The lump sum
Arguments of the parties
124The Commission proposes that the Court determine the amount of the lump sum by multiplying a daily amount by the number of days on which the infringement continues.
125For calculation of the lump sum, that institution proposes that the same coefficient for seriousness and the same ‘n’ factor as those put forward in respect of periodic penalty payments should be applied. It fixes the basic flat-rate amount, however, at EUR1039 per day. In contrast with the calculation of the periodic penalty payment, a coefficient for duration is not applied, given that the duration of the infringement has already been taken into account by multiplying the daily amount by the number of days the infringement persists.
126The Commission thus proposes that the amount of the lump sum should be equal to the basic flat-rate amount of EUR1039 multiplied by the coefficient for seriousness (7) and the ‘n’ factor (0.51), or the sum of EUR3709.23, which is itself multiplied by the number of days between delivery of the judgment establishing the failure to fulfil obligations and the date on which the Member State complied with its obligations or, failing that, the date of delivery of the present judgment.
127The Hellenic Republic contends that the lump sum proposed by the Commission is not appropriate to the particular circumstances and does not comply with the principle of proportionality.
Findings of the Court
128As a preliminary point it should be recalled that, in exercising the discretion conferred on it in such matters, the Court is empowered to impose a penalty payment and a lump sum payment cumulatively (judgment of 12March 2020, Commission v Italy (unlawful aid to the hotel sector in Sardinia), C‑576/18, not published, EU:C:2020:202, paragraph163 and the case-law cited).
129The imposition of a lump sum payment and the fixing of that sum must depend in each individual case on all the relevant factors relating both to the characteristics of the failure to fulfil obligations established and to the conduct of the Member State involved in the procedure initiated under Article260 TFEU. In that regard, the latter provision confers a wide discretion on the Court in deciding whether to impose such a penalty and, if it decides to do so, in determining the amount (judgment of 12March 2020, Commission v Italy (unlawful aid to the hotel sector in Sardinia), C‑576/18, not published, EU:C:2020:202, paragraph164 and the case-law cited).
130In the present case, all the legal and factual circumstances culminating in the breach of obligations established indicate that, if the future repetition of similar infringements of EU law is to be effectively prevented, a dissuasive measure must be adopted, such as a lump sum payment.
131In those circumstances, it is for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to fix the lump sum in an amount appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate to the infringement (judgment of 14November 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑93/17, EU:C:2018:903, paragraph156 and the case-law cited).
132Relevant considerations in this respect include factors such as the seriousness of the infringement and the length of time for which the infringement has persisted since the delivery of the judgment establishing it (judgment of 14November 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑93/17, EU:C:2018:903, paragraph157 and the case-law cited).
133The circumstances of the present case which must be taken into account are apparent, in particular, from the grounds set out in paragraphs97 to 117 of the present judgment regarding the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the ability to pay of the Member State in question.
134In the light of all the foregoing, the Court considers that proper account of the circumstances of the present case will be taken by setting the amount of the lump sum which the Hellenic Republic will have to pay at EUR5500000.
135The Hellenic Republic must therefore be ordered to pay to the Commission a lump sum of EUR5500000.