Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)
30 April 2026 (*)
( Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 258 TFEU – Directive (EU) 2019/520 – Interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitation of cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the European Union – Failure to transpose – Failure to notify potential transposition measures – Article 260(3) TFEU – Application for an order to pay a lump sum )
In Case C‑479/23,
ACTION for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 and Article 260(3) TFEU, brought on 26 July 2023,
European Commission, represented by M. Ilkova and P. Messina, acting as Agents,
applicant,
v
Republic of Bulgaria, represented by T. Mitova, S. Ruseva and R. Stoyanov, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),
composed of J. Passer, President of the Chamber, M.L. Arastey Sahún (Rapporteur), President of the Fifth Chamber, and D. Gratsias, Judge,
Advocate General: N. Emiliou,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By its application, the European Commission claims that the Court should:
– find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (OJ 2019 L 91, p. 45), or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32(1) of that directive;
– order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay to the Commission a lump sum corresponding to one of the following two amounts, whichever is the highest:
– a daily sum of EUR 1 800, multiplied by the number of days between the day following the expiry of the deadline for transposition set out in that directive and the date on which the infringement was brought to an end, or, where the infringement has not been brought to an end, the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or
– a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 504 000;
– where the failure to fulfil obligations under the first indent persists until the day of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case, order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 9 720 for each day from the day of delivery of that judgment until the day on which the Republic of Bulgaria fulfils its obligations under Directive 2019/520;
– order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.
Legal context
Directive 2019/520
2 Recitals 2 and 3 of Directive 2019/520 state:
‘(2) It is desirable to achieve widespread deployment of electronic road toll systems in the Member States and in the neighbouring countries, and to have, as far as possible, reliable, user friendly, and cost-efficient systems suited to the future development of road-charging policy at Union level and to future technical developments. Therefore, it is necessary to make electronic road toll systems interoperable to reduce the cost of, and the burdens linked to, the payment of tolls across the Union.
(3) Interoperable electronic road toll systems contribute to achieving the objectives laid down by Union law on road tolls.’
3 Article 1(1) of that directive provides:
‘This Directive lays down the conditions necessary for the following purposes:
(a) to ensure the interoperability of electronic road toll systems on the entire Union road network, urban and interurban motorways, major and minor roads, and various structures, such as tunnels or bridges, and ferries; and
(b) to facilitate the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data regarding the vehicles and the owners or holders of vehicles for which there was a failure to pay road fees of any kind in the Union.
…’
4 Article 2 of that directive provides:
‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
…
(2) “toll service provider” means legal entity providing toll services on one or more [European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)] domains for one or more classes of vehicles;
(3) “toll charger” means a public or private entity which levies tolls for the circulation of vehicles in an EETS domain;
…
(16) “toll declaration” means a statement to a toll charger that confirms the presence of a vehicle in an EETS domain in a format agreed between the toll service provider and the toll charger;
(17) “vehicle classification parameters” means the vehicle related information in accordance with which tolls are calculated based on the toll context data;
…
(21) “toll” or “road fee” means the fee which must be paid by the road user for circulating on a given road, a road network, a structure, such as a bridge or a tunnel, or a ferry;
…
(26) “vehicle” means a motor vehicle, or articulated vehicle combination intended or used for the carriage by road of passengers or goods;
…
(29) “light-duty vehicle” means a vehicle having a maximum permissible mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes.’
5 Article 5 of that directive is worded as follows:
‘…
4. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, where necessary, EETS providers whom they have registered, or who provide the EETS on their territory, provide EETS users with [on-board equipment (OBE)] which fulfils the requirements set out in this Directive, as well as in [Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC (OJ 2014 L 153, p. 62)] and [Directive 2014/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (OJ 2014 L 96, p. 79)]. They may request from concerned EETS providers evidence that those requirements are fulfilled.
5. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that EETS providers who provide the EETS on their territory keep lists of invalidated OBE related to their EETS contracts with the EETS users. They shall take the measures necessary to ensure that such lists are maintained in strict compliance with the Union rules on the protection of personal data as set out, inter alia, in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1)] and Directive 2002/58/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37)].
…
7. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that EETS providers who provide the EETS on their territory provide toll chargers with the information they need to calculate and apply the toll on the vehicles of EETS users or provide toll chargers with all information necessary to allow them to verify the calculation of applied toll on the vehicles of EETS users by the EETS providers.
…
9. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that a toll charger responsible for an EETS domain on their territory is able to obtain, from an EETS provider, data relating to all vehicles owned or held by clients of the EETS provider, which have, in a given period of time, driven on the EETS domain for which the toll charger is responsible, as well as data relating to the owners or holders of these vehicles, provided that the toll charger needs this data to comply with its obligations to tax authorities. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the EETS provider provides the requested data no later than two days after receiving the request. They shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the toll charger does not disclose such data to any other toll service provider. They shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, where the toll charger is integrated with a toll service provider in one entity, the data are used for the sole purpose of compliance by the toll charger with its obligations to tax authorities.
…’
6 Under Article 6 of Directive 2019/520:
‘1. Where an EETS domain does not comply with the technical and procedural EETS interoperability conditions provided for in this Directive, the Member State on whose territory the EETS domain lies shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the responsible toll charger assesses the problem with the stakeholders concerned and, if within its sphere of responsibilities, takes remedial actions with a view to ensuring EETS interoperability of the toll system. Where necessary, the Member State shall update the register referred to in Article 21(1) in respect of the information referred to in point (a) thereof.
…
3. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that toll chargers responsible for EETS domains on their territory accept on a non-discriminatory basis any EETS provider requesting to provide EETS on the said EETS domains.
Acceptance of an EETS provider in a EETS domain shall be subject to the provider’s compliance with the obligations and general conditions set out in the EETS domain statement.
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that toll chargers do not require EETS providers to use specific technical solutions, or processes, that hinder the interoperability of an EETS provider’s interoperability constituents with electronic road toll systems in other EETS domains.
If a toll charger and an EETS provider cannot reach an agreement, the matter may be referred to the Conciliation Body responsible for the relevant toll domain.
4. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the contracts between the toll charger and the EETS provider, regarding the provision of EETS on the territory of that Member State, permit the invoice for the toll to be issued to the EETS user directly by the EETS provider.
The toll charger may require that the EETS provider invoices the user in the name and on behalf of the toll charger, and the EETS provider shall comply with that request.
