Greece is ordered to pay financial penalties for failing to comply with a 2014 judgment of the Court of Justice

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-368/24 /Commission v Greece (Enforcement of the judgment on the Zakynthos landfill). Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations: Greece is ordered to pay financial penalties for failing to comply with a 2014 judgment of the Court of Justice.

Greece is ordered to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of €12 500 for each day of delay until the 2014 judgment has been complied with and a lump sum of €5 500 000

In the 2014 Commission v Greece judgment, [1] the Court held that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under two directives on waste. [2] [3] 

Greece had not put an end to the use of a landfill in the Zakynthos National Maritime Park, the habitat of the ‘Caretta caretta’ sea turtle, even though the landfill was overfull and its malfunction represented a danger to health and the environment.

With regard to the present case, an exchange of correspondence took place between the European Commission and Greece from 2014 to 2023 concerning the measures adopted by the latter to rehabilitate the Zakynthos landfill and comply with the 2014 judgment. Taking the view that Greece had not yet taken the necessary measures to do so, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice in 2017 and, in 2024, brought a new action for failure to fulfil obligations before the Court, which gave rise to today’s judgment.

In its judgment dated 9.10.2025, the Court found that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligation to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the 2014 Commission v Greece judgment.

The Court noted that, by the reference date set in the letter of formal notice, namely 28 June 2017, Greece had neither drawn up a development plan for the continued operation of the Zakynthos landfill in accordance with the requirements of Directive 1999/31 nor decommissioned that landfill. In addition, the Zakynthos landfill continued to receive waste until the end of 2017.

Consequently, the Court ordered that Member State to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment of €12 500 for each day of delay from the date of delivery of today’s judgment until the date of compliance with the 2014 judgment, and a lump sum of €5 500 000. 

The amounts of those penalties are based on the seriousness of the infringement. That infringement poses a significant risk to the environment and human health. In addition, the Court took into account the large number of judgments finding that the Member State concerned had failed to fulfil its waste management obligations, the number of cases in which it found that the Member State had failed to comply with its judgments in that area, the fact that the infringement continued long after the 2014 judgment was delivered and the Member State’s ability to pay. (source: curia.europa.eu/photo freepik.com)

______________

1 Judgment of 17 July 2014, Commission v Greece, C-600/12 . 

2 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. 

3 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Imposition of a fine on a bank in Greece for an incident of personal data breach

Image
The Greek Data Protection Supervisory Authority imposed on a Bank, as Data Controller, an administrative fine of EUR 100,000 for violating the principles of accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of data, and the principles of data protection by design and by default, in conjunction with Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the GDPR, as well as an administrative fine of EUR 20,000 for violating the complainants' right of access. Complaints were submitted to the Supervisory Authority of Greece against the National Bank of Greece for the incorrect linking of a complainant's bank account with the mobile phone number of another complainant in the “i-bank Pay application”, which resulted in money transfers, via “IRIS online payments service”, which were made to the first complainant's account instead of the second's.  In the context of the administrative audit conducted by the Authority, the Bank eventually identified that the issue was due to incorrect configuration during the ...
Read more

New President of the European Court of Human Rights

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 28.4.2025 Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, as its new President.  Mattias Guyomar succeeds Marko Bošnjak, Judge elected in respect of Slovenia. He will take up office on 30 May 2025. Read his bio here Furthermore, the Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room on 28.4.2025. Read as well:  Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence / article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus
Read more

An overview of the regulatory framework on Gambling Services in the European Union

Image
written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...
Read more

Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer has been opened for signature

Image
The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer has been opened for signature on the occasion of the meeting of Council of Europe Foreign Ministers organised in Luxembourg on 13-14 May. This is the first-ever international treaty aimed at protecting the profession of lawyer in a context of increasing reports of attacks on the practice of the profession, whether in the form of harassment, threats or attacks, or interference with the exercise of professional duties. The  Convention  has been signed by Andorra, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland and Sweden. Belgium, Iceland, the Republic of Moldova and the United Kingdom will sign it on 14 May. Lawyers play a key role in upholding the rule of law and securing access to justice for all, including to defend victims of possible human rights violations. Therefore, public confidence in justice s...
Read more

Access to documents: the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled (CJEU)

Image
In its Judgment dated 14/5/2025 in Case T-36/23 (Stevi and The New York Times v Commission), the General Court ruled that the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled. By an application based on the Access to Documents Regulation, [1], Matina Stevi, a journalist working for the daily newspaper The New York Times, requested the European Commission to provide access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022.  The Commission rejected that application on the ground that it did not hold the documents covered by it. Ms Stevi and The New York Times requested the General Court of the European Union to annul the Commission’s decision.  In its judgment, the General Court upholds the action and annuls the Commission’s decision. The Court re...
Read more

Delays in national courts lead to violations of right to a fair trial (ECtHR)

Image
The European Court of Human Rights found that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that applicants' cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive. In Chamber’s judgment in the case of ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (applications nos. 39860/19, 38996/20, 6142/22 and 27370/22) the European Court of Human Rights held,unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards ARB SHPK’s and Mr Gazidedja’s applications, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as regards Mr Gazidedja’s application. The case concerned alleged excessive length of proceedings in cases taken before the Albanian courts. The Court found in particular that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that ARB SHPK’s cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive. Regarding Mr Gazidedja’s case, the Court noted that he had not received c...
Read more