Treaty infringement proceedings are procedures which establish whether a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation imposed on it by Community law. Where for example a Member State fails to implement a directive before the date for implementation, the Commission may institute Treaty infringement proceedings under Article 258. Under Article 259 the proceedings may be instituted by another Member State. However, this latter provision is seldom utilised.

Prior to referring Treaty infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice, the Member State is given the opportunity to submit its observations. If the dispute is not settled at that stage, action may be instituted in the Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform. If the offending Member State fails to comply with a judgement given against it, a further court ruling may result in the payment of a lump sum fine or penalty by the Member State.

Example of a case decided under Article 258.

Commission -v- Ireland C-316/06

On 11^th September 2008, the Court of Justice ruled against Ireland in proceedings instituted by the Commission in a case concerning Ireland's failure to comply with the Waste Water Directive (Directive 91/271/EC) in respect of six areas – Bray, Letterkenny, Shangenagh, Sligo, Tramore and Howth.

Example of a case decided under Article 259.

Spain -v- UK C-145/04

Spain took proceedings against the UK in respect of voting rights in European Parliament elections for commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar.

Example of a case where a penalty was imposed on a Member State for failure to comply with a decision of the court.

Commission -v- Greece C-387/97

In a decision of the Court published in July 2000, the Court of Justice for the first time imposed a penalty on a Member State for failure to comply with one of its previous judgements. Greece was ordered to pay a penalty payment of 20,000 euros per day for its failure to comply with judgements of the Court requiring Greece to take the necessary measures to dispose of toxic and dangerous waste in the area of Chania.

This action may be instituted against the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament or the European Central Bank. The complainant must first put the institution on notice to perform its duty. The order sought in an action by the institutions is a declaration that the body concerned has infringed the Treaty by neglecting to take a decision required of it. Where the action is brought by a citizen or firm, the order sought is a declaration that the institution has infringed the Treaty by neglecting to address an individual decision to them.

Example of a case decided under Article 265.

Parliament -v- Council 13/83

Parliament instituted proceedings before the Court of Justice alleging the Council's failure to implement a Community transport policy.

The Court of Justice held that there had been a breach of Article 175 (now Article 232) in the failure by the Council to introduce a common transport policy as required by Article 74.

This is the procedure whereby national courts can seek guidance on the validity and interpretation of Community law from the Court of Justice. Where a national court is required to apply provisions of Community law in a case before it, it may stay the proceedings and ask the Court of Justice for clarification as to the validity of the Community instrument at issue and/or the interpretation of the instrument and of the Treaties. The Court of Justice responds in the form of a judgement rather than an advisory opinion; this highlights the mandatory nature of its ruling. The preliminary ruling issued in the form of a judgement is binding on the referring court in deciding the outcome of the case.

The objective of the preliminary ruling procedure is to secure a uniform interpretation of Community law throughout the European Union. Preliminary rulings account for more than fifty percent of the workload of the Court of Justice each year. A study of cases presented before the Court of Justicewill reveal that many of the major principles established by the Court of Justice were decided in the context of a preliminary ruling under Article 234.

Cases such as Van Gend en Loos 26/62, Costa -v- ENEL, Defrenne -v- Sabena (No.2) 43/75, Simmenthal 92/78 and Factortame posed questions of interpretation of European Community law and enabled the Court of Justice to develop the crucial concepts of direct effect and supremacy of European Community law. The cases of Stauder -v- City of Ulm 29/69 and Internationale Handelgesellschaft mbH 11/70 allowed the Court to address issues on the validity of Community law. The principle of State liability in damages was established in Francovitch 6,9/90 and extended in Brasserie de Pecheur and Factortame.

Recent cases decided by the Court of Justiceunder Article 234 have further defined and refined the application of European Community law. Recently, the Court of Justice took the opportunity to clarify the following matters in the course of Article 234 proceedings:

• Metock and Others –v- The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform C-127/08

The right of a national of a non-member country who is a family member of an EU citizen to accompany or join that citizen cannot be made conditional on prior lawful residence in another Member State.

Coleman –v- Attridge Law and Steve Law C-303/06

Community law protects an employee who has suffered discrimination on grounds of his child's disability.  The prohibition on discrimination laid down by the directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation is not limited to disabled people alone.

Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding  -v- Firma Feryn NV C-54/07

Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that it does not recruit employees of a particular ethnic origin constitute direct discrimination.

Kreil -v- Germany C-285/98 -

German legislation barring women from army jobs involving the use of arms was found contrary to the European Community principle of equal treatment for men and women. However derogations may be acceptable where sex constitutes a determining factor for access to certain special combat units.

• R -v- Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte John Henry Taylor C-382/98

United Kingdom legislation cannot derogate from the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security in respect of the grant of a fuel payment.

• Van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen C - 156/01

Retired persons having chosen to reside in a member state other than their state of origin must apply to the sickness insurance institution with which they are registered in their state of residence for prior authorisation in order to receive health care in another member state.

• Abrahamsson and Anderson -v- Elisabet Fogelqvist C407/98

Swedish legislation which automatically favoured access for women to public posts, even where their qualifications were not equal to those of the male candidates is contrary to Community law. Priority for women, where their qualifications are equal - as a way of restoring balance - is not contrary to Community law provided that an objective assessment of each candidature is guaranteed.

• Leitner -v- TUI Deutschland GmbH and Co KG C-168/00

Tourists who have suffered from the improper performance of a package travel contract may claim compensation for the non-material damage caused by loss of enjoyment of their holidays.

• Müller Fauré C-385/99

The principle of freedom to provide services precludes national legislation from requiring prior authorisation for non-hospital care provided in another member state by a non-contracted partner.