5. The toll charged by toll chargers to EETS users shall not exceed the corresponding national or local toll. This is without prejudice to the right of Member States to introduce rebates or discounts to promote the use of electronic toll payments. All OBE user rebates or discounts on tolls offered by a Member State or by a toll charger shall be transparent, publicly announced and available under the same conditions to clients of EETS providers.
6. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that toll chargers accept on their EETS domains any operational OBE from EETS providers with whom they have contractual relationships which have been certified in accordance with the procedure defined in the implementing acts referred to in Article 15(7) and which do not appear on a list of invalidated OBE referred to in Article 5(5).
7. In the event of an EETS dysfunction attributable to the toll charger, the toll charger shall provide for a degraded mode of service enabling vehicles with the equipment referred to in paragraph 6 to circulate safely with a minimum of delay and without being suspected of a failure to pay a road fee.
…’
7 Article 7(3) of that directive provides:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that in EETS domains with a main service provider, the methodology for calculating the remuneration of EETS providers follows the same structure as the remuneration of comparable services provided by the main service provider. The amount of remuneration of EETS providers may differ from the remuneration of the main service provider provided that it is justified by:
(a) the cost of specific requirements and obligations of the main service provider and not of the EETS providers; and
(b) the need to deduct, from the remuneration of EETS providers, the fixed charges imposed by the toll charger based on the costs, for the toll charger, of providing, operating and maintaining an EETS compliant system in its toll domain, including the costs of accreditation, where such costs are not included in the toll.’
8 Article 8 of that directive provides, in paragraph 2 and 3 thereof:
‘2. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the toll charger is entitled to require, from an EETS provider, payment for any substantiated toll declaration and any substantiated toll non-declaration relating to any EETS user account managed by that EETS provider.
3. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, where an EETS provider has sent to a toll charger a list of invalidated OBE referred to in Article 5(5), the EETS provider shall not be held liable for any further toll incurred through the use of such invalidated OBE. The number of entries in the list of invalidated OBE, the list’s format and its updating frequency shall be agreed between toll chargers and EETS providers.’
9 Under Article 9 of that directive:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that legal entities which provide toll services keep accounting records which make a clear distinction possible between the costs and revenues related to the provision of toll services and the costs and revenues related to other activities. The information on the costs and revenues related to the toll service provision shall be provided, upon request, to the relevant Conciliation Body or judicial body. Member States shall also take the measures necessary to ensure that cross subsidies between the activities performed in the role of toll service provider and other activities are not allowed.’
10 Article 14(1) of Directive 2019/520 is worded as follows:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the interaction of EETS users with toll chargers as part of EETS is limited, where applicable, to the invoicing process in accordance with Article 6(4) and to enforcement processes. Interactions between EETS users and EETS providers, or their OBE, may be specific to each EETS provider, without compromising EETS interoperability.’
11 Article 21(5) of that directive provides:
‘At the end of each calendar year, the Member States authorities in charge of the registers shall communicate, to the Commission, by electronic means, the registers of EETS domains and EETS providers. The Commission shall make the information available to the other Member States. Any inconsistencies with the situation in a Member State shall be brought to the attention of the Member State of registration and of the Commission.’
12 Article 24 of that directive provides:
‘1. The Member State in whose territory there was a failure to pay a road fee shall decide whether or not to initiate follow-up proceedings in relation to the failure to pay a road fee.
Where the Member State in whose territory there was a failure to pay a road fee decides to initiate such proceedings, that Member State shall, in accordance with its national law, inform the owner, the holder of the vehicle or the otherwise identified person suspected of failing to pay the road fee.
This information shall, as applicable under national law, include the legal consequences thereof within the territory of the Member State in which there was a failure to pay a road fee under the law of that Member State.
2. When sending the information letter to the owner, the holder of the vehicle or to the otherwise identified person suspected of failing to pay the road fee, the Member State in whose territory there was a failure to pay a road fee shall, in accordance with its national law, include any relevant information, notably the nature of the failure to pay the road fee, the place, date and time of the failure to pay the road fee, the title of the texts of the national law infringed, the right to appeal and to have access to information, and the sanction and, where appropriate, data concerning the device used for detecting the failure to pay a road fee. For that purpose, the Member State in whose territory there was a failure to pay a road fee shall base the information letter on the template set out in Annex II.
…’
13 Under Article 25 of that directive:
‘1. The Member State on whose territory there was a failure to pay a road fee may provide to the entity responsible for levying the road fee the data obtained through the procedure referred to in Article 23(1) only if the following conditions are met:
(a) the data transferred is limited to what is needed by that entity to obtain the road fee due;
(b) the procedure for obtaining the road fee due complies with the procedure provided for in Article 24;
(c) the entity concerned is responsible for carrying out this procedure; and
(d) compliance with the payment order issued by the entity receiving the data puts an end to the failure to pay a road fee.
2. Member States shall ensure that the data provided to the responsible entity are used solely for the purpose of obtaining the road fee due and is immediately deleted once the road fee is paid or, if the failure to pay persists, within a reasonable period after the transfer of the data, to be set by the Member State.’
14 Article 32 of Directive 2019/520 provides:
‘1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 19 October 2021, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 27 and Annexes I and II. They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.
They shall apply those measures from 19 October 2021.
When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the Directive repealed by this Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.’
15 Article 33 of that directive provides:
‘Directive 2004/52/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124)] is repealed with effect from 20 October 2021, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for the transposition into national law of the Directive set out in Annex III, Part B.
References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex IV.’
16 Annex II to Directive 2019/520 sets out a template for the information letter referred to in Article 24 of that directive.
The 2023 communication
17 Communication 2023/C 2/01 from the Commission, entitled ‘Financial sanctions in infringement proceedings’ (OJ 2023 C 2, p. 1; ‘the 2023 Communication’), sets out, in sections 3 and 4 thereof, the rules relating to the ‘penalty payment’ and ‘lump sum payment’, respectively.
18 Section 4.2 of that communication sets out the calculation method for the lump sum as follows:
‘The lump sum is calculated in a manner broadly similar to the method for calculating the penalty payment, that is:
– multiplying a flat-rate amount by a coefficient for seriousness,
– multiplying the result by the n factor,
– multiplying the result by the number of days the infringement persists …
…’
19 Section 4.2.1 of that communication states:
‘To calculate the lump sum, the daily amount is to be multiplied by the number of days the infringement persists. The latter is defined as follows:
…
– for actions brought under Article 260(3) TFEU, this is the number of days between the day after the expiry of the deadline for transposition set out in the directive at issue and the date the infringement comes to an end, or, failing compliance, the date of the delivery of the judgment under Article 260 TFEU.
