C-83/02

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL GEELHOED delivered on 6 May 2003 (1) Case C-83/02 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 11 and 4 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) – Failure to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the plans, outlines and summaries required by the directive)) 1. In this case the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration by the Court that, by failing to draw up or to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the plans, outlines and summaries required under Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCBs/PCTs) (hereinafter: 'the directive'), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty. The Commission also contends that the Court should order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. 2. According to Article 1, the purpose of Directive 96/59 is to approximate the laws of the Member States on the controlled disposal of PCBs, the decontamination or disposal of equipment containing PCBs and/or the disposal of used PCBs in order to eliminate them completely on the basis of the provisions of this directive. 3. Under Article 4(1) of the directive, Member States are to ensure that inventories are compiled of equipment with PCB volumes of more than 5 dm3, and to send summaries of such inventories to the Commission at the latest three years after the adoption of this directive. 4. Article 11(1) of the directive provides that Member States must, within three years of the adoption of this directive, draw up plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein and outlines for the collection and subsequent disposal of equipment which is not subject to inventory in accordance with Article 4(1), as referred to in Article 6(3). Under Article 11(2), Member States are to communicate these plans and outlines to the Commission without delay. 5. Under Article 13(1) of the directive, the directive entered into force on the date of its adoption, that is to say 16 September 1996. Consequently, the outlines, summaries and plans, as referred to in Articles 4(1) and 11 of the directive, should have been drawn up and communicated to the Commission at the latest by 16 September 1999. 6. By letter of 10 April 2000 the Commission gave the Hellenic Republic formal notice to submit its observations on the ground that it had not been informed by the Hellenic Republic about the required measures, as referred to in Articles 4(1) and 11 of the directive, and did not have any information on whether that Member State had adopted such measures. Since no response to this letter was forthcoming, the Commission, on 1 August 2000, issued a reasoned opinion in which it called upon the Hellenic Republic to adopt the necessary measures within a period of two months. On 13 and 14 December 2000 a meeting was held between Commission representatives and the Greek authorities. The Greek authorities pledged to provide the relevant information as soon as possible (by January 2001) and to adopt the measures concerned as soon as possible (by June 2001). 7. On 29 May 2001, the Greek Government responded in writing to the reasoned opinion. It stated that it had drawn up the inventory required by Article 4(1) of the directive but that the inventory was not yet complete and definitive as not all the necessary data had been supplied. As regards it obligations under Article 11 of the directive, it stated that the competent ministry would adopt the measures as soon as possible on the basis of the data received. By way of explanation, it stated that in general it had encountered problems in respect of the precise identification of PCBs and more specifically the transportation of PCBs abroad for disposal as Greece did not have such disposal capacity itself. 8. On 12 March 2002 the Commission brought the action in question. It submits that the Hellenic Republic has not yet fulfilled its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11. The Hellenic Republic does not dispute the fact that it must adopt measures to comply with the directive. It contends that it could comply with the directive within a very short time. 9. Whatever the case, the fact remains that the Greek Government had still not fulfilled its obligations by the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Therefore, the action brought by the Commission is well founded. I ─ Conclusion In the light of the foregoing, I would recommend that the Court: ─ declare that, by failing to draw up and to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the plans, outlines and summaries required under Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; ─ order the HellenicRepublic to pay the costs. – Original language: Dutch.