in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the present Decree. Subject to the preceding paragraph, the components and materials of end-of-life vehicles should preferably be reused, recovered and, in particular, recycled rather than destroyed, wherever technical and economic circumstances so permit.’
15. Article 13 of that decree provides: ‘Article R. 322-9 of the Highway Code is replaced by the following provisions: “Art. R. 322-9. - In the event of sale or transfer free of charge of a vehicle for destruction, save for the cases referred to in Article L. 326‑11, the owner shall submit the grey card ( carte grise ) to an authorised demolisher or shredder, after having placed, in a very legible and unalterable manner, the wording ‘sold on ../../.... (date of the transfer) for destruction’ or ‘transferred on ../../.... (date of the transfer) for destruction’, followed by his signature, and after having torn off the portion provided for that purpose. In the absence of a grey card, save for the cases referred to in Article L. 326‑11, the owner shall submit either an official document proving that the grey card cannot be provided, or proof of ownership in the case of a vehicle which is more than 25 years old. The authorised demolisher or shredder shall, within 15 days of the date of transfer of the vehicle, provide the owner with a receipt of acceptance for destruction. Within the same period, the authorised demolisher or shredder shall lodge with the prefect of the département in which the vehicle is registered a copy of the receipt of acceptance for destruction and shall also provide him with one of the documents referred to in the first and second paragraphs of the present Article. Within 15 days of the shearing or shredding of the vehicle, the authorised shredder shall confirm the destruction to the prefect of the département in which the place of registration is situated by providing him with the corresponding certificate of destruction. The prefect shall then proceed with the registration of destruction and cancellation of the registration. A joint order of the Ministers responsible for transport, the environment, the interior and industry shall lay down the rules for drawing up the receipt and certificate of destruction.”‘
16. Article 15 of Decree No 2003‑727 provides: ‘Without prejudice to business and industrial secrets, in cooperation with the manufacturers of materials and components used in vehicles, each manufacturer shall, for each type of new vehicle received at national or Community level and within six months after receipt, provide authorised demolishers and shredders with information on: 1. The conditions for dismantling and depollution of the vehicle; 2. The conditions for dismantling, storage and monitoring of components which can be reused; 3. The different components and materials of the vehicles; 4. The location of hazardous substances present in the vehicles.’ Pre-litigation procedure
17. Following a number of complaints, on 12 October 2005 the Commission sent to the French Republic a letter of formal notice in which it stated that, in its view, the French Republic had, first, transposed incorrectly Articles 1, 4(2), 5(3) and (4), 6(3) and 7(1) of Directive 2000/53, secondly, transposed incompletely Article 7(2) of that directive and, lastly, transposed incorrectly and incompletely Articles 2.12 and 2.13, 4(1) and 8(3) of that directive.
18. On 19 December 2005, the French Republic replied to that letter of formal notice, setting out the reasons why it took the view that the Commission’s complaints were unfounded.
19. On 12 December 2006, the Commission sent to the French Republic a reasoned opinion reiterating the complaints set out in the letter of formal notice, with the exception of the complaints relating to Articles 2.12 and 7(2) of Directive 2000/53.
20. On 14 February 2007, the French Republic replied to that reasoned opinion, stating that, in its view, the Commission’s complaints were unfounded.
21. As it was of the view that, save for those relating to Articles 1 and 4(1) of Directive 2000/53, the complaints remained justified, the Commission brought the present action. The action
22. The Commission puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its action, namely: - the incompatibility with Article 2.13 of Directive 2000/53 of the definition of ‘dismantling information’ introduced in French law; - the incompatibility with Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53 of the date fixing the proh ibition of hazardous substances; - the incompatibility with Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53 of the French system for the cancellation of the registration upon presentation of a certificate of destruction; - the incompatibility with Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53 of the system of acceptance of end-of-life vehicles; - the incompatibility with Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 of the non‑reproduction of the concept of ‘stripping’ in the provisions transposing that directive into French law; - the incompatibility with Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/53 of the interpretation of the expression ‘when environmentally viable’, as laid down in French law; and - the incompatibility with Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53 of the lack of precision concerning the technical means for providing dismantling information. The first and seventh pleas: incompatibility with Article 2.13 of Directive 2000/53 of the definition of ‘dismantling information’ introduced in French law and, by way of corollary, incompatibility with Article 8(3) of that directive of the lack of precision concerning the technical means for providing dismantling information
23. The Commission takes the view that Article 15 of Decree No 2003‑727 is more restrictive in its scope than Article 2.13 of Directive 2000/53, since the latter provision states that authorised treatment facilities must be provided with ‘all information’ and not only with a restricted list of information as referred to in Article 15 of that decree. According to the Commission, that incorrect and incomplete transposition of Article 2.13 automatically means that there is an incomplete and incorrect transposition of Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53, which imposes an obligation as to the means used to provide information.