…’
20 Annex I to that communication, entitled ‘Data used for determining financial sanctions proposed to the Court’, states, in point 2 thereof, that the flat-rate amount for the lump sum payment referred to in section 4.2.2 of that communication is fixed at EUR 1 000 per day, that is, one third of the flat-rate for penalty payments, and, in point 3 thereof, that the ‘n’ factor for the Republic of Bulgaria is fixed at 0.18. It is stated in point 5 of Annex I that the minimum lump sum for the Republic of Bulgaria is set at EUR 504 000.
Pre-litigation procedure
21 On 25 November 2021, the Commission sent the Republic of Bulgaria a letter of formal notice in which it reminded that Member State that the deadline prescribed for transposing Directive 2019/520 had expired on 19 October 2021 and that measures transposing that directive in full had not yet been notified to the Commission.
22 In its reply of 24 January 2022, the Republic of Bulgaria informed the Commission that that directive would be transposed into Bulgarian law by the adoption of the Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Zakona za patishtata (Law amending and supplementing the Law on Roads), the Postanovlenie za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Naredbata za usloviyata, reda i pravilata za izgrazhdane i funktsionirane na smesena sistema za taksuvane na razlichnite kategorii patni prevozni sredstva na baza vreme i na baza izminato razstoyanie (Order amending and supplementing the Regulation on the conditions and rules for the establishment and operation of a mixed toll system for the different categories of road vehicles on the basis of time and of distance travelled) and the Naredba za usloviyata, reda i pravilata za postigane na operativnata savmestimost na elektronni sistemi za patno taksuvane (Regulation on the conditions and rules for the achievement of interoperability of electronic road toll systems), which were in the process of being adopted.
23 In the absence of any subsequent communication concerning the transposition of Directive 2019/520, the Commission, on 19 May 2022, sent the Republic of Bulgaria a reasoned opinion requesting that Member State to take, within two months of receipt, the measures necessary to comply with that opinion.
24 By letter of 18 July 2022, the Republic of Bulgaria did not dispute the alleged infringement, but stated that the draft law amending and supplementing the Law on Roads had been approved by the Council of Ministers on 27 May 2022, and then submitted to the Bulgarian National Assembly on the same day for adoption. That Member State added that all drafts and legislative acts intended to transpose the provisions of that directive in full into Bulgarian law would be adopted by September 2022, but that delays could still not be ruled out.
25 Stating that, after the expiry of the deadline for the transposition of that directive, the measures intended to ensure its transposition in full had still not been adopted or, at the very least, notified to the Commission, the Commission brought the present action.
Procedure before the Court
26 On 12 February 2024, the written part of the procedure in the present case was closed.
27 By decision of the President of the Court of 16 May 2024, after hearing the parties, the proceedings in the present case were stayed until the end of the Commission’s analysis of the acts which had, in the meantime, been adopted by the Republic of Bulgaria.
28 By document of 31 October 2024, the Commission informed the Court that the Republic of Bulgaria had notified to it, on 1 and 14 February 2024, several legislative measures and a regulatory measure transposing Directive 2019/520. On 18 February 2024, the Republic of Bulgaria had informed the Commission that a regulation intended to ensure the transposition in full of that directive was to be adopted on 30 May 2024. In subsequent informal communications, the Republic of Bulgaria had also stated that the measures intended to transpose that directive in full were to be adopted by 30 August 2024 at the latest. Nevertheless, no further transposition measures had been notified to the Commission after 18 February 2024.
29 Consequently, the Commission stated that, although the Republic of Bulgaria had made some progress in the transposition of Directive 2019/520 in the course of the proceedings before the Court, that transposition remained incomplete.
30 In those circumstances, the Commission modified its claim seeking an order that that Member State should pay both a lump sum and a penalty payment. As regards the lump sum, the Commission proposed distinguishing between three infringement periods and sought, for the first period, from 20 October 2021 until 31 January 2024, an amount of EUR 1 799 280, for the second period, from 1 February 2024 until 13 February 2024, an amount of EUR 18 144 and, for the third period, from 14 February 2024 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case or, if the infringement is brought to an end before that date, the date on which it was brought to an end, a daily amount of EUR 1 080. As regards the penalty payment, the Commission asked the Court to set that payment at EUR 5 814 per day until the obligation laid down in Article 32 of Directive 2019/520 is fulfilled in full.
31 By decision of the President of the Court of 6 November 2024, the proceedings in the present case were resumed.
32 On 9 December 2024, the Republic of Bulgaria submitted its observations on the Commission’s partial discontinuance and on the modification of the form of order sought by that institution.
33 By document lodged on 30 September 2025, the Republic of Bulgaria requested to produce further evidence so as to establish that Directive 2019/520 had been transposed into Bulgarian law in full. On 3 October 2025, in accordance with Article 128(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the President of the Tenth Chamber granted that request and prescribed a time limit, until 17 October 2025, for the Commission to comment on those new items of evidence.
34 By document of 15 October 2025, the Commission submitted its observations on those new items of evidence, which had been notified to it by the Republic of Bulgaria on 26 September 2025, and stated that it considered that that Member State had now fulfilled its obligation under Article 32(1) of Directive 2019/520 to adopt and notify all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive.
35 Consequently, the Commission, first, partially discontinued its action again, withdrawing its request that the Republic of Bulgaria be ordered to pay a penalty payment, and, second, modified its claim that that Member State should be ordered to pay a lump sum, seeking in that respect a total amount of EUR 2 458 296, consisting in EUR 1 801 440 for the period from 20 October 2021 until 31 January 2024, EUR 19 656 for the period from 1 February 2024 until 13 February 2024, and EUR 637 200 for the period from 14 February 2024 until 25 September 2025.
36 By document of 3 November 2025, the Republic of Bulgaria requested the Court, first, to uphold the partial discontinuance of the Commission’s action in so far as it relates to the imposition of a penalty payment, and second, to reject in its entirety the Commission’s claim seeking payment of a lump sum of EUR 2 458 296, or, in the alternative, to reduce the amount thereof to the minimum possible in the light of the specific circumstances.
The action
Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU
Arguments of the parties
37 In its application, the Commission submits that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the Republic of Bulgaria had not adopted the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2019/520 into national law.
