The European Court of Justice (ECJ) yesterday ruled against Malta in the first case instituted by the European Commission against the island since the latter's accession to the EU in May 2004.
The court, presided over by Judge Silva de Lapuerta, found that Malta had failed to fulfil its obligations under an EU waste management directive. It also ordered Malta to pay the costs of the case.
The case refers to EU Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT).
The European Commission accused Malta of failing to communicate its plans and outlines provided for in Article 11 of the directive on the date of its accession to the EU.
The court noted that since Malta did not communicate such information to the Commission within the period prescribed by the Act of Accession, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure against the island.
Following a formal notice to submit its observations, on December 13, 2005, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on the island to take the necessary measures to comply within two months.
The court said that as the Maltese authorities' reply had not forwarded any plan or outline, the Commission decided to bring the case in front of the ECJ in December of last year.
In its defence, submitted by Attorney General Silvio Camilleri, Malta did not deny that it had failed to fulfil in good time the obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, but stated that through a letter dated December 6, 2006 it communicated to the Commission a revised version of the plan in question, which it considered to be in compliance with Article 11.
Malta added that on February 16, 2007, it replied to the Commission's questions regarding that plan and concluded that it could no longer be accused of having failed to fulfil its obligations in any way.
However, the court dismissed Malta's claims and ruled against it.
"It follows that, at the relevant date for ascertaining whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations, which is determined by the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the Republic of Malta had not communicated the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of the Directive.
"In those circumstances, the Commission's action is well founded."
The court continued that "by failing to communicate the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of the Directive, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 54 of the Act of Accession."
This case is the first ever legal procedure taken against Malta by the European Commission to come before the EU Court in Luxemburg.
There are no other pending cases against Malta but the Commission could shortly refer other legal procedures to the EU court particularly some which have reached a reasoned opinion stage. These include the controversial spring hunting issue.
The PCB and PCT Directive
The EU's PCB/PCT Directive covers several hazardous chemicals whose toxicity and tendency to bio-accumulate (i.e. accumulate in living tissue) represent a particular threat to the environment and to human health.
The aim of the directive is to ensure the controlled disposal of PCBs in the member states.
In particular, all companies involved in the decontamination and/or the disposal of PCBs, or that use PCBs or equipment containing PCBs, must first obtain a permit.
It also sets out requirements on the decontamination or disposal of equipment containing PCBs and the disposal of used PCBs in order to ensure that they are completely eliminated.
In particular, it requires member states to adopt and communicate to the Commission inventories of this equipment with PCB volumes above a specified limit.
It also requires member states to adopt and communicate to the Commission plans for the safe decontamination and disposal of equipment containing PCBs and outlines for the collection and disposal of equipment not subject to an inventory.