C-304/02, Commission v France

1. Facts

• France violated EU fisheries rules.

• The European Commission demanded that France comply with EU law.

• France did not comply for 10 years.

• The Court of Justice of the European Union (CoJ) demanded that France comply, but this was ignored for another 10 years due to the strength of trade unions in France.

2. Outcome

• France was charged with a lump sum and penalty payments:

◦ €20 million lump sum.

◦ €57 million penalty payment per 6 months of delay (starting from the moment the Article 260 judgment was referred).

3. Impact and Analysis

• This approach was contrary to the wording of the Treaty provision, which suggests "either" a periodic penalty payment or a lump sum.

• However, this case illustrates the increasing power of the courts.

Rationale for Different Fines

• The courts can impose both types of fines because they serve different objectives:

◦ Lump Sum: Imposed for the period between the initial violation and the time it took the Commission to bring the Member State back to court. This sends a message that the longer a state waits to return to compliance, the greater the lump sum will be, penalising original non-compliance.

◦ Penalty Payment: Imposed to ensure the violation is remedied as soon as possible and to ensure compliance with the subsequent judgment.

Factors Influencing Payments

• Payments depend on three factors:

◦ Seriousness of the violation.

◦ Duration of non-compliance.

◦ Ability of the Member State to pay (e.g., fines for Malta will be smaller than those for Germany).

Increased Transparency of Article 260

• Courts must provide a reason for imposing sanctions under Article 260, enhancing transparency.

• This requirement does not apply to Article 258 cases.