C-298/97
ECLI:EU:C:1998:119
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61997CC0298
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION v SPAIN
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL COSMAS delivered on 19 March 1998 *
I — Introduction — promotion of marketing of batteries and accumulators containing smaller quanti ties of dangerous substances and/or less polluting substances,
By an application under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has asked the Court to declare that, by failing to adopt or communicate to the Commission within the — gradual reduction, in household waste, of prescribed period the programmes provided spent batteries and accumulators covered for in Article 6 of Council Directive by Annex I, 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain danger ous substances (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38, herein after 'the Directive'), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that — promotion of research aimed at reducing article. the dangerous-substance content and favouring the use of less polluting substi tute substances in batteries and accumu lators, and research into methods of recy cling, II — Legal background
— separate disposal of spent batteries and 1. Article 6 of the Directive provides: accumulators covered by Annex I.
'Member States shall draw up programmes in The first programmes shall cover a four-year order to achieve the following objectives: period starting on 18 March 1993. They shall be communicated to the Commission by 17 September 1992 at the latest.
— reduction of the heavy-metal content of batteries and accumulators,
The programmes shall be reviewed and updated regularly, at least every four years, * Original language: Greek. in the light in particular of technical progress
I - 3303
OPINION OF MR COSMAS — CASE C-298/97
and of the economic and environmental situ fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the ation. Amended programmes shall be com Directive. municated to the Commission in good time.'
5. On 20 January 1997 the Spanish authori III — The facts ties informed the Commission that the Min istry of the Environment had just drawn up a draft national plan for urban waste provid ing for the development and coordination of all the action undertaken by the Autono mous Communities, the competent authori 2. Not having been given notice of any pro ties under national law for action to combat grammes of the kind referred to in Article 6 pollution; that action constituted, in the view of the Directive and having at its disposal no other information indicating that the King of the Kingdom of Spain, proper transposi dom of Spain had fulfilled its obligation to tion of the Directive into Spanish domestic draw up those programmes, the Commission law. formally called on that Member State, in accordance with the procedure provided for by Article 169 of the Treaty, to submit its observations regarding that infringement within two months. 6. Taking the view that the Spanish authori ties had not fulfilled their clear obligation to draw up and apply within the prescribed period the abovementioned programmes and bring them to the Commission's notice, the latter decided to institute proceedings before 3. On 6 March 1996 the Kingdom of Spain the Court of Justice. submitted observations, from which its appears, first, that the Spanish authorities had started drawing up the requisite pro grammes and, second, that, in the meantime, action had already been embarked upon IV — The views of the parties regarding the collection, treatment and recy cling of batteries and accumulators under cooperation agreements between the Spanish State and the Autonomous Communities. The Commission sought additional infor 7. The Commission stresses the importance mation concerning such action but received of drawing up the programmes provided for no reply. in Article 6 of the Directive in pursuance of certain objectives relating, directly or indi rectly, to environmental protection. It is for that reason that the Community legislature expressly required the Member States to 4. For that reason, on 21 October 1996 it establish such programmes for a period of sent a reasoned opinion to the Kingdom of four years, reckoned from 18 March 1993, Spain to the effect that the latter had failed to and to communicate them to the Commis-
I - 3304
COMMISSION v SPAIN
sion no later than 17 September 1992. Member State has fulfilled its obligations According to the Commission, that obliga under Article 6 of the Directive, it must not tion, deriving as it does from the provisions merely consider whether the programmes of a directive, is binding on the Member mentioned in that article have been drawn up States to which it is addressed as regards the and communicated but must, above all, result to be achieved, in accordance with establish whether the Member State con Article 189 of the EC Treaty; by virtue of cerned has undertaken specific action capable that obligation, the Member States, including of enabling it to attain the objectives set out the Kingdom of Spain, must take all general in those programmes. and specific measures needed to ensure attainment of the abovementioned objectives. The Commission refers to the settled case- law of the Court of Justice to the effect that obligations deriving from directives must be fulfilled within the periods prescribed for that purpose, the Member States not being entitled to plead technical or procedural dif
9. In that connection, the Kingdom of Spain ficulties involved in transposing the provi considers that it has attained the objectives sions of directives into national law. It there laid down by Article 6 of the Directive. It fore asks the Court to find that the Kingdom lists a series of specific measures undertaken of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations by the governments of the Spanish Autono under Directive 91/157 and to order the mous Communities in order to achieve the defendant to pay the costs. objectives of Article 6 of the Directive.
