C-69/81

JUDGMENT OF T H E 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)

Case 69/81

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

c o m p o s e d of: J. M e r t e n s de W i l m a r s , President, G. Bosco, A. Touffait a n d O . D u e (Presidents of C h a m b e r s ) , P . P e s c a t o r e , Lord M a c k e n z i e Stuart, A. O ' K e e f f e , T . K o o p m a n s , U . Everling, A. C h l o r o s and F. Grévisse, J u d g e s ,

A d v o c a t e G e n e r a l : F. C a p o t o r t i Registrar: A. V a n H o u t t e

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 essential objective of the directive is the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste. I — Facts and written p r o c e d u r e The Member States are to adopt the appropriate measures to encourage the prevention, recycling and processing of waste, the extraction of raw materials 1. Council Directive 75/442 of 15 July and energy therefrom, and any other 1975 on waste (Official Journal L 194, method enabling waste to be re-used. p. 39) is one of various Community measures which are based on Articles 100 Article 13 of the directive provides that and 235 of the EEC Treaty and come the Member States are to bring into

Upon hearing the report of the Judge- 2. The Commission took the view that Rapporteur and the views of the provisions adapting Belgian law were Advocate General the Court decided to necessary but since it had not been open the oral procedure without any informed that such provisions had been preparatory inquiry. adopted it invited the Belgian Government by letter dated 9 January 1979, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, to submit its II — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s observations within a period of two months. The Commission claims that the Court should: By a letter dated 13 July 1979 the Belgian Government informed the 1. Declare that by failing to adopt Commission essentially that laws or regu- within the prescribed period the lations already existed which made it provisions needed in order to comply possible to implement certain provisions with Council Directive 75/442 of 15 of the directive but its full implemen- tation was impeded by difficulties arising July 1975 on waste, the Kingdom of from "the continuing uncertainty as to Belgium has failed to fulfil one of its the exact nature of the devolution of obligations under the Treaty; powers which will result from the institutional reforms which have been 2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to undertaken" and "the considerable pay the costs. arrears of work which have built up in the Parliament". The Kingdom of Belgium has not presented any formal conclusions. On 23 July 1979 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 27 July 1979, invited the Kingdom of Belgium to comply The Commission argues that the binding therewith within a period of two months. nature of directives means that the Member States must comply with the By letter dated 14 November 1979 the time-limits prescribed therein for Belgian Government confirmed that the bringing into force provisions adapting fact that the directive had not been national law. In particular, compliance incorporated into national law was the with the provisions of the Treaty or indirect result of the fundamental reform secondary Community law cannot of the institutions which was in progress depend on difficulties encountered in the

1 By application l o d g e d at the C o u r t Registry o n 3 April 1981 the C o m m i s s i o n of the E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i t i e s b r o u g h t an action for a declaration u n d e r Article 169 of t h e E E C T r e a t y that by failing to a d o p t within the prescribed p e r i o d the provisions n e e d e d in o r d e r t o comply with Council Directive 7 5 / 4 4 2 of 15 J u l y 1975 o n waste (Official J o u r n a l L 194, p . 39), the K i n g d o m of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations u n d e r the third p a r a g r a p h of Article 189 of the T r e a t y .

2 Article 13 of the directive provides that the M e m b e r States are to bring into force the measures n e e d e d in o r d e r to comply with the directive within t w e n t y - f o u r m o n t h s of its notification, w h i c h period expired in this case on 18 July 1977.

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

3 The Belgian Government has stated that the directive has already been the subject of certain measures which implement it in part. Nevertheless it does not deny that the Kingdom of Belgium has not fulfilled its obligations to implement the directive fully within the prescribed period.

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 are 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.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 75/442 of 15 July 1975 on waste (Official Journal L 194, p. 39), 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