The inglorious leader of EU sanctions: waste landfills as the dominant subject of non-compliance proceedings under Article 260(2) TFEU
An analysis of the practice of the European Commission and the CJEU concerning proceedings for failure to comply with a prior judgment, i.e., Article 260(2) TFEU, reveals that the subject matter of the vast majority of non-compliance cases concerns the environment. Of the 45 cases conducted under this procedure between 2000 and 2025, as many as 21 related to this field, including 18 concerning waste. A closer examination shows that within this group, the issue of waste landfills was the inglorious leader.
No fewer than five Member States failed to comply with judgments finding incorrect transposition or application of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1), which appears in six cases in total. As a consequence, financial sanctions were imposed on the Member States. This indicates the difficulties faced by states, stemming from the complexity of the regulatory framework established by the directive and the significant scope of work required.
The recurring failure to comply with EU law in the area of waste landfills makes it worthwhile to examine these cases more closely. It is also important to note that Directive 1999/31/EC (amended several times) remains in force, and Member States may still incur liability, including financial liability, for failing to implement it.
Waste landfills will remain a challenging element of waste management for a long time
According to the EU waste hierarchy, landfilling is the least preferred option, and waste should be landfilled only when it is unsuitable for recycling or recovery. The implementation of this policy has led to a year‑on‑year decrease in the number of landfills, yet the problems associated with them have not diminished. Many reasons can be identified for this situation. From a legal perspective—which plays a central role here—Directive 1999/31/EC introduced numerous detailed requirements that Member States were obliged to meet not only for newly established landfills but also for existing ones. It was the issue that caused the greatest difficulties.
Directive 1999/31/EC, together with subsequent amendments, constitutes a cornerstone of EU waste policy aimed at transitioning towards a circular economy. It introduces regulations governing the entire life cycle of a landfill—from site selection, through the operational phase (requirements for adequate protection against contamination of surface and groundwater, soil and air; systems for leachate collection and treatment; monitoring of gas emissions), to closure and remediation. These stringent regulations are intended to reduce negative impacts on the environment as well as on human life and health.
The Directive imposed an obligation on landfill sites operating at the time of its transposition to comply fully with the new requirements. Member States had a maximum of eight years, i.e. until July 2009, to bring existing facilities into line with the Directive’s specific requirements. However, a transitional period could extend this deadline for Member States joining the EU during that time.
The difficulties encountered by Member States in fully applying Directive 1999/31/EC stem from numerous factors. Undoubtedly, these are infringements classified as structural: unlike “normative infringements” (which typically require only legislative amendments, although even these may pose practical challenges), structural infringements require costly investments, such as land remediation or the construction of new alternative infrastructure. More, the expected level of administrative efficiency, as authorities at various levels are involved in the process. In this context, legal amendments alone would clearly not suffice.
Cases and sanctions under Article 260(2) TFEU
Proceedings for failure to comply with judgments conducted under Article 260(2) TFEU concerning waste landfills (either exclusively or in combination with waste management issues) and adjudicated by the CJEU up to 2025 involved the following Member States: Greece (C‑368/24; C‑584/14 – the only Member State sanctioned twice for failure to fully implement Directive 1999/31/EC), Slovenia (C‑318/23), Romania (C‑109/22), Slovakia (C‑626/16), and Italy (C‑196/13). Given the relative homogeneity of these cases, they allow for a reconstruction of the CJEU’s approach to sanctions for non‑implementation of waste‑related EU legislation. Its allow to compare not only the magnitude of the penalties imposed but also the methods used to calculate them.
The allegations raised in cases C‑584/14 (Greece I) and Italy (C‑196/13) are complex in the sense that they concern not only landfills but also broader irregularities. In judgement of 10 September 2009 EC/Greece (C‑286/08) the Court upheld allegations relating, inter alia, to improper management of hazardous waste, failure to prepare and adopt a hazardous‑waste management plan, and failure to establish an adequate integrated network of facilities for its disposal. Due to Greece failed to comply with that judgment, in case C-584/14 was fined with a lump sum of EUR 10 million and a periodic penalty payment. The method of calculating the penalty was complex. The CJEU imposed a daily penalty of EUR 30,000, divided into three parts corresponding to three separate allegations. In the event of progress in implementing the judgment—though only with respect to the third allegation concerning the management of so‑called historical waste (up to 45%, i.e., EUR 13,500)—the amount of the periodic penalty was to be reassessed every six months. The penalty was to decrease proportionally to the progress made, but not by more than 50%.
In the Italian case (initial judgment under Article 226 EC delivered on 26 April 2007, C‑135/05), the Court agreed with the Commission’s allegations and identified numerous irregularities in waste management. It ordered, inter alia, that every facility or undertaking engaged in waste disposal obtain an operating permit; it emphasised the obligation to register and identify hazardous waste at every location where it is dumped or stored. It also recalled the requirement that landfills operating on 16 July 2001 must have prepared and submitted a site conditioning plan for approval by the competent authorities. None of these infringements was fully remedied, and therefore, in the judgment of 2 December 2014 delivered under Article 260(2) TFEU (C‑196/13), Italy was sanctioned with a periodic penalty payment initially set at EUR 42,800,000 per each 6 months. In subsequent six‑month periods, the amount was to be reduced by EUR 400,000 for each site containing hazardous waste and EUR 200,000 for each remaining site brought into compliance with the judgment. Italy was also ordered to pay a lump sum of EUR 40 million. The periodic penalty payment in the first period (potentially lower in subsequent periods), divided by the number of days in the six‑month period, amounted to approximately EUR 235,164 per day—one of the highest penalties ever imposed under Article 260(2) TFEU. It is also roughly eight times higher than the penalty imposed in the aforementioned Greek case.
In cases C‑626/16 (Commission v. Slovakia), C‑318/23 (Commission v. Slovenia), and C‑368/24 (Greece II), the subject of the Article 260(2) TFEU proceedings was the failure to comply with judgments concerning individual waste landfills. Each case resulted in different sanctions. In C‑626/16, a periodic penalty payment of EUR 5,000 per day was imposed, whereas in C‑368/24 the amount reached EUR 12,500 per day. Since Slovenia remedied the infringement before the judgment was delivered, it did not receive a periodic penalty. Differences also appear in the lump sums imposed: in C‑318/23 the lump sum amounted to EUR 1,200,000; in C‑368/24 it was EUR 5,500,000; and in C‑626/16 EUR 1,000,000.
The final case concerns Romania. It differs from the previous ones in that it relates to numerous landfills. At the time of the judgment under Article 258 TFEU (18 October 2018; C‑301/17), non‑compliance with the waste landfill directive was identified in relation to 68 landfills. By September 2023, Romania had closed an additional 37 landfills but had still not fully complied with the judgment. In the judgment of 14 December 2023 delivered under Article 260(2) TFEU, the CJEU imposed a periodic penalty payment of EUR 600 per landfill per day of delay. Since 31 landfills remained to be closed at the time of the judgment, the initial daily penalty amounted to EUR 18,600. The lump sum was set at EUR 1,500,000.
Conclusion
The cases discussed in this blog demonstrate the seriousness with which EU institutions treat infringements concerning waste landfills. This is reflected not only in the number of proceedings conducted but also in the magnitude of the sanctions imposed. Infringements concerning individual landfills result in lower penalties, whereas broader failures in waste management may lead to substantial sanctions, as illustrated by the Greek (C‑584/14) and Italian (C‑196/13) cases.
Comments