Corte di giustizia UE/2012

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 19 December 2012 ( * ) (Failure of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to fulfil obligations – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442/EEC – Domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks in the countryside – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finding that a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil obligations – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(2) TFEU – Measures to ensure compliance with a judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Financial penalties – Penalty payment – Lump sum) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑374/11, ACTION under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(2) TFEU for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 July 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented by E. White, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented by D. O’Hagan and E. Creedon, acting as Agents , assisted by A. Collins, SC, and M. Gray, BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J.‑C. Bonichot (Rapporteur), C. Toader, A. Prechal and E. Jarašiūnas, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: T. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 October 2012, having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its application, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to: –        declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 29 October 2009 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning the failure of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442’), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260 TFEU; –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a lump sum of EUR 4 771.20 multiplied by the number of days between the date of delivery of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the date of the judgment in the present case (or the date of full compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , if such compliance occurs while the present case is pending); –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a daily penalty payment of EUR 26 173.44 from the date of judgment delivered in the present proceedings to the date of compliance by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ; and –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. Legal context 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442 is worded as follows: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular: –        without risk to water, air, soil and plants or animals; –        without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; –        without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall also take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste.’ 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8 of that directive provides: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any holder of waste: –        has it handled by a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or II B, or –        recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the provisions of this [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 13 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442 states: ‘Establishments or undertakings which carry out the operations referred to in Articles 9 to 12 shall be subject to appropriate periodic inspections by the competent authorities’. The judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 On 6 May 2008, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 226 EC, brought an action against [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for failure to fulfil obligations by which it sought a declaration that that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442 by failing to transpose, fully and correctly, into its domestic legislation the requirements of Articles 4 and 8 of that directive, relating to the disposal of domestic waste waters in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems (‘IWWTS’). 6 In paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held as follows: ‘… by failing to adopt, save in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of [[OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442] … as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through [IWWTS], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive’. The pre-litigation procedure 7 By letter of 23 November 2009, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities to notify it of the measures taken to comply with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] . 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities replied by letter of 22 December 2009, proposing to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a timetable for the adoption of the legislative and regulatory provisions envisaged and outlining their main features. That letter also announced, first, the creation of a working group to determine the appropriate performance standards and necessary changes in the planning requirements and building standards and, secondly, the publication by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EPA) of a ‘Code of Practice’ on on-site waste-water treatment and disposal systems. 9 As it was not satisfied with that reply, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in a letter dated 25 November 2010, sent to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a letter of formal notice calling on it to submit, within two months from the date of notification, its observations on the extent to which the judgment had been complied with. 10 On 3 February 2011, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities replied to the letter of formal notice by informing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the progress of the legislative work. They stated that draft legislation amending the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2007 had been prepared and would be presented as soon as possible to the Government for approval. 11 In an additional reply received by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 10 May 2011, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities stated that the draft legislative text had been approved by the Government. 12 As it was still not satisfied by the replies provided by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(2) TFEU, brought the present action before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 13 In the course of the written procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the initial version of the 2011 draft legislation amending the 2007 Act (the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Bill 2011). [OSCURATO:PERSONA], basing itself on the provisions of the draft legislation, expressed the view, in its reply, that such measures still did not ensure the correct transposition of Articles 4 and 8 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442. 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in their rejoinder, that that draft legislation had been adopted and that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Act 2012 had entered into force. The failure to fulfil obligations Arguments of the parties 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], examining the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Bill 2011, considers that the effectiveness of the monitoring and inspection system provided for still depends on ministerial regulations which will be approved at a later date. It points out that the financing of the new inspection system seems to it to be uncertain, that there is no express obligation requiring the competent authorities to ensure that inspections are carried out, that the national inspection plan does not appear to be binding, that the system envisaged for the recruitment of inspectors does not guarantee that there will be a sufficient number of inspectors, and that the inspections are neither systematic nor sufficiently binding. 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is of the view that it has taken the measures necessary to comply with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s judgment by adopting the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Act 2012. That act provides for the establishment of a new monitoring and inspection system for septic tanks and other on-site systems for the treatment of waste water and drains associated with the discharge of domestic waste water. It also provides that the owners of such systems must ensure that they are registered with the competent water services authority. 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that, in any event, the action should be dismissed, on the ground that the application was made too early. The period of 21 months between the delivery of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] application is, it argues, insufficient in the light of the efforts required by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities in order to comply with that judgment and does not take into account either the continuing and constructive dialogue that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been engaged in with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after that judgment was delivered or the difficulties involved in the adoption of legislation in a particularly complex area. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 18 According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(2) TFEU, if the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s judgment, it may, after giving that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the opportunity to submit its observations, bring the case before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] specifying the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. 19 In that respect, the reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(1) TFEU is the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued under that provision (see judgment of 11 December 2012 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 67). 