Enforcing member state compliance with EU environmental law: A critical evaluation of the use of financial penalties

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 73-95

  Jack, Brian ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Article 260(2) TFEU; European Court of Justice; Judgments; Lump sum penalties; Non compliance; Penalty payments

Indexed keywords

COMPLIANCE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; LAW ENFORCEMENT; POLICY APPROACH; REGULATORY APPROACH;

EID: 79951683744     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqq023     Document Type: Article

References (140)

1. European Commission, 'Statistics on Environmental Infringements' accessed 29 June 2010.
2. Case232/78Commission v France [1979] ECR 2729.
3. See generally, T Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European Union (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1999) 108.
4. See Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-5047, Case C-278/01 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-14141, and Case C-121/07 Commission v France [2008] ECR I-9159.
5. Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263.
6. Subject to right of appeal to the General Court under art 263 TFEU. For an example of such an appeal see Case T-139/06 France v Commission OJ [2006] C165/31 (judgment pending).
7. See, respectively, Commission (EC),'Implementing European Community Environmental Law' COM (2008) 773/4, 18 November 2009, 8 and Commission (EC), 'A Europe of Results-Applying Community Law' COM (2007) 502, 5 September 2007, 9.
8. Commission (EC) (n 1).
9. Grohs eg reported that, in 2004, 16 desk officers covered 15 Member States - see S Grohs, 'Commission Infringement Procedure in Environmental Cases' in M Onida (ed), Europe and the Environment: Legal Essays in Honour of Ludwig Krämer (Europa Law Publishing, Groningen 2004) 33.
10. see also R Williams, 'The European Commission and the Enforcement of Environmental Law: An Invidious Position?' (1994) 14 YEL 351.
11. Commission v Greece (n 3).
12. Council Directive 75/442 of 15 July 1975 on waste [1975] OJ L194/39.
13. Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509.
14. L Krämer EC Environmental Law (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, London 2003) 390.
15. P Wennerås, The Enforcement of EC Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007) 286.
16. This was also contrary to the position on the removal of illegal waste adopted by the Court in Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773.
17. C-304/02 European Commission v Greece [2006] OJ C121/4.
18. Commission v Spain (n 3).
19. Council Directive 76/160 of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water [1976] OJ L31/1.
20. Krämer (n 12) 412; see also Wennerås (n 12) 285.
21. See art 5.
22. Even though the Advocate General's opinion pointed out that a penalty payment would still be due even when 95% of Spain's bathing waters complied with the Directive.
23. See Commission v Spain (n 3) [97].
24. (n 4).
25. France was required to pay a penalty payment of €57,761,250 for each 6-month period by the end of which it had not fully complied with the Court's previous judgment and a lump sum penalty of €20 million.
26. M Hedemann-Robinson, Enforcement of European Union Environmental Law: Legal Issues and Challenges (Routledge-Cavendish, London 2007) 161.
27. P Davies, 'The European Environment Agency' (1994) 14 YEL 313, 339.
28. Such as the codes of agricultural good practice required by Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources [1991] OJ L375/1, art 4.
29. Hedemann-Robinson (n 22) 43.
30. See, respectively, Cases 96/81 Commission v The Netherlands [1982] ECR 1761, [6] and Commission v Greece (n 3) [73]. For criticism of the Court's decision in the latter case, see Hedemann-Robinson (n 22) 130.
31. Case C-494/01 Commission v Ireland [2005] ECR I-3331, [43]-[44].
32. See Commission (EC) (n 1).
33. Commission v Italy (n 12) [85].
34. Commission (EC), 'Better Monitoring of the Application of Community Law' COM (2002) 725 final, 16 May 2003, 14.
35. See Grohs, (n 8) 30 and R Macrory, 'The Enforcement of Community Environmental Laws: Some Critical Issues' (1992) 29 CML Rev 347, 365.
36. (n 26).
37. Commission (EC), 'Implementing EuroRpean Community Environmental Law' COM (2008) 773 final, 18 November 2007, 8.
38. P Wennerås, 'A New Dawn for Commission Enforcement under Articles 226 and 228 EC: General and Persistent Infringements, Lump Sums and Penalty Payments' (2006) 43 CML Rev 31, 56.
39. (n 3).
