(Air transport – Groundhandling – Directive 96/67/EC)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Transport – Air transport – Access to the groundhandling market at Community airports – Power of the Member States to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing groundhandling services – Limits

(Council Directive 96/67)

(Council Directive 2001/23)

1.The power to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing groundhandling services, which the Member States retain under Directive 96/67 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, does not confer an unlimited jurisdiction and must be exercised in a manner that does not prejudice the effectiveness of that directive and the objectives it pursues. The aim of the directive is to ensure the opening up of the groundhandling market which must help, in particular, to reduce the operating costs of airlines.

(see paras 31-32)

2.A national provision which guarantees that existing employment levels are to be maintained and that labour relations with staff under the previous management arrangements are to be continued which applies, irrespective of the nature of the transaction concerned, to any ‘transfer of activity’ in the sector in question plainly goes beyond the concept of transfer laid down by Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, as interpreted by the Court. It is only by having regard to the specific characteristics of each transfer of activity that it is possible to determine whether the transaction concerned constitutes a transfer for the purposes of the directive.

(see paras 41-42)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 9 December 2004(1)

(Air transport – Groundhandling – Directive 96/67/EC)

In Case C-460/02,ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 December 2002,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Aresu and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

Italian Republic, represented by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and by O. Fiumara, vice-avvocato generale dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 25 March 2004,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 9 September 2004,

gives the following

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

3. A description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from:

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

Except where a branch of an undertaking is transferred, any transfer of activity in one or more categories of groundhandling, as set out in Annexes A and B, shall include the transfer of staff, named by those concerned, and in agreement with trade unions, from the previous supplier to the subsequent supplier, in proportion to the volume of traffic or to the scale of the activities being taken over by the subsequent supplier.

Article 20 of the legislative decree contains the following interim provision:

‘Contractual arrangements for groundhandling staff in force as of 19 November 1998, which include various organisational and contractual schemes, shall remain in force until the expiry of the relevant contracts, which shall not be renewed, and in any event for a period not greater than six years’.

Pre-litigation procedure

Following a complaint, the Commission held that the Italian legislation failed to comply with Community law in several respects. It therefore sent the Italian Government a letter of formal notice of 3 May 2000. The Italian Government replied to it by a note of 18 July 2000.

As it considered that that reply was unsatisfactory, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Italian Republic on 24 July 2001. The Italian Government’s reply was given by a note of 31 October 2001. That note was followed by another communication of 5 December 2001.

Several meetings then took place between the representatives of the Commission services responsible for the matter and experts from the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, during which the Italian Government produced proposals to amend Legislative Decree No 18/99. As no further information was provided to the Commission, it decided to bring this action.

The action

The first complaint

By letter of 19 January 2004, the Italian Government informed the Court that Article 11(1) of Legislative Decree No 18/99 had been amended by Law No 306 of 31 October 2003 (GURI of 15 November 2003). In those circumstances, the Commission withdrew its first complaint by letter of 23 March 2004, while maintaining its application for costs against the defendant.

The second complaint

The Commission considers that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 is incompatible with Article 18 of Directive 96/67, since it obliges the suppliers of groundhandling services to ensure that, on each occasion of a ‘transfer of activity’ in one or more of the categories of groundhandling referred to in the annexes to the decree, the staff of the previous supplier are transferred to the subsequent supplier in proportion to the volume of traffic or the scale of the activities being taken over by the latter.

The Commission points out that measures to protect the rights of workers are permitted under Article 18 of Directive 96/67, provided they do not prejudice the effective application of the directive as regards groundhandling services. Article 14(1) of Legislative Decree No 18/99 plainly goes beyond the protection guaranteed by Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26), as amended by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88) and codified by Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

The Commission considers that a national provision such as that impugned in the present case could only be justified on the basis of Article 18 of Directive 96/67 if it applied to the transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of Directive 2001/23. For that directive to apply, the transfer must relate to an economic entity, that is to say an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective. However, in order to be in a position to judge whether the transfer of an entity is involved, it is necessary to take into account all the actual circumstances which apply to the transaction in question.

According to the Commission, the mere fact that the services provided by the previous supplier and those provided by the subsequent supplier are similar does not mean that there is a transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings. An entity cannot consist only of the activity which is entrusted to it, and its identity is made up of other factors, such as its staff, its management, the manner in which its work is organised, and its methods and style of management.

The Commission states there can be no transfer of an undertaking in the present case, as the key element for the disposal of the undertaking is missing, namely a negotiated agreement, whether express or implied, or an act of a public authority. The new supplier in fact gains access to the airport structures on the basis of a separate title, independently of any relationship or contact, howsoever constituted, with the previous supplier. The source of that title is a contract entered into with the operator of the airport concerned.

The Commission argues that the measure adopted by the Italian Government truly entails the transfer of social costs borne by the State to the new undertakings providing the services, to the detriment of those undertakings. Should the national authorities wish to adopt social measures as part of the process of liberalisation of groundhandling services, Article 18 of Directive 96/67 could represent an adequate legal basis, but only if the measures in question were to comply with the spirit of that directive and the general principles of Community law.