24. In its statement in defence, the French Republic concedes that a definition, general in scope, of the expression ‘dismantling information’ is necessary in order to ensure a correct and full transposition of Article 2.13 of Directive 2000/53. It also acknowledges that it is necessary to specify the technical means used to comply with the obligation on manufacturers to provide dismantling information and undertakes to amend the relevant provisions of national law in order to introduce the points of clarification required.
25. Suffice it to note, in this regard, that it is clear from the wording of Article 2.13 of Directive 2000/53 that ‘dismantling information’ refers to ‘all information required for the … treatment of end-of-life vehicles’ and that Article 8(3) of that directive must be read in the light of Article 2.13 with regard to the detailed rules governing the provision of such information.
26. It follows that the first and seventh pleas are well founded. Second plea: incompatibility with Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53 of the date fixing the prohibition of hazardous substances
27. By its second plea, the Commission submits that Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53 has been transposed into French law by Article 3 of Decree No 2003-727 and by the implementing Order of 24 December 2004 on the provisions relating to the construction of vehicles, components and equipment for the disposal of end-of-life vehicles. In the Commission’s view, however, the French Republic did not ensure a correct transposition of Article 4(2)(a) inasmuch as, contrary to that provision, it imposed only on vehicles placed on the market as from 31 December 2004, and not to those placed on the market as from 1 July 2003, the obligation to ensure that the materials and components of those vehicles do not contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium other than in the cases listed in Annex II to Directive 2000/53.
28. In that regard, suffice it to note, as indeed the French Republic itself acknowledges, that, as the provisions of the Order of 24 December 2004 apply only as from 31 December 2004, the obligation laid down in Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 5000/53 was imposed later than the date fixed in that provision. It thus follows that French law did not ensure the correct transposition of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53.
29. The second plea is accordingly well founded. Third plea: incompatibility with Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53 of the French system for the cancellation of the registration upon presentation of a certificate of destruction Arguments of the parties
30. The Commission observes that Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53 gives a precise description of the procedure to be followed for cancelling the registration of an end-of-life vehicle. Thus, in order to ensure consistency between the national approaches for achieving smooth functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition within the European Union, that provision determines which persons are empowered to issue a certificate of destruction, the addressee(s) of such a certificate and when it must be issued.
31. According to the Commission, the French system, which has, moreover, been discontinued since 15 September 2009, when a new registration system came into effect for all vehicles registered as from that date, did not comply with those specific, detailed instructions in Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53. By providing in Article 13 of Decree No 2003-727 and in the Order of 6 April 2005 referred to in paragraph 9 of the present judgment that only shredders were empowered to issue a ‘certificate of destruction’ and that that certificate was to be lodged with the prefect of the département of the place of registration of the vehicle after the latter had been physically destroyed, whilst the holder of the end-of-life vehicle was to receive a ‘receipt of acceptance for destruction’, French law gave rise to confusion and administrative complications which were at variance with the objective of Directive 2000/53 and undermined its effectiveness.
32. The French Republic takes issue with the Commission’s submissions. It states that it did put in place a two-stage procedure permitting better traceability of end-of-life vehicles in order to ensure a higher level of protection.
33. The issuance of a ‘receipt of acceptance for destruction’, given in the first stage to the holder at the time of transfer of the vehicle to a treatment facility, is, it submits, a necessary condition for the subsequent cancellation of the registration. In a second stage, a document entitled ‘certificate of destruction’, issued by the shredders, allows confirmation to be made of the destruction of the vehicle and, subsequently, definitive cancellation of the registration.
