In its judgements of Thursday 16 July in cases C-549/18 and C-550/18, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) imposed a fine of €3 million on Romania and €2 million on Ireland for failing to adopt and communicate transposition measures for the Directive on combating money laundering and terrorist financing (2015/849) by the deadline of 26 June 2017.
On 19 July 2018, the Commission brought an action before the Court against Romania, which had not notified any transposition measures, and against Ireland, which had notified only one. Both countries have since fully transposed the Directive into their national laws.
In its two judgments, the CJEU concluded that the imposition of a lump sum cannot be dismissed as disproportionate on the sole ground that it relates to a breach which, while having persisted over time, ended at the time of the Court's examination of the facts, contrary to the arguments put forward by Romania and Ireland.
“Although Romania and Ireland put an end to the alleged infringement during the proceedings, the fact remains that the infringement existed at the end of the period prescribed in the respective reasoned opinions, so that the effectiveness of Union law was not ensured at all times”, the Court explains.
In fixing the amount of the lump sum to be imposed, the Court took account of the date on which the time-limit for transposition laid down in the Directive expired and not the date on which the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion expired.
Any other solution would, moreover, in the Commission's view, amount to calling into question the effectiveness of the provisions of the directives fixing the date on which the measures transposing them must enter into force and to granting an additional period for transposition, the duration of which would vary according to the speed with which the Commission initiates the pre-litigation procedure.
Thus, the Court concluded that the failure of Romania and Ireland to fulfil their obligations continued for just over two years.
It also took account of factors such as the seriousness of the infringement found and the Member State's ability to pay. On the latter point, the Court points out that account must be taken of the recent trend in the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Member State, as it stood on the date of the Court's examination of the facts.
In his Opinion delivered in March (see EUROPE 12440/22), Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev recommended that the Court impose a lump sum payment of €3,000,000 on Romania, whereas the Commission had proposed a lump sum of €4,536,667.20. For Ireland, it had recommended a lump sum of €1,500,000 against the €2,766,992 requested by the Commission.
See judgments in Case C-549/18 (https://bit.ly/2ZzGr7V ) and Case C-550/18 (https://bit.ly/394MXX3 ). (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)