20 In the present case, it is common ground that, at the time when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion sent by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 25 November 2010 expired, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had not adopted all the measures necessary to ensure full compliance with the obligations resulting from the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] . 21 Furthermore, with regard to [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s argument that the action is premature, it must be pointed out that, even though [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(1) TFEU does not specify the period within which a judgment must be complied with, it follows from settled case-law that the importance of immediate and uniform application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law means that the process of compliance must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑278/01 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain [2003] ECR I‑14141, paragraph 27 and the case‑law cited). 22 In the present case, however, a period of approximately 21 months elapsed between the delivery of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the lodging of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] application. Even though the implementation of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] involved complex operations, such a period cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be considered to be insufficient. 23 In those circumstances, it must be held that, by failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(1) TFEU. The financial penalties Arguments of the parties 24 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], establishing that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has still not complied with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , submits that that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should be ordered to pay, firstly, a lump sum of EUR 4 771.20, multiplied by the number of days between the date of delivery of that judgment and the date of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s judgment in the present case and, secondly, a daily penalty payment of EUR 26 173.44 from the date of the judgment in the present case to the date of full compliance by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with the first judgment. 25 Referring to the guidelines contained in its Communication SEC (2005) 1658 of 13 December 2005 on the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 228 EC (OJ 2007 C 126, p 15), as updated by Communication SEC (2010) 923/3 of 20 July 2010 entitled ‘Application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Up-dating of data used to calculate lump sum and penalty payments to be proposed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice in infringement proceedings’, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] proposes to apply penalties calculated on the basis of a seriousness factor of 8 out of 20, taking account of the importance of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rules which were the subject of the infringement, that is to say, the provisions of a directive intended to protect human health and the environment, the large number of IWWTS concerned by the inadequacies of the national provisions with regard to the requirements of that directive, and the extent of the risk of pollution resulting therefrom. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], furthermore, considers that account must be taken of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s repeated engagement in infringing conduct which has given rise to the delivery by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of several judgments against that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for failure to fulfil its obligations in environmental matters. 26 In order to determine the duration of the infringement, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the amount of the lump sum must be calculated with regard to the period between the date of delivery of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , implementation of which is sought, and the date on which it decided to bring the present proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that is to say, approximately 18 months, which corresponds, under the terms of its Communication of 13 December 2005, to a duration factor of 1.8. 27 Finally, in order to determine the factor ‘n’, which corresponds to the financial capacity of individual [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relies on its Communication of 20 July 2010, which fixes that factor, for [OSCURATO:PERSONA], at 2.84. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adds that, while it is true that, in a revision dated 1 September 2011 (SEC (2011) 1024 final), the factor ‘n’ for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was reduced to 2.71, it is not appropriate to take account of that factor as the present action was brought prior to that revision. 28 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for its part, contends that, since the adoption of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Act 2012, there is no longer any need to order it to pay a lump sum or penalty payment. On the assumption, however, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] intends to impose such financial penalties on it, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argues that the lump sum should not be in excess of EUR 630 per day and that the penalty payment should not exceed EUR 5 000 per day. 29 In respect of the criterion of seriousness, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that a factor of 3 out of 20 would be more appropriate, in view of the difficulties encountered by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legislature, the existence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legislation of provisions which could not have been taken into account by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in 2009, as being subsequent to the date fixed in the reasoned opinion, the establishment by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of stricter criteria regarding drinking water and, finally, the proven and sincere cooperation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities. 30 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should take into account, in assessing the duration of the infringement, the commitment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities to on-going constructive dialogue with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the content of the draft legislation, which falls into a complex legislative framework requiring time to enact the legislation necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] . 31 Finally, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities take issue with the method employed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to determine [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s capacity-to-pay factor, since this does not take into account the fall in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s gross domestic product between 2008 and 2010 and the deterioration of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s public finances. The reference to a gross domestic product dating back to three years prior to the commencement of the proceedings is, it is submitted, inadequate. The factor ‘n’ should be reduced to 1. In any event, if the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should decide to apply the factor ‘n’ as set out in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argues that it would be appropriate to use the factor indicated in the most recent Communication. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 32 Having recognised that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to comply with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , compliance with which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is seeking to ensure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may impose on that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to the second subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(2) TFEU, a lump sum or a penalty payment. The penalty payment –       The principle of the imposition of a penalty payment 33 According to settled case-law, the imposition of a penalty payment is, in principle, justified only in so far as the failure to comply with an earlier judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] continues up to the time of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s examination of the facts ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑496/09 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Italy [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 42, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain , paragraph 96). 34 It must be held in the present case that, at the time of that examination, the measures necessary for the implementation of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had not yet been adopted in full. In particular, it is common ground that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Act 2012 requires implementation of texts not all of which have yet been adopted and that the national inspection plan for IWWTS has still to be developed. It also does not appear that a definitive deadline for the registration of IWWTS has been set. 35 In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] takes the view that the imposition of a penalty payment on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] constitutes an appropriate financial means to ensure full compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Italy , paragraph 45, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain , paragraph 114). –       The amount of the penalty payment 36 It should be recalled that, in exercising its discretion in the matter, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set the penalty payment so that it is both appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate to the infringement established and the ability of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned to pay (see [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Italy , paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). 