Luxembourg
December 9, 2008
Source: European Court of
Justice (CURIA)
http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp08/aff/cp080087en.pdf
Judgment of the Court of Justice
in Case C-121/07
Commission v French Republic
THE COURT ORDERS FRANCE TO PAY A LUMP SUM FOR FAILING TO COMPLY
SWIFTLY WITH THE 2004 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ESTABLISHING ITS
FAILURE TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING GENETICALLY MODIFIED
ORGANISMS (GMOS)
Due to the circumstances of this case, the lump sum to be paid
is set at EUR 10 million
In 2004, (1) on the Commission’s
application, the Court of Justice held that France had infringed
Community law by failing to transpose into national law, by 17
October 2002, the directive on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). (2)
After the Commission had instigated proceedings before the Court
for failure to comply with that judgment, the French authorities
adopted, on 15 and 19 March 2007, substantive national
transposition measures and, subsequently, the Law of 25 June
2008 on GMOs.
After examining those documents, the Commission informed the
Court, by letter of 30 July 2008, of its view that those
national measures fully completed the transposition of the
directive and that, accordingly, the judgment of the Court had
been complied with in its entirety. The Commission also stated
in that letter that its request that France be ordered to pay a
penalty payment had, therefore, become devoid of purpose. On the
other hand, the Commission persisted with its request that
France be ordered to pay a lump sum. (3)
The Court finds that the reference date for assessing whether
there has been a failure to comply with the judgment is February
2006, the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the
reasoned opinion issued by the Commission, and that it is
obvious that, by that date, with the exception of a decree,
France had not taken any steps to comply with the initial 2004
judgment establishing its failure to fulfil obligations.
The Court observes first of all that, according to established
case-law, the procedure laid down in the Treaty (4) is aimed at
inducing a defaulting Member State to comply with an earlier
judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations so as to
ensure that Community law is in fact applied. The financial
penalties provided for by the Treaty, namely a lump sum and a
penalty payment, are both intended to achieve that objective. It
is for the Court, in the light of the circumstances in each
case, to determine the penalties appropriate for making sure
that the initial judgment which established the breach is
complied with as swiftly as possible and to prevent similar
infringements of Community law from recurring.
Finding that France fully transposed the directive in June 2008,
the Court considers the imposition of a penalty payment to be
unnecessary.
The Court next states that an order for the payment of a lump
sum is not to be made automatically but depends on the
specific details of the breach established and the approach
adopted by the Member State concerned. The relevant factors to
be taken into account include, in particular, the public and
private interests involved and how long the breach of
obligations has persisted since the judgment which initially
established it was delivered.
The Court points out, first, that the unlawful conduct
repeatedly engaged in by France in the GMOs sector is of such a
nature as to require the adoption of a dissuasive measure, such
as a lump sum payment.
Secondly, the Court draws attention to the considerable length
of time for which the breach persisted after the initial
judgment was delivered on 15 July 2004, which nothing in the
circumstances of this case can justify, since France cannot rely
on internal difficulties to avoid its obligations under
Community law. In particular, even if the violent demonstrations
relating to the cultivation of GMO crops in open fields referred
to by the French Government are in fact attributable in part to
the implementation of Community rules, a Member State may not
rely on difficulties of implementation which emerge at the stage
when a Community measure is put into effect, including
difficulties relating to opposition on the part of certain
individuals, to justify a failure to comply with obligations and
time-limits laid down by Community law.
Thirdly, the Court finds that the breach is serious, especially
in the light of its impact on the public and private interests
involved, since the objective of the directive is to approximate
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States on the placing on the market and deliberate
release into the environment of GMOs, to protect human health
and the environment and to facilitate the free movement of
goods.
Those considerations therefore justify the imposition of a
lump sum payment.
However, the Court takes account of certain circumstances for
the purpose of determining the amount of the lump sum payment.
In that regard, the Court considers, in particular, that, in
spite of the delay, the March 2007 implementing measures ensured
that virtually all the directive was transposed – only three of
its provisions remaining, according to the Commission,
improperly transposed until 27 June 2008 – and that it has not
been established that the French authorities failed in their
duty to cooperate in good faith.
Consequently, the circumstances of this case are fairly
assessed by setting the amount of the lump sum which France will
have to pay at EUR 10 million.
1 Judgment of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 Commission v
France.
2 Directive 2001/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing
Council Directive 90/220/EEC, which diverge from or go beyond
the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990
on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically
modified organisms.
3 Referring to the method of calculation set out in its 2005
Communication, the Commission proposed that France be ordered to
pay the sum of EUR 43 600 per day in respect of the period from
15 July 2004 to 20 March 2007 and a sum, to be determined by the
Court, per day in respect of the period from 21 March 2007 to
the date when the Law of 25 June 2008 entered into force.
4 Article 228(2) EC. |
|
