Suchergebnisse

Since the Treaty of Maastricht introduced the possibility of imposing financial penalties on Member States that failed to comply with judgments of the Court, only fourteen rulings have been handed down by the Court under Article 260 TFEU (ex 228 EC). Not all of these cases resulted in sanctions, and the penalties imposed in some judgments were hardly sufficient to deter similar infringements from recurring. However, some improvements can be seen in recent years and the Lisbon Treaty has introduced amendments aimed at bolstering the effectiveness of Article 260 TFEU. Taking stock of the case law and the Lisbon amendments, this article explores whether Article 260 TFEU has been effectively employed as a tool for enforcing EU law and to what extent the Treaty amendments are likely to make a difference.

It is well known that the European Court of Justice has played an active role in shaping EC environmental law. Community competence in the field of the environment was in fact established by the Court in the Adbhu case (Case 240/83), and recent case law indicates that the Court has not grown less bold. This article examines environmental case law from the last five years through the prism of competence (EC vs. EU competence, EC vs. Member State competence, and EC competence vs. international obligations). Several of the cases have implications beyond the field of the environment, not only because of the horizontal dimension of environmental protection, but also since the judgments may give more general indications as to the Community judiciary's position on distribution of powers and its affinity for teleological interpretations in order to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. Although the case law could be seen as an expression of a more general pursuit of an ever closer union, the author suggests that it above all reflects the importance which the Court awards environmental protection and a conviction that broad Community powers are necessary to ensure its effectiveness.