38 In addition, according to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria failed to fulfil its obligation to communicate immediately to the Commission the text of those measures.
39 In that regard, the Commission submits that, in accordance with settled case-law, in particular the judgments of 27 October 2011, Commission v Poland (C‑362/10, EU:C:2011:703, paragraph 46), and of 15 October 2015, Commission v Germany (C‑137/14, EU:C:2015:683, paragraph 51), the provisions of a directive must be implemented with unquestionable binding force and with the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty. Furthermore, the Commission states that, where a directive expressly provides that the measures transposing that directive are to contain a reference to it or that such reference is to be made on the occasion of its official publication, as provided in the present case in the third subparagraph of Article 32(1) of Directive 2019/520, it is in any event necessary to adopt specific transposition measures. The Commission relies in that regard on paragraph 49 of the judgment of 11 June 2015, Commission v Poland (C‑29/14, EU:C:2015:379).
40 Relying on paragraphs 51 and 59 of the judgment of 8 July 2019, Commission v Belgium (Article 260(3) TFEU – High-speed networks) (C‑543/17, EU:C:2019:573), the Commission states that the Member States are, moreover, required to provide it with clear and precise information on the transposition of a directive. They must indicate unequivocally the laws, regulations and administrative provisions by means of which they consider that they have satisfied the various requirements imposed on them by that directive. The Member States are also required to state, for each provision of that directive, the national measure or measures ensuring its transposition, where relevant accompanied by a correlation table.
41 In its defence, the Republic of Bulgaria contends that, during the pre-litigation procedure, it fulfilled its obligations in line with the principle of sincere cooperation and provided the Commission with all the necessary information in good time. Furthermore, the national authorities involved in the transposition of Directive 2019/520 made every effort in good faith to transpose the provisions of that directive.
42 The Republic of Bulgaria provides as explanation for the delays in transposition the political instability due to the successive dissolutions of the National Assembly.
43 That Member State submits that it was objectively impossible for it to implement the provisions of Directive 2019/520 because it did not have a legislative body which could adopt transposing laws, and that that situation is one of force majeure.
44 The Republic of Bulgaria states that the Commission failed to take due account of the circumstances relied on by it, namely the complex Bulgarian political situation and its consequences for legislative work, and the COVID-19 pandemic, even though the Commission has a margin of discretion under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU to that end.
45 That Member State claims that, in any event, although Directive 2019/520 has not yet been transposed in full, the various existing laws already implement some of its requirements.
46 According to the Republic of Bulgaria, in particular, the concepts defined in Article 2(2), (3), (16), (17), (21), (26) and (29) of that directive appear in the Zakon za patishtata (Law on Roads) (DV No 26 of 29 March 2000), the Zakon za dvizhenie po patishtata (Law on Road Traffic) (DV No 20 of 5 March 1999) and the Naredba za usloviyata, reda i pravilata za izgrazhdane i funktsionirane na smesena sistema za taksuvane na razlichnite kategorii patni prevozni sredstva na baza vreme i na baza izminato razstoyanie (Regulation on the conditions and rules for the establishment and operation of a mixed toll system for the different categories of road vehicles on the basis of time and of distance travelled).
47 That Member State claims that, in addition, the existing Bulgarian provisions are intended to implement Article 5(5) and (7), Article 6(3), (5) and (7) and Article 8(2) of Directive 2019/520.
48 In its reply, the Commission contends that it discharged its duty to establish the existence of the alleged failure to fulfil obligations and did not rely on any presumption in that regard.
49 The Commission asserts that, in any event, even if there were, to some extent, an overlap between the provisions of the Bulgarian national law in force before the date of adoption of Directive 2019/520 and the provisions amended after that date, the Republic of Bulgaria failed to notify the national measures transposing that directive, thereby failing to comply with the requirements of Article 32 thereof.
50 Relying on the judgment of 10 January 2008, Commission v Portugal (C‑70/06, EU:C:2008:3, paragraphs 21 and 22), the Commission contends, in order to challenge the Republic of Bulgaria’s argument concerning the alleged objective impossibility of transposing the provisions of Directive 2019/520, that a Member State cannot plead internal difficulties, including constitutional difficulties, to justify failure to fulfil obligations arising under EU law, in particular the time limits laid down by a directive.
51 As regards the argument concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, also raised by the Republic of Bulgaria, the Commission states that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court and in particular paragraphs 130 to 132 of the judgment of 13 December 2001, Commission v France (C‑1/00, EU:C:2001:687), Member States may plead force majeure as an exonerating circumstance only if they refer to particular insurmountable difficulties temporarily preventing them from fulfilling their specific obligations under EU law. The Commission claims that it follows from paragraphs 54 and 55 of the judgment of 25 January 2017, Vilkas (C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39), that the Member States are required to establish a specific link between the circumstances relied on as force majeure, on the one hand, and a specific infringement of EU law, on the other.
52 According to the Commission, in the present case, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to demonstrate that the circumstances attending the COVID-19 pandemic constituted particular insurmountable difficulties and has not established a link between those circumstances and the failure to transpose Directive 2019/520.
53 The Commission submits that, in addition, in accordance with settled case-law, recalled in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, force majeure may be relied on only for the period necessary in order to resolve difficulties of that kind.
54 According to the Commission, in the present case, the delay in transposition is not proportionate to the need to resolve the difficulties linked to that pandemic, since the present action was brought on 26 July 2023, that is to say, more than 21 months after the expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 2019/520, and that transposition had still not been completed when the reply was lodged.
55 In its rejoinder, the Republic of Bulgaria refers to the legislative work completed in 2024 with a view to transposing Directive 2019/520 into Bulgarian law.
56 As regards the argument concerning political instability, that Member State refers to the extraordinary nature of that instability due to the fact that, during prolonged periods, it was not possible to adopt legislation and therefore to ensure the transposition of that directive.
57 As regards the COVID-19 pandemic, the Republic of Bulgaria refers to its significant duration and its seriousness, preventing the legislative authority from completing that transposition within the prescribed periods.
58 In its partial discontinuance, the Commission maintains that the transposition of Directive 2019/520 cannot be regarded as complete.
59 According to the Commission, that Member State has failed to notify all the measures transposing the provisions of Annex II to that directive.
60 The Commission states that, in particular, the obligation laid down in Article 24(2) of Directive 2019/520, which refers to Annex II to that directive, has not been transposed in full.
