C-68/81

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 FEBRUARY 1982 1

Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations — Non-implementation of a directive on waste from the titanium dioxide industry)

Case 68/81

Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to comply — Justification — Not possible (EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

A Member State may not plead to comply with obligations under provisions, practices or circumstances in Community directives. its internal legal system to justify failure

composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and O. Due (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, A. Chloros and F. Grévisse, Judges,

Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of the within the Community policy on the procedure, the claims, submissions and protection of the environment. arguments of the parties may be summarized as follows: The aim of that directive, as stated in Article 1 thereof, is the prevention and progressive reduction, with a view to its elimination, of pollution caused by waste I — Facts and written procedure from the titanium dioxide industry.

Kingdom of Belgium on 22 February Since the Commission received no 1978 that period expired on 22 February further communication from the Belgian 1979. authorities on this subject it brought this action which was lodged at the Court Registry on 3 April 1981. 2. The Commission took the view that provisions adapting Belgian law were Upon hearing the report of the Judge necessary but since it had not been Rapporteur and the views of the informed that such provisions had been Advocate General the Court decided to adopted it invited the Belgian Govern- open the oral procedure without any ment by letter dated 1 October 1979, preparatory inquiry. pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, to submit its obser- vations within a period of two months. II — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s By letter dated 11 January 1980 the Belgian Government informed the The Commission claims that the Court Commission essentially that the measures should: required for compliance were being considered. A draft Law on the management of waste was to be 1. Declare that by failing to bring into submitted to the Parliament in the course force within the prescribed period of 1980. That draft provided a legal the provisions needed in order to means enabling the directive to be comply with the Council Directive implemented by Royal Decree. The 78/176/EEC of 20 February 1978 on Belgian Government nevertheless stated waste from the titanium dioxide that such action pre-supposed prior industry, the Kingdom of Belgium has consultation between the regions on the failed to fulfil its obligations under one hand and the regional and national the EEC Treaty; authorities on the other. Since reform of the institutions had not been completed, 2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to the procedure would remain uncertain pay the costs. and difficult and would take longer than was desirable. The Kingdom of Belgium has not presented formal conclusions. On 16 July 1980 the Commission delivered the reasoned opinion provided for in the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty. That opinion, which was III — Submissions and argu- forwarded to the Belgian Government by m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s letter dated 18 July 1980, invited the Kingdom of Belgium to comply therewith within a period of two months. The Commission argues that the binding nature of directives means that the Member States must comply with the By letter dated 28 July 1980 the Belgian time-limits prescribed for bringing into Government confined itself to acknow- force provisions adapting national law. ledging receipt of the reasoned opinion In particular, compliance with the and by telex message of 22 September provisions of the Treaty or secondary 1980 requested an additional period of Community law cannot depend on two months to reply to the opinion. difficulties encountered in the alteration

2 Article 15 of the directive provides that M e m b e r States are t o bring into force the measures needed t o comply therewith within twelve m o n t h s of notification thereof which expired in this case o n 22 F e b r u a r y 1979.

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

3 The Belgian Government does not deny that it has not fulfilled that obligation. Although the Belgian Government has asked the Court "to take note that the directive in question has already been partially implemented", it is clear from the particulars subsequently given by that Government that the measures which it has adopted are not designed to implement Council Directive 78/176.

4 Essentially, the Belgian Government justifies its failure by the fact that important institutional reforms concerning the redistribution of powers and responsibilities between the national and regional institutions are in progress, especially in the area covered by the directive in question. So long as the new institutions are not yet in a position to exercise their powers it will not be possible, according to the Belgian Government, to implement the directive fully.

5 Although those circumstances may explain the difficulty in implementing the directive they do not expunge the failure of the Kingdom of Belgium to fulfil its obligations. According to established case-law of the Court a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal system to justify failure to comply with obligations under Community directives.

6 It must therefore be held that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 78/176 of 20 February 1978, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with the Council Directive 78/176 of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry (Official Journal L 54, p. 19), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Mertens de Wilmars Bosco Touffait

Due Pescatore Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe

Koopmans Everling Chloros Grévisse

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 February 1982.