It refers, by way of example, to the Ley Basica de Residuos (the national law on waste), to Ley No 6/93 Reguladora de los Residuos de Cataluña, which governs the same matter in the territory of the Autonomous Commu nity of Catalonia, and to the agreements con cluded between the autonomous administra 8. The Kingdom of Spain does not deny the tion of Castile-León and the municipalities failure to communicate the programmes of for which it is responsible in order to pro which the Commission accuses it. It con
vide for management of the collection, stor tends, however, that the Directive was trans age and processing of spent batteries and posed into domestic law by Royal Decree accumulators; it also mentions equivalent No 45/96, Article 6 of which incorporates programmes initiated in Aragon, Catalonia the provisions of Article 6 of the Directive and Galicia, special studies concerning the and entrusts to the Autonomous Communi management of spent batteries and accumu ties the task of giving effect to the pro lators, decrees of the Autonomous Commu grammes in question. The defendant also nity of Valencia governing grants for sepa asserts that it is endeavouring gradually to rate collection, storage and processing of achieve the result pursued by the Directive, spent batteries, and finally the direct con in accordance with Article 189 of the Treaty. tracts concluded by public authorities with It considers that that objective cannot be specialised undertakings in Asturias, the achieved merely by drawing up programmes, Balearic Islands and the Rioja region and the unless they are accompanied by specific public information campaigns carried out in
practical action. In its view, when the Court all the Autonomous Communities. Such is called on to determine to what extent a action is not limited to the distribution of
I - 3305
OPINION OF MR COSMAS — CASE C-298/97
special containers for the collection of waste specific practical action relating to batteries of that kind; it also involves the setting up of and accumulators. It should be remembered special recycling centres, or storage sites that the Directive sets the objective, among where recycling is not possible. On the basis others, of protecting the environment: the of all the foregoing, the defendant considers safeguarding of that legal asset necessarily that the action undertaken by the Autono involves the adoption, at the same time, both mous Communities has facilitated attainment of regulatory measures and of practical mea sures; it therefore depends to a considerable of the objectives laid down in Article 6 of extent on the planning of comprehensive the Directive. It therefore contends that the action by the national and Community pub action should be dismissed and the applicant lic institutions in those areas in which the ordered to pay the costs. environment is important. In other words, the need for adequate planning, through the drawing up of programmes, which is the aim pursued by Article 6 of the Directive, cannot in any circumstances be satisfied, contrary to V — My views on the application the Kingdom of Spain's contention, by piecemeal activity on the part of the national authorities in the sectors which such plan ning ought to cover.
10. Notwithstanding the arguments advanced by the Kingdom of Spain in response to the Commission's criticisms, I consider that that State has not fulfilled the specific obligations incumbent on it under Article 6 of the Directive. The defendant also concedes in its observations to the Court 12. Furthermore, it is not superfluous to that, by the final date of 17 September 1992, observe that the Directive was adopted the Kingdom of Spain had not prepared or under Article 100a of the EC Treaty and is published programmes designed to attain the therefore intended to bring about approxi objectives set out in the first paragraph of mation of national laws with a view to obvi Article 6 of the Directive. That in itself is ating distortion of competition and other enough to support a rinding of infringement adverse effects on the functioning of the of that provision and a declaration that the internal market. For that reason, particular applicant's allegations in that regard are well importance must be attached to the monitor founded. ing of national measures and other action by the national authorities in the sphere covered by the Directive. The drawing up of the pro grammes referred to in Article 6 of the Directive and the communication thereof to the Commission makes such monitoring materially possible; accordingly, the specific 11. It is also worth mentioning that that fact obligations of the Member States cannot be cannot be altered by all the problems to regarded as satisfied until the action taken at which the defendant referred when arguing national level has been brought to the notice that it had met the requirements of Article 6 of the Commission. of the Directive by undertaking certain
I - 3306
COMMISSION v SPAIN
13. Moreover, the whole scheme of the the Directive and of the obligations imposed Directive is conducive to the view that the on the Kingdom of Spain by virtue of Community legislature intends progressively Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty. confronting the problem of special waste (such as batteries and accumulators) in accordance with a specific timetable. That is why it provided for the drawing up of national programmes which '... shall be 14. Finally, regard must be had to the settled reviewed and updated regularly, at least case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect every four years, in the light in particular of that a State may not plead national practices technical progress and of the economic and or circumstances existing in its internal legal environmental situation.' 1 The fact that the system in order to justify a failure to comply Kingdom of Spain has not drawn up the first with the obligations and time-limits laid of those programmes, which the Directive down in the Treaty and in Community expressly requires to cover a period of four 2 directives. I would add that partial practical years as from 18 March 1993 and to be com measures and fragmentary regulations cannot municated to the Commission no later than discharge the obligation of a Member State 17 September 1992, is entirely disruptive to to draw up a comprehensive programme Community planning and without any with a view to attaining certain objectives, as doubt constitutes a direct infringement of provided for in Article 6 of the Directive.
VI — Conclusion
15. I therefore suggest that the Court :
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period the programmes provided for in Article 6 of Council Directive 91 / 157 / EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators con taining certain dangerous substances , the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
1 — Last paragraph of Article 6 of the Directive. 2 — See Case C-294/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] ECR I-1781; Case C-378/92 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-5095; Case C-107/96 Commission v Spain [1997] ECR I-3193. Sec also Case C-297/95 Commission v Ger- many [1996] ECR I-6379.
I - 3307