40. In Case C-502/03 Commission v Greece (not reported), Krämer suggests that the actual number of unauthorised landfills in Greece was much higher, stating that estimates of the true number varied between 3,500 and 6,500.
41. See L Krämer, Casebook on EU Environmental Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2002) 398.
42. See Wennerås (n 33) 55.
43. L Cashman, 'Commission Compliance Promotion and Enforcement in the Field of the Environment' (2006) 5 JEEPL 385, 393.
44. Grohs (n 8) 27.
45. Case 247/87 Star Fruit v Commission [1989] ECR 291.
46. See (n 6).
47. R Williams, 'Enforcing European EnvironmeRntal Law: Can the European Commission be Held to Account?' (2002) 2 YBEEL 271.
48. See also Hedemann-Robinson (n 22) 68.
49. L Krämer, 'Statistics on Environmental Judgments by the EC Court of Justice' (2006) 18 JEL 407, 409.
50. For further analysis of Commission accountability, see C Harlow and R Rawlings, 'Accountability and Law Enforcement: The Centralised EU Infringement Procedure' (2006) 31 EL Rev 447.
51. R Rawlings, 'Engaged Elites: Citizen Action and Institutional Attitudes in Commission Enforcement' (2000) 6 ELJ 4.
52. R Macrory, 'Compliance Mechanisms in the European Community - A Global Model' in R Macrory, Regulation, Enforcement and Governance in Environmental Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2010) 721.
53. Williams (n 41) 272.
54. See Commission v France (n 4) [80]-[86].
55. See Commission v Greece (n 3) [90]; Commission v Spain (n 3) [42] and Commission v France (n 4) [81].
56. Although more usually calculated on a daily basis, annual and six-monthly penalty payments were imposed in Commission v Spain (n 3) and Commission v France (n 4), respectively.
57. Case C-109/08 Commission v Greece [2009] ECR I-4657 [71] (Advocate General Bot).
58. Commission (EC) (n 1).
59. House of Commons Environment Committee, 'Environmental Issues in Northern Ireland,' HC (1990-91) 39 [31].
60. Under the 'Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements Between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers, the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee' (Cm 5240, 2001) [20].
61. S Turner, 'Transforming Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland. Part One: The Process of Policy Renewal' (2006) 18 JEL 65.
62. See eg Á Ryall, Effective Judicial Protection and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2009) 9.
63. See Commission (EC) (n 1).
64. L Cashman, 'Key Goals of Commission Enforcement Policy in Relation to the Environment, with Particular Reference to Ireland' (2008) 15 Irish Planning and ELJ 104.
65. Commission (EC), 'Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty' SEC (2005) 1658, [10.1].
66. See eg Case C-503/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6153, [40], Commission v France (n 3) [27] and Case C-568/07 Commission v Greece [2009] ECR I-4505, [43].
67. In Commission v France (n 4) [82]-[83].
68. Commission (EC) (n 59) [10.3]-[12].
69. This has occurred in three cases: Commission v France (n 4), Commission v Greece (n 49) and Case C-369/07 Commission v Greece [2009] ECR I-5703.
70. Commission v France (n 3).
71. Directive 2001/18 of the European Parliament and Council of12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms [2001] OJ L106/1.
72. Commission v France (n 3) [77].
73. See eg pending case C-407/09 Commission v Greece [2009] OJ C-11/16.
74. Commission v Greece (n 3) [82].
75. Commission (EC) (n 59). It was initially explored in Commission (EC), 'Method of Calculating the Penalty Payments Provided for Pursuant to Article 171 of the EC Treaty' [1997] OJ C63/2.
76. Commission (EC) (n 59) [15]-[18].
77. Commission v Greece (n 3) [89].
78. See Commission (EC) (n 59) [19]-[24].
79. Commission v France (n 4) [62].
80. Commission (EC) (n 59) [6]-[16].
81. See eg Commission v France (n 4) [81]-[114]; Commission v France (n 3) [64] and Commission v Greece (n 49) [52].
82. Case C-109/08 Commission v Greece (n 49).
83. Commission v Greece (n 63).
84. Case C-177/04 Commission v France [2006] ECR I-2461.
85. See Commission v Greece (n 3) [94]; Commission v Spain (n 3) [57].
86. See Commission v France (n 4) [77].
87. Case C-300/89 Commission v Council [1991] ECR I-2867, [22].
88. See art 11 TFEU.
89. Commission v France (n 4) [105].
90. Commission (EC) (n 59) [16.4].
91. In Commission v Spain (n 3) a co-efficient of 4 was adopted to reflect the significant progress Spain had made in meeting water quality standards under the Bathing Water Directive, whilst in Case 177/04 Commission v France [2006] ECR I-2461, a co-efficient of 1 was adopted to reflect the fact that France had substantially complied with its obligation to implement the 1985 Product Liability Directive.