61 The Commission states that the Republic of Bulgaria informed it that Article 5(4), Article 6(6), Article 8(3), Article 9, Article 21(5) and Article 25 of Directive 2019/520 had been ‘partially transposed’. However, that Member State has not notified to the Commission the national legislation transposing those provisions in full.
62 As regards the last sentence of Article 5(9) and the last sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 2019/520, the Commission submits that the national measures specifically referred to by the Republic of Bulgaria in the correlation table, sent by that Member State, do not cover the obligations laid down in those provisions.
63 As regards the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2019/520, according to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria stated that the Bulgarian legislation in force is fully consistent with that provision, since it does not provide for any restriction with regard to EETS providers or their OBE, without compromising the interoperability of that service. However, the Commission submits that that provision has to be transposed explicitly in order to safeguard the specific characteristics of that service.
64 The Commission submits, in addition, that the Republic of Bulgaria maintained that certain provisions of Directive 2019/520 are not applicable in its territory, without, however, putting forward convincing arguments in support of that reasoning.
65 In particular, the Commission states that the optional nature of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of that directive pertains to its implementation by the toll charger and not the transposition obligation, which is incumbent on the Member State.
66 As regards Article 7(3) of Directive 2019/520, according to the Commission, even in the absence of a main service provider in the EETS domains located within the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, that provision should be transposed, given that, in the future, a main provider could start providing services on the market in that Member State.
67 The Commission states that, as regards the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2019/520, the Republic of Bulgaria maintained that, under Bulgarian law, the toll charger has no direct link with the EETS users. The Commission claims that that provision needs to be explicitly transposed in order to establish the rules governing the interaction between the toll charger and the users of that service.
68 The Commission asserts that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to transpose ‘approximately 30%’ of the provisions of Directive 2019/520.
69 In its response to the Commission’s first partial discontinuance, the Republic of Bulgaria submits that the Commission’s assertion that the requirement pursuant to the last sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 2019/520 has not been transposed into Bulgarian law is incorrect. The Republic of Bulgaria states that that requirement is laid down in Article 38 of the Regulation on the conditions and rules for the establishment and operation of a mixed toll system for the different categories of road vehicles on the basis of time and of distance travelled, notified in the Themis system on 1 February 2024 under reference MNE (2024) 00609.
70 According to that Member State, Article 24(2) of Directive 2019/520, which refers to Annex II thereto, is transposed, albeit partially, by Article 189i(4) of the Law on Road Traffic, notified in the Themis system on 1 February 2024 under reference MNE (2024) 00606.
71 The Republic of Bulgaria submits, as regards the requirement laid down in the last sentence of Article 5(9) of Directive 2019/520, that, under Bulgarian law, the EETS provider is always a person different from the toll charger. The provider of that service is a trader within the meaning of Article 10h(3) of the Law on Roads, whereas the toll charger is the Agentsia za patna infrastruktura (Road Infrastructure Agency, Bulgaria), which is a public authority. Consequently, the requirement laid down in Article 5(9) of that directive is not applicable to the Republic of Bulgaria.
72 In addition, the Republic of Bulgaria reiterates its line of argument set out in its defence, according to which the political instability it experienced made it absolutely impossible for it to avoid delays in transposing the provisions of Directive 2019/520.
Findings of the Court
73 According to the first subparagraph of Article 32(1) of Directive 2019/520, Member States had to adopt and publish, by 19 October 2021, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 27 of and Annexes I and II to that directive. They were to immediately communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission. Under the third subparagraph of Article 32(1), when Member States adopt those measures, they are to contain a reference to that directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. They are also to include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to Directive 2004/52, repealed by Directive 2019/520, are to be construed as references to Directive 2019/520. Member States are to determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated.
74 In accordance with settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the Commission’s reasoned opinion, the Court being unable to take account of any subsequent changes (judgments of 25 February 2021, Commission v Spain (Personal Data Directive – Criminal law), C‑658/19, EU:C:2021:138, paragraph 15, and of 25 April 2024, Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers directive), C‑147/23, EU:C:2024:346, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
75 In the present case, the Republic of Bulgaria does not dispute that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022, it had not adopted provisions intended to ensure the transposition in full of Directive 2019/520, containing a reference to that directive or being accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication, in accordance with Article 32(1) of that directive.
76 That Member State states, however, that the existing national legislation already implements some of the requirements laid down by that directive.
77 That line of argument, by which that Member State seeks to establish that it has only partially failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2019/520 due to the existence of provisions of national law that already implement some of those requirements, must nevertheless be rejected.
78 It is sufficient to recall that, although the transposition of a directive may be carried out by means of domestic legal rules already in force, that is not the case here. In any case, the Member States are not, in that event, absolved from the formal obligation to inform the Commission of the existence of those rules so that it can be in a position to assess whether the rules comply with that directive (judgment of 22 May 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Open Data Directive and the re-use of public sector information), C‑237/23, EU:C:2025:373, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, where, as in the present case, a directive expressly requires Member States to ensure that the necessary measures transposing the directive include a reference to it or that such reference is made when those measures are officially published, it is, in any event, necessary for those Member States to adopt a specific measure transposing the directive in question (see judgment of 14 March 2024, Commission v Latvia (European Electronic Communications Code), C‑454/22, EU:C:2024:235, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
79 The Republic of Bulgaria submits also that it was objectively impossible for it to ensure the transposition in full of Directive 2019/520 on account, first, of the political instability in Bulgaria caused by the frequent changes of government and by the dissolution of the National Assembly, and second, of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to delays in the legislative work, and that those two factors constitute also situations of force majeure.
80 The argument relating to political instability cannot be accepted since, in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations arising under EU law such as failure to transpose a directive within the period prescribed (judgments of 25 February 2021, Commission v Spain (Personal Data Directive – Criminal law), C‑658/19, EU:C:2021:138, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited, and of 25 April 2024, Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers directive), C‑147/23, EU:C:2024:346, paragraph 33).
81 As regards the Republic of Bulgaria’s argument relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is sufficient to recall that, although the concept of force majeure is not predicated on absolute impossibility to fulfil obligations under EU law, it nevertheless requires the failure in question to be attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the party claiming force majeure, which are abnormal and unforeseeable and the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due diligence, and a situation of force majeure may be pleaded only for the period necessary in order to resolve those difficulties (judgments of 8 June 2023, Commission v Slovakia (Right of termination without fees), C‑540/21, EU:C:2023:450, paragraph 81, and of 25 April 2024, Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers directive), C‑147/23, EU:C:2024:346, paragraph 36).
