C-47/01

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-47/01

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 6 June 2002 1

1. In this case the Commission seeks a necessary measures to ensure that used declaration, pursuant to Article 226 EC, PCBs are disposed of and PCBs and equip- that by not drawing up or at least not ment containing PCBs are decontaminated communicating to the Commission the or disposed of as soon as possible. For the plan, the outline and the summary of the equipment and the PCBs contained therein, inventory provided for by Article 4(1) and which are subject to inventory in accord- Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC ance with Article 4(1), decontamination of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of and/or disposal shall be effected at the polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlor- latest by the end of 2010.' inated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), 2the King- dom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of the Directive. 4. Article 4(1) provides:

'In order to comply with Article 3, Member 2. Article 1 of the Directive provides: States shall ensure that inventories are compiled of equipment with PCB volumes of more than 5 dm 3 , and shall send summaries of such inventories to the Com- 'The purpose of this Directive is to approxi- mission at the latest three years after the mate the laws of the Member States on the adoption of this Directive. In the case of controlled disposal of PCBs, the decon- power capacitors, the threshold of 5 dm3 tamination or disposal of equipment con- shall be understood as including all the taining PCBs and/or the disposal of used separate elements of a combined set.' PCBs in order to eliminate them completely on the basis of the provisions of this Directive.' 5. Article 11 provides:

7. The Commission contends that the Spanish authorities have not drawn up, or 11. It is unnecessary in my view to pursue in any event have not communicated to the the question whether the plan complies Commission, the summary inventory pre­ with the requirements of the Directive, scribed by Article 4 of the Directive or the since it is clear in any event that the plan plan and outline prescribed by Article 11(1). was adopted after the expiry of the time- limit laid down by the Commission's rea­ soned opinion. According to the Court's case-law the existence of an infringement must be determined on the basis of the situation at the expiry of that time-limit, 8. Spain contests the alleged infringements: and measures adopted by a Member State it claims that the national plan for the subsequently cannot be taken into decontamination and elimination of PCBs, account. 4

PCTs and equipment containing them was adopted, was published in the Spanish official journal, 3 as prescribed by Royal Decree 1378/99 of 27 August 1999 which transposes the Directive into national law, 12. It follows that the Commission's appli­ and was subsequently notified to the Com­ cation is well founded. mission.

4 — See Case C-372/01 Commission v Luxembourg, 3 — Buletin Oįicul del lisiado of 18 April 2001. ECR I-4553, judgment of 16 May 2002.

I - 8233

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-47/01

Conclusion