1. By its application, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by failing to communicate the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59 /EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31; ‘the Directive’), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded ( OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33 ; ‘the Act of Accession’).
2. Article 11 of the Directive provides: ‘1. Member States shall, within three years of the adoption of this Directive, draw up: - plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein; - outlines for the collection and subsequent disposal of equipment which is not subject to inventory in accordance with Article 4(1), as referred to in Article 6(3). 2. Member States shall communicate these plans and outlines to the Commission without delay.’
3. The Directive entered into force on the date of its adoption, pursuant to Article 13(1) thereof.
4. Under Article 54 of the Act of Accession, the Republic of Malta was required to communicate the plans and outlines provided for in Article 11 of the Directive on the date of its accession to the European Union, namely 1 May 2004.
5. Since the Republic of Malta did not communicate those plans and outlines to the Commission within the period prescribed by the Act of Accession, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 226 EC. After giving the Republic of Malta formal notice to submit its observations, on 13 December 2005 it issued a reasoned opinion calling on that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply with the opinion within two months of its receipt.
6. As the Maltese authorities’ reply to that opinion disclosed that the Republic of Malta had not forwarded any plan or outline within the period laid down in the opinion and that the measures adopted subsequently were not sufficient to conclude that that Member State had adopted the measures necessary to comply fully with Article 11 of the Directive, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
7. In its defence, the Republic of Malta does not deny that it did not fulfil in good time the obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, but states that by letter of 6 December 2006 it communicated to the Commission a revised version of the plan in question, which it considered to be in compliance with Article 11. It adds that on 16 February 2007 it replied to the Commission’s questions regarding that plan and concludes therefrom that it can no longer be accused of having failed to fulfil its obligations in any way.
8. It follows that, at the relevant date for ascertaining whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations, which is determined by the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-323/01 Commission v Italy [2002] ECR I‑4711, paragraph 8, and Case C‑388/02 Commission v Ireland [2003] ECR I‑12173, paragraph 6), the Republic of Malta had not communicated the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of the Directive.
9. In those circumstances, the Commission’s action is well founded.
10. Consequently, it must be held that, by failing to communicate the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of the Directive, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 54 of the Act of Accession. Costs
11. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Republic of Malta has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.