C-100/81

J U D G M E N T OF T H E C O U R T 25 MAY 1982 '

Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Failure of a Member Siate to fulfil its obligations — Admission to the occupation of road-haulage operator)

Case 100/81

Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Absence — Justi- fication — Not possible (EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

A Member State may not plead order to justify a failure to comply with provisions, practices or circumstances obligations resulting from Community existing in its internal legal system in directives.

THE COURT,

composed of: J. Menens de Wilmars, President, G. Bosco and A. Touffait (Presidents of Chambers), Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, T. Koop- mans and U. Everling, Judges,

Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: P. Heim

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

implementing the directive. In reply to the Netherlands to comply with the that letter, the Commission sent the opinion within a period of two months. Netherlands Government on 16 March 1977 a recommendation containing In its reply to the reasoned opinion, certain observations on the draft. contained in a letter of 24 June 1980 from its Permanent Representation, the Netherlands Government referred to its Subsequently, by letter of 7 June 1979, above-mentioned letter of 22 October the Commission informed the 1979 and stated that still more time Netherlands, in accordance with the first would be needed for preparation of the paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, draft law amending the law relating to that it had failed to fulfil its obligation to the carriage of goods by motor-vehicle. implement Anicie 7 of the directive and invited the Netherlands Government to No funher information has been submit its observations within a period of received by the Commission. two months. The present application, dated 23 April 1981, was received at the C o u n Registry By letter from its Permanent Rep- on 24 April 1981. By letter of 9 resentation of 22 October 1979, the September 1981, received at the Coun Netherlands pointed out to the Registry on 11 September 1981, the Commission in particular that, the Netherlands Government waived its right judgments delivered bv the Court in to submit a rejoinder. Cases 145/78 and 146/78 (Augustijn and Wattenberg, [1976] ECR 1C25 and 1041) Upon hearing the views of the Judge- obliged it to modify the draft law Rapponeur and the views of the amending the Wet Autovervoer Goe- Advocate General, the Court decided to deren [Law on the carriage of goods by open the oral procedure without any motor-vehicle] which had already been preparatory inquiry. submitted to the States General and which was intended in particular to implement the directive and that therefore the said amending law and also II — C o n c l u s i o n s of the parties the necessary amendment to the Uitvoeringsbesluit Autovervoer Goederen [Implementing order relating to the The Commission claims that the Coun carriage of goods by motor-vehicle] should: (hereinafter referred to as "the Implementing Order") would enter into Declare that by not adopting within the force no earlier than the middle of the prescribed period the measures needed following year (that is to say 1980). for the implementation of Council Directive No 64/561/EEC of 12 November 1974, the Kingdom of the By letter of 15 April 1980 the Netherlands has failed to fulfil one of its Commission then sent to the obligations under the Treaty; Netherlands, in accordance with the first paragraph of Anicie 169 of the Treaty, a Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands reasoned opinion in which it stated that, to pay the costs. by not taking the measures necessary to implement the directive in question, the The Kingdom of the Netherlands has Netherlands had failed to fulfil its not stated its conclusions and leaves the obligations under the Treaty and invited matter to the Coun.

III — S u b m i s s i o n s and argu- It appears from the letter of 24 June m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s 1980 from the Netherlands Permanent Represenution to the Commission that the requirements as to the occupational skills and financial standing of haulage operators have been satisfied for quite In its application the Commission states some time. Thus, since 1954, by virtue of that pursuant to Article 189 of the the law relating to the carriage of goods Treat}' a directive is binding, as to the by motor-vehicle referred to above, result to be achieved, on even· Member examinations are organized for the State even though it leaves to the award of a certificate qualifying the national authorities the choice of form holder for admission to the occupation and methods. That binding character of road-haulage operator. The places the Member Sutes under an Netherlands Government refers in that obligation to observe the time-limits regard to Article 128 of the prescribed in the directives. An act or Implementing Order, to Order No omission may constitute a failure by a A-2/087231 of the Ministry of Member State to fulfil an obligation Transport, Water Control and Con- under the Treaty, regardless of the State struction of 16 March 1956 and to the body responsible for that failure. A examination conditions for the award of Member Sute may not plead provisions, the occupational certificate. As regards practices or circumstances existing in its the condition relating to financial internal legal system in order to justify a standing, reference is made to Article failure to comply with obligations and 127 of the Implementing Order. time-limits resulting from Community directives. The only matter remaining to be dealt with is the condition relating to the good repute of road-haulage operators. In that Those principles are confirmed in the regard, the draft law bringing the law case-law of the Court (Case 52/75 relating to the carriage of goods by [1976] ECR 277; Case 10/76 [1976] motor-vehicle into line with the directive ECR 1359; Case 163/78 [1979] ECR in that respect was adopted by the First 771; Case 42/80 [1980] ECR 3635 and Chamber of the States General on 7 Case 43/80 [1980] ECR 3643 — April 1981, and is to be published shortly Commission v Italy in all cases). in the Staatsblad [State Gazette]. It is due to enter into force at the same time as the necessary amendments to the Implementing Order relating to the The Netherlands Government does not carriage of goods, based on the law deny that Directive No 74/561 was not relating to the carriage of goods. totally implemented before 1 January 1977, as required by Article 7 thereof. It draws attention to the fact that Article 3 of the directive requries measures to be The Netherlands Government also states adopted concerning (a) good repute (b) that by reason of the content of appropriate financial standing, (c) occu- Directives Nos 74/551 (carriage of pational skills. It is clear from Article 7 goods) and 74/562 (passenger transpon), (1) that the directive attaches particular their incorporation into national importance to the implementation of legislation should be synchronized to the national measures concerning occu- maximum extent possible, it being pational skills. desirable moreover that the date of entry

2 Pursuant to Anicie 7 of Council Directive No 74/561/EEC, the Member States were required to adopt the measures needed in order to conform with that directive within a period which expired on 1 January 1977.

3 The Netherlands Government does not deny that it has not fully complied with that obligation. It claims on the other hand that the conditions required by the Community rules regarding the occupational skills and financial standing of the owners of transpon undertakings have been satisfied in the Netherlands for a considerable time. The only point remaining to be dealt with is the condition regarding the good repute of haulage operators. In that respect, the delay to which attention has been drawn may be accounted for

JUDGMENT OF 25. 5. 1982 — CASE 1C:/8I

by the obligation created by the judgments delivered bv the Court on 22 March 1979 in Cases 145 and 146/78 (Augustijn and Wattenberg [1979] ECR 1025 and 1041), as a result of which the draft law already adopted bv the First Chamber of the States General must be amended so that it conforms with all the obligations imposed by the directive in question.

* These circumstances cannot expunge the failure to fulfil its obligations, with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands is charged. According to well- established case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations resulting from Community directives.

s It must therefore be declared that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive N o 74/561 of 12 November 1974, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treatv.

1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive No 74/561 of 12 November 1974 on admission to the occupation of

COMMISSION v NETHERLANDS

road-haulage operator in national and international transport operations (Official Journal 1974, L 338, p. 18), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty;

2. Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

Menens de Wilmars Bosco Touffait

Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe Koopmans Everling