## Facts

- The European Commission received numerous complaints that Irish authorities tolerated illegal dumping and storage of waste and allowed waste facilities to operate without required permits.
- The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Ireland under Article 226 EC (now Article 258 TFEU) for alleged noncompliance with Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (as amended).
- In a 2001 reasoned opinion, the Commission cited 12 complaints as examples of broader, systemic failures and stated it could rely on other examples to show breaches of a general nature.
- Ireland did not satisfy the Commission that the problems had been remedied.
- The Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice alleging a general and persistent failure to apply the Waste Framework Directive correctly, and it submitted additional instances identified after the reasoned opinion as evidence of that pattern.

## Issues

1. In an infringement action alleging a general and persistent failure to comply with a directive, may the Commission rely at the Court stage on additional examples not identified in the reasoned opinion without changing the dispute’s subject matter?
2. Did Ireland fail to ensure that waste disposal and recovery operations were subject to prior permits and effective supervision as required by the waste directive?
3. Did Ireland fail to subject waste collection and transport to an effective system of prior authorisation or registration?
4. Did Ireland fail to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations and otherwise meet result-oriented obligations to protect health and the environment?

## Decision

- The Court held the Commission may submit additional evidence at the Court stage to prove a failure is general and consistent, so long as the subject matter remains that defined during the pre-litigation stage.
- The Court found Ireland failed to fulfil obligations under Directive 75/442/EEC (as amended), including Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14.
- Ireland had not ensured that disposal and recovery operations were carried out under prior permits and adequate checks (Articles 9–10).
- Ireland had not effectively implemented controls over waste collection and transport through authorisation or registration (Article 12).
- Ireland had not established an integrated and adequate network of permitted disposal installations, given widespread unpermitted operations and insufficient lawful capacity (Article 5).

## Legal Principles

- The subject matter of an infringement action is defined by the reasoned opinion, but additional evidence may be introduced to demonstrate that the alleged failure is general and consistent, provided it does not alter the dispute’s subject matter.
- In Article 226 EC proceedings, once the Commission makes a prima facie showing of noncompliance, the Member State must rebut with evidence of compliance.
- Member States must cooperate with the Commission’s supervisory function by investigating complaints and providing information during infringement inquiries.
- Waste-law duties requiring prior permitting and supervision of disposal/recovery operations impose obligations to achieve concrete results, not merely to exercise diligence.
- A Member State choosing authorisation for collection/transport may render registration unnecessary, but the chosen control system must function effectively in practice.
- An “integrated and adequate network” of disposal installations is not met where many facilities lack permits and lawful capacity is insufficient to manage generated waste.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a systemic infringement finding against Ireland for persistent failures in permitting, supervision, and capacity planning under EU waste law, and confirmed that the Commission may rely on additional examples at trial to prove a general and consistent failure without changing the action’s subject matter.


Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys. v. Ireland, Case C-494/01, 2005 E.C.R. I-3331 (E.C.J. 2005)