34. The French Republic accordingly takes the view that the ‘receipt of acceptance for destruction’ fulfils the function of the ‘certificate of destruction’ envisaged in Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53, since issuance thereof guarantees subsequent automatic destruction of the end-of-life vehicle and, conversely, the document entitled ‘certificate of destruction’, as construed under French law, does guarantee certainty of the actual destruction of an end-of-life vehicle before the vehicle’s registration is cancelled. Findings of the Court
35. In the first place, recital 1 in the preamble to Directive 2000/53 states that the directive seeks to minimise the impact of end-of-life vehicles on the environment, but does not provide for complete harmonisation and thus does not prevent Member States from adopting more stringent protective measures (see, inter alia, Case C-6/03 Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe [2005] ECR I-2753, paragraph 27). Such measures must, however, be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty and, inter alia, must not frustrate the achievement of the objective pursued in the second instance by that directive, namely to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition in the Union.
36. In that regard, the Court finds, as has been pointed out by the Commission, that Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53 provides a precise description of the procedure to be followed for cancelling the registration of an end-of-life vehicle, in order to ensure, as stated by recital 2 in the preamble to the directive, coherence between national approaches. In the context of that procedure, a very specific function is given to a key document entitled ‘certificate of destruction’.
37. That function of the document may not be altered. Even if it were to be conceded that the French system affords better traceability of end-of-life vehicles, it is clear that that system was giving the ‘certificate of destruction’ a function different from that laid down in Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53. Such an alteration of the function of that certificate is liable to jeopardise the coherence between the national approaches referred to in the preceding paragraph and, consequently, the functioning of the internal market.
38. Likewise, the issue of a document entitled ‘receipt of acceptance for destruction’ which, in the French Republic’s submission, fulfils the function of the ‘certificate of destruction’ provided for in Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/53 is liable to give rise to confusion capable of undermining the achievement of the objective pursued by that provision.
39. It follows from the foregoing that the third plea is also well founded. Fourth plea: incompatibility with Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53 of the system of acceptance of end-of-life vehicles Arguments of the parties
40. The Commission submits that Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53, read in conjunction with Article 5(2), provides for an obligation on the part of authorised treatment facilities to accept end-of-life vehicles for destruction free of charge.
41. According to the Commission, the principle that those vehicles are to be accepted free of charge must be construed as meaning that, first, all treatment facilities are obliged to accept completely free of charge the vehicles delivered by the last holder and/or owner and, secondly, all those facilities benefit from a mechanism for compensating the costs incurred by that acceptance, which costs are borne by the manufacturers.
42. By leaving the option open to demolishers to refuse to accept end-of-life vehicles for destruction, and by failing to make provision for compensation for costs of treatment for those demolishers, the French system of acceptance of those costs by the manufacturers does not, the Commission argues, comply with Directive 2000/53 and is liable to undermine its effectiveness.
43. The French Republic does not agree with that interpretation of Directive 2000/53. In its view, the Union legislature did not intend to oblige all treatment facilities to accept end-of-life vehicles through payment to them of compensation.
44. Admittedly, one of the objectives of Directive 2000/53 is to have all end-of-life vehicles transferred to treatment facilities. In the achievement of that objective, however, free-of-charge acceptances are merely an incentive and only one of a number of possible means by which that objective may be attained.
45. Thus, under French law, the objective of collecting all end-of-life vehicles through an appropriate system of treatment facilities is based not only on incentives but also on punitive measures designed to penalise the abandonment of end-of-life vehicles.
46. In those circumstances, the measures taken under French law, in the spirit of Directive 2000/53, appear to be sufficient for attaining the objective pursued, without it being necessary to require all treatment facilities, and consequently demolishers, to accept end-of-life vehicles.