92. (n 4) [99]-[107].
93. Case C-119/04 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-6885-see in particular [33]-[36] (Advocate General Maduro). Ultimately, no penalty payment was imposed due to lack of evidence.
94. Commission v Greece (n 63) [53], [118]-[122]. The Court fails to state the co-efficient it applied in this case.
95. Commission v France (n 3).
96. Cases C-369/07 and C-109/08, both Commission v Greece reported at [2009] ECR I-5703 and [2009] ECR I-4657, respectively.
97. Commission (EC) (n 59) [16.2] and previously, Commission (EC) (n 71) [3.1.1].
98. Commission v France (n 3) [65]-[69].
99. Case C-109/08 Commission v Greece (n 49) [52]-[53].
100. Commission (EC) (n 59) [17].
101. Commission v France (n 3) [57].
102. Commission v France (n 90) [71].
103. The Court has done so in three cases, Commission v France (n 4), Commission v Greece (n 49) and Case C-109/08 Commission v Greece (n 63).
104. Commission v France (n 4) [77].
105. For further discussion of the principle's applicability see Advocate General Kokott's opinion in Case C-526/08 Commission v Luxembourg nyr, 29 June 2010 [28]-[36].
106. In Case C-197/98 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-8609 [43].
107. Wennerås (n 12) 289.
108. In Case C-109/08 Commission v Greece (n 63), concerning Greece's failure to comply with a judgment finding that it had paid E41 in illegal state aid.
109. In Commission v France (n 4), although as observed earlier, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which the Court was motivated by environmental considerations in setting this co-efficient.
110. Commission v Greece (n 3) [82].
111. Respectively Council Directive 91/271 [1991] OJ L135/40 and Council Directive 2000/60 [2000] OJ L327/1.
112. Commission v Spain (n 3) [67]-[69] (Advocate General Mischo).
113. Commission v France (n 3) [64].
114. Commission (EC) (n 59) [18].
115. It is worked out by calculating the square root of the following equation: the sum produced by dividing the Member State's GDP by that of Luxembourg and multiplying that figure by an amount produced by dividing the number of votes that Member State has in the Council by the number of votes held by Luxembourg.
116. See Commission v Greece (n 3) [88].
117. Commission v France (n 4) [90].
118. See Commission v Greece (n 105) [41] (Advocate General Fennelly).
119. Qualified majority voting under the ordinary legislative procedure may be the most common legislative procedure today, but the ordinary procedure does not apply in all cases. Even where it does apply it requires Member State unanimity to adopt legislative amendments proposed by the European Parliament that have not been adopted by the Commission.
120. It has also been criticised by academic commentators.
121. See L Borzsak, 'Punishing Member States or Influencing their Behaviour or Iudex (Non) Calculate?' (2001) 13 JEL 235, 258.
122. M Theodossiou, 'An Analysis of the Recent Response of the Community to Non Compliance with Court of Justice Judgments' (2002) 27 EL Rev 34.
123. I Kilbey, 'The Interpretation of Article 260(2) TFEU' (2010) 35 EL Rev 370.
124. Commission v Greece (n 3) [88].
125. See Commission v Greece (n 105) [42] (Advocate General Fennelly), and Borzsak and Kilbey (n 119).
126. Commission v Greece (n 3).
127. See R Corbett, F Jacobs and M Shackleton,'The European Parliament at Fifty: AView from the Inside' (2003) 41 JCMS 371.
128. See Krämer (n 12) 390.
129. See Council Regulation 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund [2006] OJ L210/25, arts 3(1) and 9(2).
130. See art 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
131. See Theodossiou (n 119) 39.
132. See eg Hartley (n 2) 110.
133. L Krämer, 'Statistics on Environmental Judgments by the EC Court of Justice' (2006) 18 JEL 413.
134. Who calculated an average period of 10 years between the issue of the formal notice in the proceedings brought under art 226 EC (258 TFEU) and the Court's judgment under art 228(2) EC (260(2) TFEU).
135. Commission (EC) (n 6) 9.
136. See Commission v France (n 3) [85].
137. See (n 109).
138. Commission (EC) (n 1). In contrast, non-communication cases make up 31% of the Commission's total infringement case load concerning all areas of EU law.
139. See Case C-190/94 Dillenkopfer v Germany [1996] ECR I-4845.
140. See also the Court's earlier comments in Case C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357[39].