C-221/83
ECLI:EU:C:1984:284
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61983CJ0221
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
J U D G M E N T OF T H E C O U R T 18 SEPTEMBER 1984 »
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
(Failure to implement directives — Veterinary surgeons)
Case 221/83
Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification — Not permissible (EEC Treaty, Art. 169)
A Member State may not plead comply with obligations and time-limits provisions, practices or circumstances in laid down in Community directives. its internal system to justify a failure to
In Case 221/83
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Guido Berardis, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Manfred Beschel, also a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, applicant, v
ITALIAN REPUBLIC, represented and assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the measures needed to comply with Council Directive 1 — Language of the Casc: Iulian.
JUDGMENT OF 18. 9. 1984 — CASE 221/83
N o 78/1026/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Official Journal 1978, L 362, p. 1), and by failing to implement fully Council Directive N o 78/1027/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of veterinary surgeons (Official Journal 1978, L 362, p. 7), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty,
THE COURT
composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, T. Koopmans and Y. Galmot (Presidents of Chambers), G. Bosco, U. Everling, C. Kakouris and R. Joliét, Judges,
Advocate General : Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: D. Louterman, Administrator
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts and Issues
The facts of the case, the course of the veterinary medicine; it also provides for procedure and the conclusions, sub- measures to facilitate the effective missions and arguments of the parties exercise of the right of establishment and may be summarized as follows : freedom to provide services.
I — Facts and procedure The aim of Council Directive No 78/1027 of 18 December 1978 is to 1. Council Directive No 78/1026 of 18 coordinate provisions laid down by law, December 1978 provides for the mutual regulation or administrative action in recognition of diplomas, certificates and respect of the activities of veterinary other evidence of formal qualifications in surgeons.
COMMISSION v ITALY
Both directives provide, in Articles 18 (1) Upon hearing the report of the Judge- and 3 (1) respectively, that the Member Rapporteur and the views of the States must bring into force the measures Advocate General, the Court decided to necessary to comply with them within open the oral procedure without any two years of their notification (that is to preparatory inquiry. However, it invited say, 20 December 1980) and that they the Commission to produce before the must inform the Commission thereof hearing the texts of all the implementing forthwith. measures adopted by the Member States under Article 3 (2) of Directive N o 78/1027. 2. Having received no information from the Italian Republic, the Com- mission, by letter of 14 December 1981, commenced the procedure provided for I I — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s in Article 169 of the EEC Treaty.
In reply to that letter the Permanent 1. After amending its conclusions, the Representation of the Italian Republic to Commission claims that the Court the European Communities informed the should: Commission, by letter of 29 March 1982, that the Council of Ministers had approved a bill covering the relevant 1. Declare that, by failing to adopt matters. within the prescribed period the measures needed to comply with Council Directive No 78/1026 of 18 On 21 June 1982 the Commission, December 1978 and by failing to considering the Italian Government's implement fully Council Directive No reply unsatisfactory because no legis- 78/1027 of 18 December 1978, the lative measure had been formally Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its adopted, delivered a reasoned opinion obligations under the EEC Treaty; under Anicie 169 of the Treaty with which the Italian Government was requested to comply within a period of 2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the one month. costs.
2. The Government of the Italian By letter of 30 September 1982 the Republic contends that the Court should Permanent Representation of the Italian dismiss the application as unfounded in Republic forwarded the aforementioned so far as it concerns the implementation bill, stating that it had been laid before of Council Directive No 78/1027. parliament on 13 March 1982 after the Committee on Constitutional Matters had signified its approval.
Ill — Submissions and argu- The Commission, considering that the m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s Italian Republic had not adopted any measure to comply with the afore- mentioned directives, brought the present 1. With regard to the implementation of action before the Court by an application Council Directive No 78/1026 of 18 which was lodged at the Court Registry December 1978 concerning the mutual on 3 October 1983. recognition of diploms, certificates and
JUDGMENT OF 18. 9. 1984 — CASE 221/83
other evidence of formal qualifications in relied upon in support of its allegation of veterinary medicine, including measures a breach of obligations arising from the to facilitate the effective exercise of the failure to implement Council Directive right of establishment and freedom to No 78/1026. provide services.