82 While a health crisis on a scale such as the COVID-19 pandemic is a circumstance beyond the control of the Republic of Bulgaria, which is abnormal and unforeseeable, the fact remains that it fell to that Member State to act with all due diligence by informing the Commission in good time of the difficulties it faced, at the very least before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022 (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 April 2024, Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers directive), C‑147/23, EU:C:2024:346, paragraph 36). As is apparent from paragraphs 6 to 8 of the rejoinder, and as the Commission confirmed in its document of 31 October 2024 by which it discontinued in part its action, the Republic of Bulgaria had not transposed, on that date, Directive 2019/520 in full.
83 Furthermore, that Member State has not argued that the COVID-19 pandemic alone is the reason for the entirety of the delay attributed to it in transposing that directive. Lastly, if the EU legislature had considered that the effects of that pandemic, which affected the entire territory of the European Union, were such as to prevent Member States from complying with their obligations under that directive, it would have extended the time limit for transposing it, which it did not do (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 May 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Open Data Directive and the re-use of public sector information), C‑237/23, EU:C:2025:373, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).
84 In the light of those considerations, it must be stated that, by having failed, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2019/520, and, accordingly, by having failed to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32(1) of that directive.
The claim made pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU
Arguments of the parties
85 In its application, the Commission asserts that, in a European Union based on the respect of the rule of law, all directives are to be considered of equal importance and require transposition in full by the Member States within the deadlines that they set.
86 The Commission relies also on the judgment of 8 July 2019, Commission v Belgium (Article 260(3) TFEU – High-speed networks) (C‑543/17, EU:C:2019:573, paragraphs 51 and 59), in order to refer to the obligation of Member States to communicate sufficiently clear and precise information on the national provisions transposing the corresponding provisions of a directive.
87 Claiming that the failure to fulfil obligations alleged on the part of the Republic of Bulgaria persisted on the date on which the Commission brought the present action before the Court, the Commission proposes, on the basis of Article 260(3) TFEU, that a lump sum be imposed on that Member State.
88 With a view to setting that financial sanction, the Commission takes as a basis the general principles referred to in section 2 of the 2023 Communication and the method of calculation set out in section 4 of that communication. In particular, that institution states that the amount of the lump sum should be based on the fundamental criteria of the seriousness of the infringement, its duration, and the need to ensure that the sanction is a deterrent to further infringements.
89 In the light of those factors, the Commission proposes, in the first place, to apply a coefficient for seriousness of 10 in the present case.
90 In the second place, as regards the need to ensure that the sanction is a deterrent in the light of the capacity to pay of the Member State concerned, the Commission states that, under point 3 of Annex I to the 2023 Communication, the ‘n’ factor for the Republic of Bulgaria is 0.18.
91 In the light of those factors, the Commission proposes that the amount of the lump sum be calculated in accordance with section 4.2 of the 2023 Communication, by multiplying the flat-rate amount for the lump sum payment, set at EUR 1 000 per day, by the coefficient for seriousness of 10 applied in the present case, and then by the ‘n’ factor for that Member State (0.18). The product of those elements leads to a daily amount of EUR 1 800, which should then be multiplied by the number of days the infringement persists.
92 Consequently, the Commission proposes that the Republic of Bulgaria be ordered to pay a lump sum of EUR 1 800 per day, the minimum lump sum being EUR 504 000, in accordance with point 5 of Annex I to the 2023 Communication.
93 In its defence, the Republic of Bulgaria claims, principally, that the Court should reject the Commission’s request to impose financial sanctions and, in the alternative, reduce the amount thereof on the ground that the amount proposed by the Commission is manifestly disproportionate to the alleged failure to fulfil obligations.
94 As regards the seriousness of the infringement, that Member State submits that account should be taken of the political instability and the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. In that regard, the Commission should have also taken account of the fact that the existing Bulgarian legislation partially meets the requirements of Directive 2019/520.
95 According to the Republic of Bulgaria, although that legislation does not expressly refer to Directive 2019/520, that does not prevent individuals from relying on it and deriving rights from it.
96 The Republic of Bulgaria submits that, in cases concerning sensitive areas, the Commission had proposed the same coefficient for seriousness as that which it asserts in the present case or, in some of those cases, a lower coefficient for seriousness. It cites in that regard the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 7 September 2016, Commission v Greece (C‑584/14, EU:C:2016:636), and of 26 July 2017, Comune di Corridonia and Others (C‑196/16 and C‑197/16, EU:C:2017:589).
97 That Member State submits that, in the present case, the effects of incomplete transposition of Directive 2019/520 do not directly endanger human health and do not harm the environment or lead to a loss of the European Union’s own resources.
98 Accordingly, the Republic of Bulgaria asks the Court to reject in its entirety the claim for payment of a lump sum or, in the event that the Court considers it necessary to impose that sanction, to set the amount thereof at the minimum.
99 In its reply, the Commission contends that it is not apparent from the facts of the case that the amount of the financial sanction sought is inappropriate and that the Court should reduce it.
100 The Commission asserts that the Republic of Bulgaria did not notify to it any measure transposing Directive 2019/520 before the deadline for its transposition, namely 19 October 2021, or after that date.
101 The Commission claims that, in those circumstances, the imposition of a lump sum is a measure proportionate to the failure to fulfil obligations.
102 The Commission submits that Directive 2019/520 strengthens the effectiveness of the framework conditions as regards the electronic toll collection market, by improving the interoperability of systems and by establishing a legal basis for the cross-border exchange of information on vehicles and their owners or holders who have failed to pay road fees in the European Union. In addition, that directive contributes to the completion of the internal market and the digital single market.
103 The Commission submits that all cases of failure to transpose and to notify potential measures transposing an EU directive constitute a failure of equal seriousness, since the nature of the directive in question has no bearing on the coefficient for seriousness that will be applied.
104 The Commission states that a coefficient for seriousness of 10 out of 20 is particularly moderate in the event of a failure to transpose a directive and a complete failure to notify national provisions transposing it.
105 In its rejoinder, the Republic of Bulgaria asserts that the Commission should have taken into account, in its request for the imposition of a financial sanction, the particular circumstances relating to the national political situation and the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave rise to serious difficulties in the work of the legislative authority called upon to transpose the provisions of Directive 2019/520.
