C-70/81

J U D G M E N T OF T H E C O U R T 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 the disposal of waste oils)

Case 70/81

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 , L o r d 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 a n d 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 As is apparent from the recitals in its procedure, the claims, submissions and preamble, the aim of the directive is on arguments of the parties may be the one hand to eliminate disparities summarized as follows: between the laws of the Member States likely to have a direct effect upon the functioning of the Common Market and on the other hand to protect the environment against the harmful effects I — Facts and written p r o c e d u r e caused by the discharge, deposit or treatment of waste oils and to encourage their recycling. 1. Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (Official Journal L 194, p. 23), is one of various Community measures which are based on Articles 100 and 235 of the Article 17 of the directive provides that Treaty and fall within the Community the Member States are to implement the policy on the protection of the measures necessary to comply with the environment. directive within twenty-four months of

II — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s 2. Since the Commission was not informed of the adoption of the provisions needed to adapt Belgian law, The Commission claims that the Court it considered that the Kingdom of should: Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. By a letter dated 3 July 1979 it invited the Belgian 1. Declare that by failing to adopt Government, pursuant to the first within the prescribed period the paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, provisions needed in order to comply to submit its observations within a period with Council Directive 75/439 of 16 of two months. June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, the Kingdom of Belgium has By a letter dated 14 November 1979 failed to fulfil one of its obligations the Belgian Government informed the under the EEC Treaty; Commission that the failure of Belgium to implement certain directives on the 2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to environment was not due to a lack of pay the costs. will on its part but was an indirect effect of the fundamental reform of the institutions in progress. Having regard to The Kingdom of Belgium has not the period necessary to launch the new presented any formal conclusions. institutions a further period of one year would be necessary to implement the directives on the environment. III — Submissions and argu- On 19 May 1980 the Commission m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s delivered the reasoned opinion provided for in the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty. In that opinion, which was The Commission argues that the binding delivered to the Belgian Government by nature of directives means that the letter of 28 May 1980, the Commission Member States must comply with the invited the Kingdom of Belgium to time-limits prescribed therein for comply with the opinion within a period bringing into force provisions adapting of two months from the date of its national law. In particular compliance notification. with the provisions of the Treaty or secondary Community law cannot Since the Commission received no depend on difficulties encountered in the further communication from the Belgian alteration of the distribution of powers authorities on the subject it brought this between central government and the action, which was lodged at the Court regional or local authorities. There is an Registry on 3 April 1981. infringement of the Treaty by a Member State whatever the institution of the Upon hearing the report of the Judge- State whose acts and omissions have led Rapporteur and the views of the to the failure to perform the obligation.

2 By virtue of Article 17 of the directive M e m b e r States w e r e t o implement the measures n e e d e d t o comply with the directive within twenty-four m o n t h s of its notification a n d that period expired in this case o n 18 J u n e 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 period provided.

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 to implement the directive fully.

5 Although those circumstances may explain the difficulty in applying 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 should also be pointed out that, in order that the exceptional situation referred to by his Government should be taken into account, the Belgian Minister for Public Health and the Environment, in answer to the reasoned opinion provided for in the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, requested the Commission on 14 November 1979 to grant to the Kingdom of Belgium an additional period of one year to adopt the measures of national law needed to implement the directive. Those measures ought to have entered into force in June 1977, and in fact it was only on 3 April 1981 that the Commission brought the matter before the Court under the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty.

hereby:

1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (Official Journal L 194, p. 23), 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.

A. Van Houtte G. Bosco Registrar President of the First Chamber, acting as President