Sentencia de 19 de diciembre de 2012, asunto C-279/11, Comisión Europea/Irlanda
Autor: J. José Pernas García, profesor titular de Derecho administrativo de la Universidade da Coruña
Fuente: http://curia.europa.eu
Palabras clave: incumplimiento de Derecho comunitario; Directiva 85/337; evaluación de impacto ambiental; inejecución de sentencia del TJUE; multa coercitiva; crisis económica
Resumen:
La Comisión Europea pretende que se declare que Irlanda ha incumplido las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud del artículo 260 TFUE al no haber adoptado las medidas necesarias para la ejecución de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 20 de noviembre de 2008, Comisión/Irlanda (C-66/06), y que se ordene pagar la cantidad de 4.174,8 euros multiplicada por el número de días que transcurran entre la fecha de la sentencia y su ejecución de dicha sentencia por parte de Irlanda o bien la fecha en que se dicte sentencia en el presente recurso, según lo que antes ocurra. Asimismo, la Comisión pide que se condene a Irlanda pagar a la Comisión una multa coercitiva de 33.080,32 euros desde el día en que se dicte sentencia en el presente recurso hasta la fecha en que Irlanda ejecute la sentencia recaída en el asunto C-66/06.
La sentencia citada de 20 de noviembre de 2008 declaraba que Irlanda no había adoptado todas las medidas para la adecuada transposición de los artículos 2, apartado 1, y 4, apartados 2 a 4, de la Directiva 85/337/CEE del Consejo. A juicio de la Comisión, Irlanda seguía sin haber adoptado las medidas necesarias para la ejecución de dicha sentencia. Por tanto, la Comisión propone que se imponga a Irlanda el pago de una multa y de una multa coercitiva que reflejen la grave naturaleza de la infracción y sus repercusiones en la consecución de los objetivos perseguidos por el legislador comunitario.
El TJUE estima el recurso de la Comisión y condena a Irlanda a pagar a la Comisión una cantidad de 1.500.000 euros.
Destacamos los siguientes extractos:
Destacamos a continuación los siguientes extractos de la sentencia (en inglés ya que aún no se dispone de la versión es Español):
“68 In the present case, it is clear that the Irish authorities adopted the regulations necessary for compliance with the judgment in Case C‑66/06 Commission v Ireland almost three years after the delivery of that judgment.
69 Next, it is true that, for the legitimate purpose of ensuring that the specific measures envisaged for compliance with that judgment would in fact meet the requirements of the judgment, the Irish authorities devised those measures in consultation with the Commission. The fact nevertheless remains that the Court had already established a considerable body of case‑law on the interpretation of the provisions of Directive 85/337 and has found on a number of occasions that Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the directive.
70 Where a Member State repeatedly engages in unlawful conduct in such a manner in a specific sector governed by European Union rules, this may be an indication that effective prevention of future repetition of similar infringements of European Union law may require the adoption of a dissuasive measure, such as a lump sum payment (see Case C‑121/07 Commission v France, paragraph 69).
71 As regards the argument that political circumstances delayed the adoption of the measures in question, it is sufficient to recall that a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations arising under European Union law (see Case C‑407/09 Commission v Greece, paragraph 36 and the case‑law cited).
72 As regards the seriousness of the infringement, where failure to comply with a judgment of the Court is likely to harm the environment, the protection of which is, indeed, one of the European Union’s policy objectives, as is apparent from Article 191 TFEU, such a breach is of a particularly serious nature (see Case C‑121/07 Commission v France, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited).
73 That is the case in these proceedings, in which, inter alia, the definition of the new thresholds entered into force only on 8 September 2011, so that, at least up to that date, certain projects likely to have effects on the environment within the meaning of Directive 85/337 may have been implemented without any prior environmental impact assessment, in breach of the judgment in Case C‑66/06 Commission v Ireland and, in particular, of the finding at paragraph 85 of that judgment.