(b) The Government of the Italian (a) The Commission points out that, Republic states for the first time in its according to the third paragraph of defence that it considered that the Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, a directive was already fully implemented directive is binding, as to the result to be by the present system of studies and achieved, upon each Member State to diplomas for the veterinary profession which it is addressed. The first paragraph laid down in the Decreto del Presidente of Article 5 of the Treaty provides that della Repubblica [Order of the President the Member States are to take all appro- of the Republic] No 987 of 23 Octo- priate measures, whether general or ber 1969 (Gazzetta Ufficiale [Official particular, to ensure fulfilment of the Gazette] No 1 of 2. 1. 1971). That obligations arising out of the Treaty or order, which provides for a five-year resulting from action taken by the course of study at a university and which institutions of the Community. A lists in its annex the various subjects Member State may not plead provisions, covered in the course of training leading practices or circumstances in its internal to a doctor's degree in veterinary legal system to justify a failure to comply medicine, fulfils the requirements laid with obligations and time-limits laid down in Article 1 of Council Directive down in Community directives. No 78/1027 and in the annex thereto.
(b) The Government of the Italian (c) In its reply the Commission felt Republic points out that it has laid down compelled to "criticize severely" the a bill before parliament containing conduct of the Italian Government appropriate measures for the im- because it did not mention the existence plementation of the directive. However, of that order until during the pro- the parliamentary procedure in relation ceedings before the Court whereas in the to that bill could not be completed procedure prior to the application to the because of the premature dissolution of Court it had merely undertaken to the Chamber of Deputies. The procedure implement the directive in question. for passing the bill must therefore be repeated since the subject-matter in question must be regulated by a law. However, since the subject-matter of the Treaty infringement proceedings does not relate specifically to the duty of 2. With regard to the implementation of notification imposed on the Member Council Directive No 78/1027 of 18 States by Article 3 of Council Directive December 1978 concerning the coordi- No 78/1027, the Commission took note nation of provisions laid down by law, of the existence of Order No 987, regulation or administrative action in although it considered that its provisions respect of the activities of veterinary were not such as to implement the surgeons. directive in full for two reasons.
(a) In its application the Commission One subject, which, according to the advances the same submissions as those directive, must be compulsory, namely
COMMISSION v ITALY
preventive medicine, does not appear The Commission therefore concludes among the subjects listed in Order No that the Italian Republic has not fully 987. incorporated Council Directive No 78/1027 into national law.
Two other subjects, food hygiene and technology and animal ethology and protection, are referred to only im- (d) In its rejoinder the Government of precisely in Order No 987 whereas in the Italian Republic expresses its dis- the directive they are treated as separate, agreement with the Commission's well-defined subjects. According to the analysis of Order No 987. Commission, the list of subjects con- tained in the annex to the directive gives specific expression to the qualitative criteria set out in Article 1 of the First, acquisition of adequate knowledge directive. of preventive medicine is ensured by the very subject-matter of group 12 and 13 listed in the annex to the Order. In Group 12, for example, the prevention However, for the purpose of taking up of infectious diseases is expressly the profession of veterinary surgeon, mentioned. This field is not regarded as Article 1 (c) requires adequate know- a separate subject in the directive; it ledge of the behaviour and protection of concerns the same subject-matter as animals and the subject entitled "animal "preventive medicine". ethology and protection" listed in the annex corresponds to that area of knowledge. Secondly, the acquisition of adequate knowledge of animal ethology and protection for the purposes of the Similarly, Article 1 (f) requires adequate directive is ensured by the compulsory knowledge of the hygiene and technology instruction in zootechny provided for in involved in the production, manufacture Group 5. That group reads as follows: and marketing of foodstuffs of animal "Zootechny: hygiene, appearance of origin intended for human consumption. animals, ethnology, genetics and breeding".
The Commission notes that Order No 987 does not refer expressly to those Thirdly, as regards food hygiene and subjects and that certain subjects, directly technology, the aim of Article 1 (f) of related to them, are listed amongst the the directive is attained by instruction in supplementary subjects, which are the subjects listed in Group 18, namely: optional for students of veterinary "Inspection and control of foodstuffs of medicine. Consequently, it is perfectly animal origin", (meat, milk, fish, eggs possible for such students to obtain a and so forth). doctor's degree in veterinary medicine without receiving any training in the aforementioned subjects, which is wholly incompatible with the minimum re- In that regard the Commission's quirements laid down in Article 1 of the argument is limited to general obser- directive. vations and is unfounded.
JUDGMENT OF 18. 9. 1984 — CASE 221/83
IV — Oral procedure the directive satisfactorily as far as preventive medicine was concerned. At the sitting on 7 June 1984 the However, it maintained its submissions Commission of the European Com- regarding the two other subjects dealt munities, represented by Guido Berardis, with in its reply (food hygiene and acting as Agent, and the Italian technology and animal ethology and Republic, represented by Carlo Sica, protection). Avvocato dello Stato, presented oral argument. The Commission accepted that the The Advocate General delivered his Order of 17 October 1969 implemented opinion at the same sitting.