106 That Member State submits that the imposition on the Member States of a lump sum risks compromising the quality of the transposition of EU directives, since the Member States are thus encouraged to transpose them within the prescribed period without necessarily taking into account the quality of that transposition. Such an approach would fail to observe the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU and would not be compatible with the Commission’s duty of sincere cooperation.
107 In its partial discontinuance of 31 October 2024, the Commission proposes, in view of the progress made by the Republic of Bulgaria in transposing Directive 2019/520 after the present action was brought, to reduce the coefficient for seriousness in line with the number of national transposing provisions notified to it. Thus, it proposes that two new infringement periods be distinguished, the first from 1 February 2024, the date of the first notification of transposition measures, until 13 February 2024, and the second from 14 February 2024, the date of the second notification of transposition measures, until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case or, if the infringement has been brought to an end before that date, until the date on which it was brought to an end, and to apply to them a coefficient for seriousness of 7 and of 5, respectively.
108 By contrast, the Commission states that, for the calculation of the lump sum, as regards the ‘n’ factor and the minimum lump sums for each Member State, it has used the updated figures set out in its communication published on 26 January 2024, entitled ‘Update of data used to calculate financial sanctions proposed by the Commission to the Court of Justice of the European Union in infringement proceedings’ (OJ C, C/2024/1123). The updated flat-rate amount of the lump sum, referred to in point 2 of the annex to that communication, is set at EUR 1 080 per day, the ‘n’ factor for the Republic of Bulgaria, set out in point 3 thereof, is 0.2, and the minimum lump sum for that Member State, set out in point 5 of that annex, is EUR 603 000.
109 Accordingly, as regards the lump sum, the Commission distinguishes three infringement periods and proposes that the determination of the daily amount for the purpose of setting that sum, applicable to each of those periods, proceed as follows:
– for the period from 20 October 2021 (the day after the expiry of the deadline for the transposition of the directive) until 31 January 2024 (the day preceding the first notification of transposition measures), by multiplying the updated flat-rate amount of the lump sum, fixed at EUR 1 080, by a coefficient for seriousness of 10 and by the ‘n’ factor for the Republic of Bulgaria, set at 0.2, which corresponds to a daily amount of EUR 2 160, in turn multiplied by the number of days that the infringement persisted, namely 833 days. The amount of the lump sum for that period is EUR 1 799 280;
– for the period from 1 February 2024 (the date of the first notification of the transposition measures) until 13 February 2024 (the day preceding the second notification of transposition measures), by multiplying the updated flat-rate amount of the lump sum (EUR 1 080) by a coefficient for seriousness of 7 and by the ‘n’ factor for the Republic of Bulgaria, set at 0.2, which corresponds to a daily amount of EUR 1 512, in turn multiplied by the number of days that the infringement persisted, namely 12 days. The amount of the lump sum for that period is EUR 18 144;
– for the period from 14 February 2024 (the date of the second notification of transposition measures) until the date on which the infringement was brought to an end or until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, by multiplying the updated flat-rate amount of the lump sum (EUR 1 080) by a coefficient for seriousness of 5 and by the ‘n’ factor for the Republic of Bulgaria, set at 0.2, which corresponds to a daily amount of EUR 1 080, to be multiplied by the number of days between the first date and one of the other two dates.
110 The Commission states that the amounts determined by it in that manner exceed that of the minimum lump sum of EUR 603 000 for the Republic of Bulgaria, as a result of which the latter amount is no longer relevant.
111 In its response to the Commission’s partial discontinuance, the Republic of Bulgaria asks the Court to reject the request for a sanction or, in the alternative, to reduce to a minimum the amount of the lump sum sought.
112 By its additional submissions of 15 October 2025, lodged after the new evidence was adduced by the Republic of Bulgaria, the Commission proposes that the total amount of the lump sum sought be set at EUR 2 458 296, corresponding to EUR 1 801 440 for the period from 20 October 2021 until 31 January 2024, EUR 19 656 for the period from 1 February 2024 until 13 February 2024, and EUR 637 200 for the period from 14 February 2024 until 25 September 2025.
Findings of the Court
– The application of Article 260(3) TFEU and whether it is appropriate to impose the financial sanction proposed by the Commission
113 The first subparagraph of Article 260(3) TFEU provides that, when the Commission brings a case before the Court pursuant to Article 258 TFEU on the grounds that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, that institution may, when it deems appropriate, specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 260(3) TFEU, if the Court finds that there is a failure to fulfil obligations it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Member State concerned not exceeding the amount specified by the Commission, and the payment obligation is to take effect on the date set by the Court in its judgment.
114 Since, as is clear from paragraph 84 above, it is established that, on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022, the Republic of Bulgaria had neither adopted nor, accordingly, notified to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose the provisions of Directive 2019/520 into its domestic law, the failure thus established comes within the scope of Article 260(3) TFEU.
115 It is settled case-law that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate for a financial penalty to be imposed, in each case, it is for the Court to determine, in the light of the circumstances of the case before it and according to the degree of persuasion and deterrence which appears to it to be required, the financial penalties that are appropriate, in particular, for preventing the recurrence of infringements of EU law that are similar to those in the present case (judgment of 25 April 2024, Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers directive), C‑147/23, EU:C:2024:346, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited).
116 As regards the imposition of a lump sum, it must be stated that all the legal and factual circumstances culminating in the breach of obligations established – namely, the fact that no measure necessary for the transposition of Directive 2019/520 had been notified at the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022 – indicate that if the future repetition of infringements of EU law similar to those in the present case is to be effectively prevented, a dissuasive measure must be adopted, such as a the imposition of a lump sum (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 February 2021, Commission v Spain (Personal Data Directive – Criminal law), C‑658/19, EU:C:2021:138, paragraph 70, and of 29 February 2024, Commission v Ireland (Audiovisual media services), C‑679/22, EU:C:2024:178, paragraph 73).
– The amount of the lump sum payment
117 For the purposes of calculating the lump sum which a Member State can be ordered to pay pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, it is for the Court, in exercising its discretion, to fix the amount of the lump sum in an amount appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate to the failure to fulfil obligations. Relevant considerations in that respect include factors such as the seriousness of the failure to fulfil obligations, the length of time for which the failure has persisted and the relevant Member State’s ability to pay (judgment of 20 March 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles), C‑480/23, EU:C:2025:194, paragraph 89 and the case-law cited).