47. Lastly, the compensation mechanism established by the Order of 13 May 2005 on the detailed rules governing the payment of compensation to authorised shredders is merely the correlation to their obligation of acceptance. Consequently, the Commission is incorrect in its assertion that, in the absence of compensation for demolishers, the provision under French law for acceptance of the costs of treatment by the manufacturers does not comply with the requirements of Directive 2000/53. Findings of the Court
48. First of all, it is clear from the actual wording of Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53 that the delivery of an end-of-life vehicle to an authorised treatment facility must be free of charge, the related costs being borne by the manufacturers.
49. It immediately follows that, for any demolisher accepting voluntarily an end-of-life vehicle for destruction, the national system must make provision for a system of compensation for the costs of treatment, in this case the same as that provided for treatment facilities which are obliged under the national system to accept such vehicles.
50. Consequently, it is already clear that, by excluding from the system of compensation provided for in Article 6 of Decree No 2003-727 those demolishers who have accepted a vehicle for destruction, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53.
51. As regards the question whether Directive 2000/53 must be interpreted as meaning that demolishers, as treatment facilities, are automatically obliged to accept end-of-life vehicles delivered by the last holder and/or owner, it should be borne in mind that, according to the wording of Article 5(2) of that directive, the Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that all end‑of-life vehicles are transferred to authorised treatment facilities.
52. There is nothing either in that wording or in the wording of Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53 to indicate that that transfer to ‘facilities’ is to be interpreted as meaning that all facilities are obliged to accept end-of-life vehicles.
53. Moreover, recital 7 in the preamble to Directive 2000/53, introducing Article 5(4) of that directive, states that ‘Member States should ensure that the last holder and/or owner can deliver the end-of-life vehicle to an authorised treatment facility without any cost …’.
54. That recital refers to ‘a’ treatment facility and not ‘any’ treatment facility, wording which corresponds to the French version (‘une’, and not ‘toute’, ‘installation de traitement’) and the German version (‘bei “einer” zugelassenen Verwertungsanlage’, and not ‘jeder’), and therefore lends itself more to the interpretation advocated by the French Republic.
55. That last interpretation also follows from a purposive interpretation of the disputed provision. Since, according to Article 5(2) of Directive 2000/53, one of its objectives is that all end-of-life vehicles should be transferred to treatment facilities, and since the measures adopted for that purpose, apart from the requirement that the acceptance be free of charge as required by Article 5(4) of that directive, come within the competence of the Member States, the directive does not prevent certain treatment facilities from opting whether or not to accept, provided that the number of treatment facilities obliged to accept end-of-life vehicles delivered is sufficient to allow, in practice, for a transfer to such a facility.
56. Thus, by providing for the obligation for shredders and collection centres to accept end-of-life vehicles, on the one hand, and for severe sanctions incurred in the case of abandonment of such a vehicle, referred to in paragraph 65 of the French Republic’s statement in defence, on the other, French law has introduced a system for the acceptance of end-of-life vehicles which cannot be regarded as being incompatible with Article 5(4) of Directive 2000/53.
57. The Court accordingly finds that the fourth plea is well founded in so far as demolishers which have accepted delivery of an end-of-life vehicle for destruction are excluded from the system of compensation provided for in Article 6 of Decree No 2003-727 and that the plea must be rejected as to the remainder. Fifth plea: incompatibility with Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 of the non‑reproduction of the concept of ‘stripping’ in the provisions transposing the directive into French law Arguments of the parties
58. In support of this plea, the Commission submits that Decree No 2003-727 does not reproduce the concept of ‘stripping’ (‘déshabillage’), as employed in Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 to designate the first stage of treatment operations. Even though the Commission takes the view that that term, which in the French version is no doubt the result of an infelicitous translation of the English word ‘stripping’, does not lend itself very well in French to usages in relation to a vehicle, it does describe the minimum dismantling operation which is a prerequisite to all other treatment operations, including depollution.
59. The French Republic observes that there is no definition whatsoever of the concept of ‘stripping’. It goes on to observe that the treatment operations listed in Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 are merely the minimum treatment obligations which an establishment or undertaking carrying out treatment operations must be in a position to satisfy. Thus, according to the French Republic, that provision is not intended to describe exhaustively the treatment process or to impose on Member States a precise sequence of treatment operations.
