(AGENPARL) - Roma, 16 Marzo 2023

(AGENPARL) – gio 16 marzo 2023 Gentile Collega,
Il Presidente della Federazione Italiana Golf Franco Chimenti, ha il piacere di invitarLa alla Conferenza Stampa di presentazione del DS Automobiles 80° Open d’Italia, l’evento più importante del Progetto Ryder Cup 2023, in programma al Salone d’Onore del CONI, giovedì 13 aprile alle ore 11.00, alla presenza del Vice Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri Antonio Tajani.
Seguirà invito ufficiale.
Cordiali saluti.

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 47
/23

Luxembourg,
16

March

2023

Judgment of the Court in Case C
–
174/21 | Commission v Bulgaria (Twofold failure to fulfil obligations

–

PM10 pollution)

The
Commission’s first action for a twofold failure to fulfil obligations in
relation to air pollution is inadmissible

established with sufficient clarity th
at the Court’s 2017 judgment establishing the first failure to fulfil
obligations had still not been complied with in the intervening period

Th
e Ambient Air Quality Directive

1

requires Member States to comply with concentration limit values for certain
at
mospheric pollutants in ambient air and requires Member States, in the event of exceedance, to adopt air quality
plans so that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible.

In the judgment in
Commission

v
Bulgaria
,

2

delivered on
5

April

2017, the Co
urt held that Bulgaria had failed to fulfil
the abovementioned obligations.

3

Following the delivery of the judgment in
Commission

v
Bulgaria
, the Commission, on
9

November

2018, sent
d down in
Article

260
(1) and (2) TFEU.

4

In that
infringements established by the Court in its 2017 judgment. It then invited that Member State to su
bmit its
observations by the end of the period prescribed in the letter (‘the reference date’), namely
9

February

2019, and to
inform it of any progress made in the meantime.

Since it was not satisfied with Bulgaria’s replies, the Commission brought an act
ion for failure to fulfil obligations
before the Court under Article

260(2) TFEU (the ‘action for twofold failure to fulfil obligations’) seeking a declaration
that that Member State has failed to comply with that judgment and an order requiring it to pay
a lump sum and a
daily penalty payment until the judgment of the Court has been complied with in full.

Findings of the Court

–
litigation

1
Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21

May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L

152,
p.

1)

2
Judgment of
5

April

2017,
Commission

v
Bulgaria

(
C
–
488
/15
).

3

More specifically, the obligations arising from Article

13(1) and the second subparagraph of Article

23(1), of Directive 2008/50, and
Annex

XI

to that
directive.

4

Under Article

260(1) and (2) TFEU, a Member State in respect of which the Court has found t
hat it has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties
is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, and the Commission may bring the matter
before the Court if it
considers, after giving the Member State concer
ned the opportunity to submit its observations, that such measures have not been taken.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

procedure
pursuant to Article

260(2) TFEU, if the requirements of legal certainty are not to be infringed, a failure to
fulfil the obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court must be capable of
being legitimately alleged by the

Commission. Given the fact

that

the action for twofold failure to fulfil obligations is
aimed at inducing a defaulting Member State to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations,
the Court states the Commission is required not onl
y to ascertain, throughout the pre
–
litigation procedure
with in the
meantime
ter of formal
notice, that the judgment remains to be complied with on the reference date.

A Member State cannot
legitimately be accused of having failed to fulfil its obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with a
judgment of the Court if it i
comply with that judgment has continued to exist since its delivery.

In the present case, the Court notes that, in the letter of formal notice of
9

November

2018,
t
he Commission did
not, with the requisite clarity, allege or establish, prima facie, that the judgment of
5

April

2017,
Commission

v
Bulgaria
, still had to be complied with on the reference date, namely
9

February

2019.

s that the failures to fulfil obligations established up to 2014 in that judgment
dicating that the situation identified during those two
years continued without any significant improvement during the period between the delivery of the judgment on
5

April

2017 and the reference date,
9

February

2019, thus making it necessary to take mea
sures to comply with that
judgment.

period covered by the Court’s judgment, namely 2014, and a subsequent period, which nevertheless
preceded the
date of delivery of the judgment, namely 2015 and 2016, nor the systematic and persistent nature of those failures
to fulfil obligations established by the Court in that judgment automatically mean that, both on the date of its
delivery and on

the reference date, that judgment still had to be complied with and that Bulgaria could therefore be
criticised for not having taken all the measures necessary to comply with it.

Therefore, by failing, in the letter of formal notice, to allege and establi
sh, prima facie, with the requisite clarity, the
essential prerequisite that the judgment of
5

April

2017, Commission v Bulgaria, still had to be complied with on the
mmission did not
legitimately allege that Bulgaria failed to fulfil its obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with that
judgment.
The Court concludes that the Commission’s action for twofold failure to fulfil obligations is
inadmissible.

NOTE
:

An action for failure to fulfil obligations directed against a Member State which has failed to comply with its
obligations under European Union law may be brought by the Commission or by another Member State.

If the Court
of Justice finds that there has

been a failure to fulfil obligations, the Member State concerned must comply with the
Court’s judgment without delay
.

Where the Commission considers that the Member State has not complied with the judgment, it may bring a further
action seeking financial
penalties. However, if measures transposing a directive have not been notified to the
Commission, the Court of Justice can, on a proposal from the Commission, impose penalties at the stage of the
initial judgment
.

Unofficial document for media use, not bin
ding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
✆

(+352) 4
303

335
5

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected!

Pictures o
f the delivery of the judgment are available from ”
Europe by Satellite
”
✆

(+32)
2

296
4106