Nikolaos Tsapalos and Konstantinos Diamantakis

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus)

(Directive 76/308/EEC – Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties – Application to claims which arose prior to the entry into force of the directive)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties – Directive 76/308 – Temporal application – Application to claims which arose before the entry into force of the directive in the State where the requested authority is situated

(Council Directive 76/308)

Directive 76/308 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, is to be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before that directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

Since the purpose of the directive is to eliminate obstacles to the functioning of the common market arising from problems related to the crossborder recovery of the claims referred to and to prevent fraudulent operations, it is conceivable that the directive may apply to claims existing at the time it entered into force in the State where the requested authority is situated.

(see paras 22-23, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 1 July 2004 (1)

(Directive 76/308/EEC – Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties – Application to claims which arose prior to the entry into force of the Directive)

In Joined Cases C-361/02 and C-362/02,

REFERENCES to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Nikolaos Tsapalos (C-361/02), Konstantinos Diamantakis (C-362/02),

on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustment to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21),

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

– Mr Tsapalos, by V.K. Koutoulakos, dikigoros,

– Mr Diamantakis, by C. Kara-Sepetzoglou, dikigoros,

– the Greek Government, by S. Spyropoulos, D. Kalogiros and P. Mylonopoulos, acting as Agents,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents,

having heard the oral observations of the Greek Government, represented by S. Spyropoulos and M. Apessos, acting as Agent, and of the Commission, represented by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, at the hearing of 11 February 2004,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting of 19 February 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.

(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.

(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

‘Is Article 1 of the Directive … to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Directive also cover claims which arose in a Member State before entry into force of the Directive under a document whose issuance by the competent authorities of that State also predated entry into force of the Directive, such as the document issued by the Italian authorities in the present case, and that, accordingly, following the entry into force of the Directive, the end of the relevant transitional period and compliance by the other Member States with the duty to enact the provisions required for application of the Directive, those pending claims for which recovery had not hitherto been available in the other Member State may henceforth be recovered, on request to the “requested authority” by the “applicant authority” as mentioned in Article 3 of the Directive?’

By order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2002, the two cases were joined for the purposes of the written procedure, the oral procedure and the judgment.

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

By its question, the national court asks, in essence, whether the Directive must be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before the Directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, whereas substantive rules are usually interpreted as not applying to situations existing before their entry into force (see, in particular, Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Salumi and Others [1981] ECR 2735, paragraph 9; Joined Cases C-121/91 and C-122/91 CT Control (Rotterdam) and JCT Benelux v Commission [1993] ECR I-3873, paragraph 22; and Case C-61/98 De Haan [1999] ECR I‑5003, paragraph 13).

As the Greek Government and the Commission have rightly observed, since the Directive governs only the recognition and enforcement of certain categories of claims which arise in another Member State, without setting out rules relating to their accrual or their scope, the provisions of the Directive must be considered procedural rules.

In addition, no provision of the Directive makes it possible to consider that the Community legislature intended to limit the application of the procedural rules solely to claims which arose after the entry into force of that directive in the Member State where the requested authority is situated.

On the contrary, the purpose of the Directive, which is, according to the second and third recitals in the preamble, to eliminate obstacles to the functioning of the common market arising from problems related to the cross‑border recovery of the claims referred to and to prevent fraudulent operations, argues for the Directive applying to claims existing at the time it entered into force in the Member State where the requested authority is situated.

Under those conditions, the answer to the question referred must be that the Directive is to be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before that directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

Costs

The costs incurred by the Greek Government and by the Commission, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus by judgments of 28 June 2002, hereby rules:

Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before that directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 July 2004.

Registrar

President of the Third Chamber

Language of the case: Greek.