According to the Commission, Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 prevents suppliers wishing to enter the market from selecting their own staff and, accordingly, the way in which the services they seek to provide are organised so that they can carry out their activities on the market. The objective of Directive 96/67 is precisely to encourage competition in markets that were previously closed and monopolistic, by reducing the operating costs of airlines and improving the quality of the services provided to airport users.

The Italian Government maintains that Directive 96/67 provides the Member States with a degree of discretion as regards the manner and timing of the adoption of the measures required for the implementation of the new system, in light of the specific circumstances in each State. With that in mind, the national legislature adopted the legislation concerned, aware of the fact that free access to the market may be compatible with the proper working of Community airports and put into place progressively and in a manner adapted to the requirements of the sector. The social protection measures laid down in Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 do not impede the liberalisation of the groundhandling sector and represent the practical embodiment of a power given to the State by Article 18 of Directive 96/67.

The Italian Government considers that compliance with that directive and other provisions of Community law, particularly those relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, does not mean that the level of protection the Member States may provide can only be set within the limits permitted by legislative harmonisation at the Community level. If that were so, Article 18 of Directive 96/67 would lose all purpose, since that provision would give the Member States no freedom to offer employees a safeguard which was not already available under Community law.

According to the Italian Government, the last-mentioned provision should be interpreted as meaning that by its very nature such an ‘additional’ safeguard must not represent a breach of the Community law set out specifically in Directive 96/67 or, more generally, in other Community acts. In so far as the effective protection of the workforce can only be given effect by the imposition of a financial constraint and an obligation on the employer, its validity must be judged by a comparative and reasonable analysis of the interests involved.

The Italian Government also argues that, in so far as the service remains the same as, or at least similar to, that provided by the previous supplier, the critical element of the definition of the transfer of an undertaking is not necessarily the taking over of tangible or intangible assets. The organisation of an activity in such a way that, seen from an economic perspective, there is in substance a taking over of activities also falls within the scope of the concept of a ‘transfer’.

In the light of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned and the organisation of the undertakings in question, the Italian Government maintains that the transfer of airport ‘activities’ may be covered by the wider concept of the ‘transfer of an undertaking’. In fact, it is precisely the continuity of the activity, which moves from one supplier to another, which makes that situation wholly comparable with the transfer of an undertaking.

The Italian Government states that, while Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 refers specifically to any ‘transfer of activity in one or more categories of groundhandling’, it is clear that in practice such a transfer will be accompanied by the transfer of a number of tangible assets and structures necessary to enable the activity to be carried out by the new supplier. In those circumstances, there is a transfer of part of an undertaking or, at the very least, the carrying on of a business by one party as successor to another which has, in substance, the characteristics of a transfer. It was accordingly lawful for the national legislature to be concerned to ensure the protection of the workforce by adopting a reasonable compromise between opposing interests.

As regards the argument that the transposition of Directive 96/67 into national law was liable to distort competition on the market for airport services in favour of established undertakings and to the detriment of potential competitors, the Italian Government observes that the principle of freedom of competition means that the undertakings concerned should enjoy true equality of opportunity under the rules laid down by the social legislation which applies, even if those rules are restrictive in their nature.

Findings of the Court

By its arguments, the Italian Government is essentially maintaining that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 has its legal basis in Article 18 of Directive 96/67 and that the disputed provision falls within the scope of Directive 2001/23.

As to the compatibility of Article 14 of the decree with Directive 96/67, in the light of Article 18 of that directive, it is clear from the 24th recital in the preamble to the directive that Member States retain the power to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing groundhandling services.

As regards the definition of ‘adequate level’, it must be pointed out, as the Advocate General rightly observes at point 33 of his Opinion, that that power does not confer an unlimited jurisdiction and must be exercised in a manner that does not prejudice the effectiveness of Directive 96/67 and the objectives it pursues. As the Court noted in Case C-363/01 Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen [2003] ECR I‑11893, paragraph 43, the aim of the directive is to ensure the opening‑up of the groundhandling market which, according to the fifth recital in the preamble to the directive, must help, in particular, to reduce the operating costs of airlines.

By contrast, the interpretation of Article 18 of Directive 96/67 provided by the Italian Government, particularly as regards the taking into account of social considerations, would make the entry of new suppliers of services in the groundhandling market unduly difficult, as they would be obliged to take over the staff employed by the previous supplier. As a result, the rational use of airport infrastructures and the reduction of the costs of the services charged to users would be impaired.

The obligation imposed by Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 on the undertakings concerned to take over the staff of the previous supplier puts potential new competitors at a disadvantage in relation to established undertakings and jeopardises the opening-up of the groundhandling markets, thereby undermining the effectiveness of Directive 96/67.

It follows that the disputed legislation prejudices the aim of that directive, namely the opening-up of the markets concerned and the creation of appropriate conditions for intra-Community competition in the sector.

Since the disputed legislation is not compatible with Directive 96/67, it is not relevant to argue, as the Italian Government does, that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 does not contravene Directive 2001/23.

In any event, the Italian Government cannot maintain that Article 14 of the legislative decree is based on the notion of the ‘transfer of an activity’ which is within the scope of Directive 2001/23.

