General Principles
Effectiveness
This general requirement is further specified in the secondary EU law, including the Environmental Crime Directive, which requires certain offences to be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. The Directive does not stipulate types or levels of penalties. The Member States are provided with the degree of flexibility regarding determining the quantity and quality of sanctions. Moreover, a plethora of EU environmental directives require the Member States to establish 1) effective system of sanctions, or 2) effective system of sanctions with particular sanctions and measures such as withdrawal of permit, or actions to ensure that compliance is restored within the shortest possible time. Once again, the sanctions have to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
In Case C-487/14 Total Waste Recycling, the CJEU assessed the proportionality of the fine imposed by the Inspectorate for breach of waste shipment legislation. The fine was imposed on a transport company, which used a different border crossing point than agreed by the competent authorities. The fine was equal to a penalty imposed in the complete absence of the transportation permit. According to the CJEU, the national court should assess whether the amount of the sanction reflects, in particular, the risks of harm which may be caused by specific conduct in the field of the environment and human health. The amount of the sanction should not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives of ensuring a high level of protection of the environment and human health, taking into account all the factual and legal circumstances of the case (see also a similar Case C-69/15 Nutrivet: "the national court is required, in the context of the review of the proportionality of such penalty, to take particular account of the risks which may be caused by that infringement in the field of protection of the environment and human health").
In practice, there may be limits to the full effectiveness of EU law. First, a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot, therefore, be relied upon as such against an individual (Case C-122/17 Smith, para. 42). Furthermore, the national court, which has the task of applying EU law, sometimes has to balance a number of fundamental rights. (Case C-73/07 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, para. 52-53). In some cases, full application of a provision of EU law must give way to a general principle of law (Case C-234/17 XC and Others, para. 53) or a fundamental right (Case C-310/16 Dzivev and Others, para. 33, 34, 36, 39). In particular, deprivation of liberty must be a measure of last resort (Opinion in C-528/15 Al Chodor, para. 55).
In Case C-752/18 Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the CJEU dealt with refusal of a German regional government to comply with a court judgement ordering the Land of Bavaria to amend its air quality plan by imposing a traffic ban on diesel vehicles in the city of Munich. The Land of Bavaria refused to introduce such a ban, however, despite an order for recurring financial penalties having been made against it (the payment of financial penalties does not reduce the Land's resources). The national court contemplated taking the senior political representatives into coercive detention (prison) which could collide with the Constitution. The CJEU concluded that the national court could not order coercive detention solely on the basis of the principle of effectiveness and of the right to effective judicial protection. Any limitation on the right to liberty must be provided for by a law that meets the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter.
The full effectiveness of EU law and adequate protection of the rights which individuals derive from it may, where appropriate, be ensured by the principle of State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of EU law for which the State can be held responsible. That principle applies to any case in which a Member State breaches EU law, whichever public authority is responsible for the breach (Case C-168/15 Tomášová, para. 18-19).