Brussels, 03/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - The Court of Justice of the EU has ordered Sweden to pay a lump-sum fine of €3 million for its late transposition of the directive on the retention of data dealt with in electronic communications services (2006/24/EC). In a ruling returned on 30 May 2013 (case C-270/11), it stated that this late transposition could have consequences for the public and private interests in question, as the directive guarantees the availability of electronic communications data for the purposes of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime.
Following an initial action by the Commission in 2009, Sweden was initially ruled against in February 2010 (case C-185/09) for its failure to transpose the directive by the deadline of 15 September 2007. In a second action in 2011, this time for failing to execute this ruling, the Commission initially called for Sweden to be ordered to pay a daily penalty (€40,947.20 for each day of delay in complying between the date of this ruling and the execution of the 2010 ruling) plus a daily lump sum penalty (€9,597 for each day between the first ruling and the ruling in the present case or adoption of execution measures, whichever is the sooner). As Sweden has since transposed the directive (1 May 2012), the Commission waived its calls for a daily penalty, but maintained its claim regarding the payment of a lump sum.
In its judgment, the Court has upheld this request by ordering Sweden to pay a lump sum of €3 million for failing in its obligations over the period of nearly 27 months between the date of the 2010 ruling until its execution in May 2012. It set this amount in consideration of the seriousness of the infringement - the non-transposition risked hindering the correct functioning of the internal market - and the length of its continuation. However, it also took account of the facts that the Commission failed to demonstrate that, in this case, Sweden's failure to transpose the directive had indeed jeopardised the conditions for competition between operators and that Sweden had never previously failed to execute an infringement ruling. However, it rejected the arguments put forward by Sweden in its defence, as extraordinary internal difficulties and the possibility offered by the directive to postpone the data retention obligation cannot be held to justify justify non-transposition and failure to act upon the 2010 judgment. (FG/transl.fl)