37 In the assessment carried out by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that a penalty payment has coercive force with a view to the uniform and effective application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, its degree of seriousness and the ability of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned to pay. For the purpose of applying those criteria, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is required to have regard in particular to the effects of non-compliance on the public and private interests at issue and to the urgency of compliance by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned with its obligations (see [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Italy , paragraph 57). 38 In the present case, the failure to fulfil obligations identified in the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerns the incomplete transposition of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 of which provided for a transposition period expiring no later than 1 April 1993. Since, more than 19 years after that date, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has still not complied with all of its obligations under that directive – the principal objectives of which are the protection of human health and of the environment – the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot but confirm the particularly lengthy character of an infringement which, in the light of such objectives, is also a matter of indisputable gravity. 39 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the delay in its compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was attributable to internal difficulties connected with the complexity of the implementation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442, it must be pointed out that a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify the failure to observe obligations arising under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law (see [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑407/09 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 36). 40 Account must, however, be taken of the adoption of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Act 2012 and of significant measures such as, in particular, those designed to establish a national register of IWWTS and to ensure the training of inspectors of those systems, which demonstrate the efforts made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities since the delivery of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with a view to full compliance therewith. 41 In addition, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has committed itself to implementing the final steps necessary for the full implementation of that judgment in close collaboration with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also states, inter alia, that the recruitment of the inspectors is underway and that the national inspection plan should be finalised by 31 December 2012. 42 In so doing, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not dispute that it has yet to finalise the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] establishing a failure to fulfil the requirements arising from Articles 4 and 8 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442. It is common ground in this regard that the transposition of that directive by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Amendment) Act 2012 can be regarded as effective only when the measures referred to at paragraph 34 of the present judgment are adopted. 43 Having regard to all of the circumstances of the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that it is appropriate to impose a daily penalty payment of EUR 12 000 to ensure implementation of the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , that sum taking into account [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s capacity to pay as it stands at the date of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s examination of the facts (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain , paragraph 131). 44 In the present case, the data provided by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which have not been substantively disputed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], show that that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] capacity to pay was reduced in the context of economic crisis (see also, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2012 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑279/11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 79). 45 In those circumstances, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to pay to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], into the ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 12 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] . The lump sum payment –       The principle of the imposition of a lump sum payment 46 As a preliminary point, it must be pointed out that, in the light of the objectives of the procedure laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(2) TFEU, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is empowered, in the exercise of the discretion conferred on it by that article, to impose a penalty payment and a lump sum payment cumulatively (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑304/02 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v France [2005] ECR I‑6263, paragraph 83, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain , paragraph 140). 47 The imposition of a lump sum payment must, in each individual case, depend on all the relevant factors relating both to the characteristics of the infringement established and to the conduct of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] involved in the procedure initiated under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260 TFEU. In that respect, that provision confers a wide discretion on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in deciding whether or not to impose such a penalty ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain , paragraph 141). 48 With regard to the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] takes the view that all the legal and factual circumstances pertaining to the infringement established indicate that effective prevention of future repetition of similar infringements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law requires the adoption of a deterrent measure, such as the imposition of a lump sum payment (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑369/07 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece [2009] ECR I‑5703, paragraph 145, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑610/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Spain , paragraph 142). 49 Indeed, other than the failure to comply with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , which has given rise to the present proceedings, a finding of a failure on the part of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law as regards water quality was made, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] points out, in the judgments in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑316/00 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2002] ECR I‑10527, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑396/01 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2004] ECR I‑2315 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑282/02 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2005] ECR I‑4653. Such a situation reflects the persistent avoidance by that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of its [OSCURATO:PERSONA] obligations in that area. –       The amount of the lump sum payment 50 If the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decides to order a lump sum payment, it must, in the exercise of its discretion, set that payment in such a way that it is, first, appropriate to the circumstances and, secondly, proportionate both to the infringement that has been established and to the ability of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned to pay ( [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece , paragraph 146). 51 The relevant factors to be taken into account in that regard include, in particular, factors such as how long the breach of obligations has persisted since the judgment which initially established it was delivered and the public and private interests involved ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑121/07 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v France [2008] ECR I‑9159, paragraph 64 and the case‑law cited). 52 In the present case, in the light of all of the foregoing and, in particular, of the considerations set out in paragraphs 38 to 45 of the present judgment, proper account of the circumstances of the present case will be taken by setting the amount of the lump sum which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] will have to pay at EUR 2 000 000. 53 It is therefore appropriate to order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], into the account ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000. Costs 54 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has applied for costs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s failure to fulfil its obligations has been established, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 29 October 2009 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] establishing that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 260(1) TFEU; 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], into the ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 12 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , with effect from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑188/08 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ; 3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], into the ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] own resources’ account, the lump sum of EUR 2 000 000; 4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.