Article 1(1) of that directive provides that it applies to any transfer of an undertaking, business, or part of an undertaking or business to another employer as a result of a legal transfer or merger. The Court’s case-law makes it clear that the decisive criterion for establishing the existence of a transfer within the meaning of the directive is whether the entity in question retains its identity, as indicated inter alia by the fact that its operation is actually continued or resumed (see, inter alia, Case 24/85 Spijkers [1986] ECR 1119, paragraphs 11 and 12, and Case C-13/95 Süzen [1997] ECR I-1259, pargraph 10).

39

In order to determine whether the conditions for the transfer of an entity are met, the Court has held that it is necessary to consider all the facts characterising the transaction in question, including in particular the type of undertaking or business, whether or not its tangible assets, such as buildings and movable property, are transferred, the value of its intangible assets at the time of the transfer, whether or not the majority of its employees are taken over by the new employer, whether or not its customers are transferred, the degree of similarity between the activities carried on before and after the transfer, and the period, if any, for which those activities were suspended. However, all those circumstances are merely single factors in the overall assessment which must be made and cannot therefore be considered in isolation (see, in particular, <i>Spijkers</i>, paragraph 13, and <i>Süzen</i>, paragraph 14).

40

It follows from that case-law that the importance to be given to the different criteria which may establish the existence of the transfer of an undertaking, establishment or parts of undertakings or establishments within the meaning of Directive 2001/23 will vary in accordance with a large number of factors.

41

It must accordingly be held that it is only by having regard to the specific characteristics of each transfer of activity concerning one or more categories of groundhandling services that it is possible to determine whether the transaction concerned constitutes a transfer for the purposes of Directive 2001/23.

42

It should be noted that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 applies, irrespective of the nature of the transaction concerned, to ‘any transfer of activity’ in the sector in question and that, in light of the case-law mentioned above, such a definition of a transfer clearly goes beyond the definition laid down in Directive 2001/23, as interpreted by the Court.

43

It must accordingly be held that the second complaint is well founded, as the social protection arrangements provided for in Legislative Decree No 18/99 are incompatible with Directive 96/67.

The third complaint

44

The Commission considers that Article 20 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 is incompatible with Directive 96/67, as the article permits undertakings with particular organisational arrangements to operate in the self-handling field at the same time as suppliers selected and/or licensed in accordance with the provisions of the directive.

45

The Commission notes that Article 20 of the legislative decree refers to contracts of employment in force on 19 November 1998, which include various organisational and contractual schemes. Those contracts of employment involve the staff of self-handling users other than those covered by Directive 96/67. They are to remain in force in their current form until their expiry and, in any event, for a period not greater than six years. In practice, those undertakings are licensed to provide services at the same time as other undertakings in the self-handling field and suppliers of groundhandling services to third parties.

According to the Commission, Directive 96/67 clearly specifies the categories of undertakings providing groundhandling services which may regard themselves as being suppliers of groundhandling services to third parties and as being self-handling users. Entities which fail to satisfy the criteria for self-handling laid down in Article 2(f) of Directive 96/67 may only operate as suppliers of services to third parties. Furthermore, Articles 6 and 7 of that directive impose a duty to follow specific procedures for the selection of self-handling users and of suppliers of groundhandling services to third parties.

47

The Commission adds that Directive 96/67 does not lay down any interim measures for undertakings having different organisational arrangements. The validity of the contractual relations must be judged having regard to the applicable legislation and in particular to the provisions of Directive 96/67. The national legislature may not impose rules as to the maximum period of the validity of contractual relations, thereby treating those relations as if they fell outside the obligations laid down under those provisions.

48

The Italian Government considers that the disputed rule is not only an interim measure, but also very limited in its scope. It should be understood as seeking to safeguard acquired rights, and as doing so for a relatively brief period, namely until the expiry of the contracts in question and, in any event, for a period not greater than six years. Furthermore, it is intended that it will be repealed under the next annual law implementing Community provisions.

Findings of the Court

49

Directive 96/67 clearly specifies the categories of undertakings which may provide groundhandling services to third parties and self-handling users. It follows that entities which do not satisfy the criteria for self-handling set by that directive may operate only as suppliers of services to third parties. Furthermore, as the Advocate General rightly notes at point 49 of his Opinion, the directive does not allow Member States to adopt interim measures in that regard.

50

In putting such interim measures in place, Article 20 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 adopts a regime which is incompatible with Directive 96/67.

51

The Commission’s complaint is accordingly well founded.

52

In the light of all of the above, it must be held that, in so far as Legislative Decree No 18/99 incorporates, at Article 14, a social measure which is incompatible with Article 18 of Council Directive 96/67 and sets out, at Article 20, interim provisions which are not authorised under the directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

Costs

53

Under Article 69(2) 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. As the Commission has asked that costs be awarded against the Italian Republic and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Italian Republic must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby:

1.

Declares that in so far as Legislative Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999 applying Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports incorporates, at Article 14, a social measure which is incompatible with Article 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 and sets out, at Article 20, interim provisions which are not authorised under the directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Signatures.

1

Language of the case: Italian.