118 As a preliminary point, as regards the fact that the Commission relies, in order to calculate the sums at issue in the present case, on its communication published on 26 January 2024, referred to in paragraph 108 above, it is sufficient to note that, under the last paragraph of that communication, ‘the Commission will apply the updated figures to decisions it takes to bring a case before the Court of Justice under Article 260 TFEU as from the publication of this Communication in the Official Journal’.
119 It any event, it should likewise be remembered that, in the context of the Court’s discretion under Article 260(3) TFEU, guidelines such as those in communications from the Commission, which set out mathematical variables as indicative rules, are not binding on the Court but rather contribute to ensuring that the Commission’s own actions are transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty when that institution makes proposals to the Court (judgment of 25 April 2024, Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers directive), C‑147/23, EU:C:2024:346, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).
120 As regards, first of all, the seriousness of the failure to fulfil obligations, that seriousness cannot be determined by the automatic application of a coefficient for seriousness (judgment of 20 March 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles), C‑480/23, EU:C:2025:194, paragraph 90 and the case-law cited). In particular, by presuming that a failure to comply with the obligation to notify the measures transposing a directive must be regarded as being of the same degree of seriousness regardless of the directive concerned, the Commission is unable to tailor the financial penalties according to the consequences of the failure to comply with that obligation for private and public interests. It is quite clear, in that regard, that the consequences of Member States failing to comply with their obligations for the private and public interests at stake can vary not only from one Member State to another, but also depending on the normative content of the untransposed directive (judgment of 22 May 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Open Data Directive and the re-use of public sector information), C‑237/23, EU:C:2025:373, paragraph 92 and the case-law cited).
121 In order to examine the seriousness of the failure to fulfil obligations established in the present case, it must be recalled that the obligation to adopt provisions for the purposes of ensuring that a directive is transposed in full and the obligation to notify those measures to the Commission are fundamental obligations incumbent on the Member States in order to ensure optimal effectiveness of EU law and that failure to fulfil those obligations must, therefore, be regarded as definitely serious (judgment of 20 March 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles), C‑480/23, EU:C:2025:194, paragraph 91 and the case-law cited).
122 In the present case, it must be pointed out that Directive 2019/520 is an instrument of EU law of certain importance inasmuch as it seeks, first, to ensure the interoperability of electronic road toll systems on the entire EU road network, urban and interurban road network, motorways, major and minor roads, and various structures, such as tunnels or bridges, and ferries, and second, to facilitate the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data regarding the vehicles and the owners or holders of vehicles for which there was a failure to pay road fees of any kind in the European Union.
123 The failure to transpose the provisions of that directive undermines the optimal effectiveness of EU law and its uniform application.
124 In that regard, as is clear from paragraph 75 above, the Republic of Bulgaria had not adopted, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022, any provision intended to ensure transposition in full of Directive 2019/520, containing a reference to that directive or being accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of its official publication, in accordance with Article 32(1) of that directive.
125 The Republic of Bulgaria relies, in the first place, on the circumstances pertaining both to its national political context and to the COVID-19 pandemic, which, according to that Member State, should have been taken into account when determining the coefficient for seriousness as regards the failure to fulfil obligations at issue in the present case. That line of argument cannot succeed, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 80 to 83 above.
126 In the second place, the Republic of Bulgaria refers to its line of argument set out in paragraphs 45 to 47 above, which, according to that Member State, shows that the provisions of the existing Bulgarian legislation met a part of the requirements of Directive 2019/520, which, in that Member State’s submission, the Commission failed to consider.
127 On that point, it should be borne in mind that, although it is true that the claim of a Member State that the legislative framework existing at the time of the adoption of a directive was already sufficient to support the conclusion that that Member State has not failed to fulfil its obligations and that the failure to transpose that directive has had only a limited impact cannot be relevant for the purpose of assessing whether it is appropriate to impose a penalty such as that at issue in the present case, that claim may be taken into account in order to assess the seriousness of the infringement at issue for the purposes of calculating the amount of the lump sum (judgment of 22 May 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Open Data Directive and the re-use of public sector information), C‑237/23, EU:C:2025:373, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited).
128 In the present case, as the Commission, moreover, states in its reply, some of the obligations laid down in Directive 2019/520 were already laid down in Commission Decision 2009/750/EC of 6 October 2009 on the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service and its technical elements (OJ 2009 L 268, p. 11). Nevertheless, it is not disputed that, as that institution also asserts, Directive 2019/520 made significant amendments to the earlier legislation and that it contains numerous new provisions.
129 Accordingly, it cannot be found that the existence of national rules prior to the adoption of Directive 2019/520, such as those relied on by the Republic of Bulgaria in the present case, may constitute a factor significantly mitigating the seriousness of the infringement at issue. That said, it has not been established that the consequences for private and public interests of the failure to fulfil obligations established in the present case were as significant as they would be if no provision with a content similar to that of the provisions of Directive 2019/520 existed within the Bulgarian legal order.
130 Next, as regards the duration of the infringement, it is clear in particular from paragraphs 33 and 34 above that it persisted for almost four years.
131 Lastly, as regards the determination of the Republic of Bulgaria’s capacity to pay, according to the case-law of the Court, account must not be taken, in the method for calculating the ‘n’ factor, of the size of the population of that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 March 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles), C‑480/23, EU:C:2025:194, paragraph 101 and the case-law cited).
132 On the other hand, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Republic of Bulgaria must be taken as the predominant factor. In that regard, it is also necessary to take account of recent trends in that Member State’s GDP at the time of the Court’s examination of the facts (judgment of 20 March 2025, Commission v Bulgaria (Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles), C‑480/23, EU:C:2025:194, paragraph 102 and the case-law cited).
133 In the light of those considerations and having regard to the discretion conferred on the Court by Article 260(3) TFEU, which provides that the Court cannot, in respect of the lump sum payment imposed by it, fix an amount exceeding that specified by the Commission, it must be stated that the effective prevention of the repetition of infringements which are similar to that resulting from the infringement of Article 32(1) of Directive 2019/520 and undermine the optimal effectiveness of EU law requires the imposition of a lump sum, the amount of which is to be set at EUR 1 900 000.
Costs
134 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Republic of Bulgaria has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby:
1. Declares that, by having failed, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 19 May 2022, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union, and, accordingly, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32(1) of that directive;
2. Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay to the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 1 900 000;
3. Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
[Signatures]