74 That said, as regards the period between 8 September 2011 and 22 December 2011, it is clear that the infringement of which the Commission accuses Ireland is less serious. Moreover, while it is true that Ireland adopted measures intended to address the Commission’s objections, that institution has been not able to identify specific instances in which landowners had not been made sufficiently aware of the extent of their obligations and had, as a result, undertaken projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, in particular in sensitive areas and those forming part of the Natural Heritage Areas, without being made subject to a procedure for the assessment of such effects, as required by Directive 85/337. On that point, the defendant Member State claimed, without being contradicted by the Commission, that 21 requests for assessment in the light of the requirements of Directive 85/337 were submitted in Ireland between 2 October and the end of December 2011. In those circumstances, it must be held that the Commission has failed to show that the measures transposing the directive were not implemented effectively.
75 In the light of all the foregoing circumstances, the Court considers that the imposition on Ireland of the payment of a single global lump sum is justified.
76 As regards the amount of that lump sum, it should be noted, first, that if the Court decides to impose a lump sum payment, it must, in exercising its discretion, do so in a manner that is, on the one hand, appropriate to the circumstances and, on the other, proportionate both to the breach that has been established and the ability to pay of the Member State concerned (see Case C‑568/07 Commission v Greece [2009] ECR I‑4505, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
77 While the Commission’s suggestions are a useful point of reference, they cannot in any event bind the Court. Similarly, while guidelines such as those in the notices of the Commission help to ensure that the Commission acts in a manner which is transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty, they do not bind the Court (see, to that effect, Case C-109/08 Commission v Greece [2009] ECR I‑4657, paragraph 27 and the case‑law cited).
78 In the present case, in addition to the considerations set out at paragraphs 68 to 74 above, account must be taken of Ireland’s ability to pay as it stands in the light of the latest economic data submitted for appraisal by the Court (see, to that effect, Case C‑407/09 Commission v Greece, paragraph 42). Thus, it is necessary to take account of recent trends in inflation and the GDP of that Member State at the time of the Court’s examination of the facts (see Case C‑610/10 Commission v Spain, paragraph 131).
79 In the present case, those data, which were provided by Ireland and have not been substantively challenged by the Commission, indicate that that Member State’s ability to pay has to a certain degree been diminished in the context of economic crisis.
80 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the circumstances of the case are fairly assessed by setting the amount of the lump sum which Ireland will have to pay, under Article 260 TFEU, at EUR 1 500 000.
81 Ireland must, therefore, be ordered to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 1 500 000 million.”
Comentario del autor:
Este asunto no nos remite a ninguna cuestión jurídica sustantiva de especial interés. Se trata de un asunto de inejecución de una sentencia del TJUE por la que se declaraba el incumplimiento de la Directiva de evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte del Estado Irlandés. De fondo está pues la problemática del incumplimiento del Derecho comunitario por los Estado miembros, que se manifiesta de forma especialmente grave en el Derecho ambiental, como así lo dejan de manifiesto las estadísticas de la Comisión sobre infracción del Derecho comunitario.
El TJUE aprecia el incumplimiento por parte del Estado Irlandés durante tres años después de la sentencia y, en consecuencia, valora las circunstancias concurrentes para la determinación de la cuantía de la multa. Interesa destacar que el Tribunal toma en consideración, además del potencial daño al medio ambiente o las propias exigencias del principio de proporcionalidad, la situación de crisis económica y la menor capacidad económica de Irlanda, suponemos que minorando la cuantía definitiva.
Este caso puede ser un botón de muestra de cómo el contexto de la crisis económica está incidiendo negativamente en la aplicación del Derecho ambiental e incluso, como podemos apreciar ya en algunas norma autonómicas, en la reducción de su nivel de exigencia, aunque está cuestión se escapa de los estrechos márgenes de este pronunciamiento del TJUE.
Documento adjunto: 