60. The French Republic concludes that, as the term ‘depollution’ applies to all treatment operations referred to in Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53, French law, which imposes the principle that depollution must precede all other treatment, has transposed that provision correctly. Findings of the Court
61. The Court finds, first, that, despite the fact that there is no definition of the concept of ‘stripping’, it is common ground that both stripping operations and depollution operations relate to vehicle components containing hazardous substances which, in order to reduce any negative impact on the environment, must be dismantled before any other treatment takes place.
62. Secondly, according to the Commission, the criterion which distinguishes vehicle components containing hazardous substances which, in its view, should be ‘stripped’ from those which should be ‘depolluted’ is that of the ease of dismantling of those components without endangering the environment. Thus, batteries which can be easily dismantled come within the scope of ‘stripping’, whilst those which cannot be easily dismantled come within the scope of ‘depollution’.
63. In the light of those findings, Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/53 must be interpreted as meaning that ‘stripping’ is to be regarded as being the operation by which the ‘treatment operations for depollution’ commence, whilst at the same time forming part of those operations. Consequently, by imposing the principle that depollution must precede all other treatment, without, however, specifying, through the introduction of the term ‘stripping’, that depollution begins with the dismantling of components which are easy to dismantle, which would appear to be necessary, the French Republic has not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of that directive.
64. In those circumstances, the fifth plea must be rejected. Sixth plea: incompatibility with Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/53 of the interpretation of the expression ‘when environmentally viable’ Arguments of the parties
65. The Commission observes that Article 7 of Decree No 2003-727, transposing Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/53, provides that the components and materials of end-of-life vehicles are to be reused, recovered and recycled rather than destroyed ‘wherever technical and economic circumstances so permit’, whereas Article 7 of that directive gives preference to recycling ‘when environmentally viable’.
66. The Commission takes the view that the reference to ‘technical and economic circumstances’ pursues a different objective to that intended by the Union legislature, with the emphasis, at the time of the choice between recycling and another operation, being not on environmental protection but rather on economic profitability or technical feasibility at the lowest possible cost.
67. The French Republic takes the view that the concept of ‘environmentally viable’ recycling cannot be accorded legislative weight, as the legal effect of a rule of law depends on the clarity and precision of the obligation resulting therefrom.
68. The French Republic adds that demolishers and shredders are not in a position to foresee the consequences of their actions in relation to ‘environmental viability’ and, therefore, to determine the circumstances in which they must give preference to recycling. French law has thus introduced a subjective approach to the preference to be given to recycling, as this can be assessed only on a case-by-case basis. Findings of the Court
69. It must be noted at the outset that the transposition, into French law, of the expression ‘when environmentally viable’, used in Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/53, is correct if the expression ‘wherever technical and economic circumstances so permit’, employed in Article 7(2) of Decree No 2003-727, may be considered equivalent to the first expression.
70. In that regard, it must be noted that both expressions call for a case-by-case assessment which, by its very nature, introduces an element of subjectivity.
71. It should also be noted that both expressions are alike in their legal effect, which, as noted by the French Republic, follow from the clarity and precision of the obligation resulting therefrom.
72. As regards the content of the recycling obligation, laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2000/53, on the one hand, and in Article 7 of Decree No 2003-727, on the other, it is clear that the conditions laid down in the latter provision are ultimately economic in nature, as recycling can clearly be envisaged only once it is feasible in technical terms.
73. It follows that the content of the two expressions, referred to in paragraph 69 of the present judgment, can be regarded as equivalent only if the concept of ‘environmental viability’ is equivalent to that of ‘economic feasibility’.
74. Even though it may be accepted that the two concepts have certain aspects in common, it is clear that they are not equivalent.
75. The sixth plea is accordingly well founded.
76. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the correct and complete transposition of Article 2.13, Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), in so far as, for the latter paragraph, demolishers which have accepted delivery of an end-of-life vehicle for destruction are excluded from the system of compensation for costs of treatment, Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Costs
77. Under Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order that the costs be shared or that the parties bear their own costs, if each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads.
78. In the present case, as the Commission and the French Republic have each failed on a number of heads, each must be ordered to bear its own costs.