The Interpretation of Article 260 TFEU (ex 228 EC)

European Law Review

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 370-386

  Kilbey, Ian ^a  

^a DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79751494633     PISSN: 03075400     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. The Commission's submission to the ECJ was published in "Intergovernmental Conferences: Contributions by the Commission" in Bulletin of the European Communities Supplement 2/91, para. 1, p.151.
2. See "Kilbey Financial Penalties under Article 228(2) EC: Excessive complexity?" (2007) C.M.L. Rev. 743, 745.
3. The English language version of the Treaty post-TEU refers to lump sums and penalty payments. The suggestion, drawn from the French, was for an astriente (a periodic penalty payment) or a lump sum.
4. Given that a lump sum is also a penalty payment, this article will distinguish the two types of penalties by referring to them as lump sums or periodic penalties.
5. Given that a lump sum is also a penalty payment, this article will distinguish the two types of penalties by referring to them as lump sums or periodic penalties. Written submissions were made by the ECJ and the Commission, the then President of the Council, the UK and Germany. Germany proposed that compliance should be a matter for the Council. The Commission disagreed, believing that through mutual understanding or complicity this would not lead to the imposition of effective sanctions. The letter of Ole Due is unreferenced. For the Commission's submission see "Intergovernmental Conferences: Contributions by the Commission" in Bulletin of the European Communities Supplement 2/91. The submission by the President is referenced CONF-UP 1825/91. The UK's submission is referenced CONF-UP 1721/91 and Germany's CONF-UP 1811/91.
6. See Information from the Commission-Memorandum on applying Article 171 of the EC Treaty [19961 OJ C242/6.
7. See Information from the Commission, Method of calculating the penalty payments provided for pursuant to article 171 of the EC Treaty [1997] OJ C63/2.
8. Commission v Greece (C-387/97) [2000] E.C.R. 1-5047.
9. Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658 and MEMO/05/482 and Commission v France (France 1) (C-304/02) [2005] E.C.R. 1-6263;
10. [2005] 3 C.M.L.R. 13.
11. Commission v Greece (Greece 1) (C-387/97) [2000] E.C.R. 1-5047.
12. Commission v Greece (Greece 2) (C-568/07) 2009
13. Commission v Greece (Greece 3) (C- 109/08) 2009.
14. Commission v Greece (Greece 4) (C-369/07) 2009.
15. France I (C-304/02) [2005] E.C.R. 1-6263.
16. Commission v France (France 2) (C- 177/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-2461
17. Commission v France (France 3) (C-I 21/07) [2008] E.C.R. 1-9159.
18. Commission v Portugal (Portugal 2) (C-457/07) [2010] 1 C.M.L.R. 6.
19. Commission v Portugal (Portugal 1) (C-70/06) [2008] E.C.R. 1-1.
20. Commission vSpain (Spain) (C-278/0l)[2003] E.C.R. 1-14141.
21. Commission vIraly (Italy) (C-1l9/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-6885;
22. [2006] 3 C.M.L.R. 43.
23. Commission v Germany (Germany) (C-503/04) [2007] E.C.R. 1-6153;
24. [2007] 3 C.M.L.R. 40.
25. See Spain (C-278/0l) [2003] E.C.R. 1-14141 at [38] and [43]-[46].
26. See France 1 (C-304/02) [2005] E.C.R. 1-6263 at [111].
27. See Greece 4 (C-369/07) 2009.
28. Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658, paras 19 et seq.
29. France3 (C-121/07) [2008] E.C.R. 1-9159.
30. France I (C-304102) [2005] E.C.R. 1-6263, i.e. the seriousness and duration of an infringement that alleged that French fishermen were denuding the North Sea of Hake.
31. Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658 and MEMO/05/482.
32. Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658 and MEMO/05/482.
33. See Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658, para.16.
34. See Kilbey in (2007) C.M.L. Rev. 743, 754
35. Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658, para.17.
36. Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty SEC(2005) 1658, para.21
37. See Commission v Greece (C-197/98) [2000] E.C.R. 1-8609 at [43].
38. See the judgment in Greece 1 (C-387/97) [2000] E.C.R. 1-5047 at [87].
39. Greece 1 (C-387/97) [2000] E.C.R. 1-5047 at [88].
40. See fn.40 in A.G. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer's Opinion in Greece I (C-387/97) [2000] E.C.R. 1-5047
41. and [40] of A.G. Fennelly's Opinion in Commission v Greece (C- 197/98) [2000] E.C.R. 1-8609.
42. See also Borzsak, "Punishing Member States or influencing their behaviour or ludex (non) calculate?" (2001) 13 Journal of Environmental Law 235
43. Theodossiou, "An analysis of the recent response of the Community to non-compliance with the Court of Justice judgments: Article 228(2) EC" (2002) 25 E.L. Rev. 25.
44. Commission v Greece (C-197/98) [2000] E.C.R. 1-1806 at [41].
45. Information from the Commission [1997] OJ C242/6.
46. hlrp://wwwimforg [Accessed November 2009].
47. See Harlow and Rawlings, "Accountability and Law Enforcement: The Centralised EU Infringement Procedure" (2006) E.L. Rev. 447,462
48. Case C- 112/06. Shown as withdrawn on the list of cases on the curia website.
49. Available from the Commission's website, but unreferenced.
50. Author's emphasis to show a potential 5% default by Spain, rather than to minimise the actual level of compliance.
51. Article 202 EC has been repealed and replaced in substance by arts 16, 290 and 291 TFEU.
52. Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water [1976] OJ L31/l arts 10 and 11.
53. Directive 2006/7 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/1 60/EEC [2006] OJ L64/37.
54. Lasok and Millett, Judicial Control in the EU (Richmond, 2004), para.528.
55. Lasok and Miliett, Judicial Control in the EU, 2004, paras 3 and 4.
56. http.//ec.europa.eu/JIsheries/press-corner/press-releases/comO6-08-en. him [Accessed March 31, 2010, but since removed].
57. Case T-l39/06 pending as at May 11, 2010.
58. Italy (C-l 19/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-6885
59. More information on the case against Italy can be found in the author's article in the Liverpool Law Review and also on the blog of one of the foreign language assistants involved in the dispute, David Petrie.
60. See Kilbey, "Case Comment: Commission v Italy Case C- 119/04" (2008) 29 Liverpool Law Review 335 and http:/ /davidpetrie.wordpress.com./ [Accessed March 31, 2010].
61. Commission, 26th annual report monitoring the application of Community law COM(2009) 675 final.
62. http://wwwimforg [Accessed November 2009].