Decision
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 October 1983, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action before the Court under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures needed to comply with Council Directive N o 78/1026/EEC of 18 December 1978 and by not fully implementing Council Directive No 78/1027/EEC of 18 December 1978, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
2 The aim of Council Directive No 78/1026 of 18 December 1978 (Official Journal 1978, L 362, p. 1) is to ensure the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine. It also provides for measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.
3 The aim of Council Directive No 78/1027 of 18 December 1978 (Official Journal 1978, L 362, p. 7) is to coordinate provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of veterinary surgeons and in particular to ensure that the training of veterinary surgeons is comparable in the Member States so as to enable diplomas, certificates and other qualifications to be mutually recognized.
4 The two directives provide, in Articles 18 (1) and 3 (1) respectively, that the Member States must adopt the measures necessary to comply with them
COMMISSION v ITALY
within two years of their notification, that is to say by 20 December 1980, and that they must immediately inform the Commission thereof.
5 Having received no information from the Italian Republic, the Commission, by..letter of 14 December 1981, initiated the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty. In reply to that letter the Permanent Rep- resentation of the Italian Republic to the European Communities informed the Commission on 29 March 1982 that the Council of Ministers had approved a bill covering the relevant matters.
6 On 21 June 1982 the Commission, considering the Italian Government's reply unsatisfactory because no legislative measure had been adopted, delivered a reasoned opinion with which the Italian Republic was requested to comply within a period of one month. By letter of 30 September 1982 the Italian Republic forwarded the aforementioned bill, stating that it had been laid before parliament on 13 March 1982 after the Committee on Constitutional Matters had signified its approval.
7 The Commission, considering that the Italian Republic had not adopted any measure to comply with the aforementioned directives, brought this action for a declaration that it had failled to fulfil its obligations.
T h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the q u e s t i o n of f a i l u r e t o i m p l e m e n t C o u n c i l D i r e c t i v e N o 7 8 / 1 0 2 6 of 18 D e c e m b e r 1978
s The Italian Government does not dispute that it has not fulfilled its obligation to implement this directive. It points out, however, that it has laid a bill before parliament containing appropriate provisions for the implementation of the directive. Nevertheless, the parliamentary procedure in relation to that bill could not be completed owing to the premature dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies. The procedure for passing the bill must therefore be repeated.
9 Those circumstances cannot expunge the infringement of the Treaty with which the Italian Republic is charged. The Court has consistently held that a
JUDGMENT OF 18. 9. 1984 — CASE 221/83
Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal system to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time- limits laid down in. Community directives.
,o It must therefore be declared that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive N o 78/1026 of 18 December 1978, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
T h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g to t h e f a i l u r e t o i m p l e m e n t fully C o u n c i l D i r e c t i v e No 7 8 / 1 0 2 7 of 18 D e c e m b e r 1978
1 1 Whereas throughout the procedure prior to the application to the Court the Government of the Italian Republic confined itself to stating that, in order to incorporate the directive into national law, a Law empowering it to adopt the necessary measures was in preparation, it has asserted, for the first time in its defence, that the directive was already fully implemented by the present system of studies and diplomas for the veterinary profession laid down in Order N o 987 of the President of the Republic of 23 October 1969 (Gazzetta Ufficiale [Official Gazette] N o 1 of 2. 1. 1970). According to the Italian Government, that order, which provides for a five-year course of studies at University and which defines in its annex the various subjects covered by the course leading to a doctor's degree in veterinary medicine, fulfils the requirements laid down in Article 1 of Council Directive No 78/1027 and in the annex thereto.
i2 In its reply the Commission noted the existence of Order N o 987 of 23 October 1969 but made it clear that it considered that the provisions it contained did not fully implement the directive because the annex to the order which set out the curriculum for a doctor's degree in veterinary medicine in Italy, did not include three of the subjects listed in the Annex to Directive N o 78/1027 laying down a harmonized curriculum for veterinary surgeons. Those three subjects were preventive medicine, food hygiene and technology and animal ethology and protection.
is It must be noted that at the hearing the Commission accepted that the Order of 27 October 1969 implemented the directive satisfactorily as far as training
COMMISSION v ITALY
in preventive medicine was concerned. The Commission's conclusions are therefore limited to the failure to include the subjects of "food hygiene and technology" and "animal ethology and protection" in the curriculum adopted in Italy for veterinary surgeons.
1 4 The introductory words of the annex to Directive N o 78/1027 state that: "The programme of studies leading to the diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine shall include at least the subjects listed below. Instruction in one or more of these subjects may be given as part of, or in association with, other courses". The actual titles of the subjects and disciplines forming the curriculum for veterinary surgeons are not therefore required to be transposed word for word into the legal systems of the Member States; the annex merely requires a transposition which is sufficiently faithful to ensure that training courses in the Member States are comparable so as to enable diplomas to be mutually recognized.'
is The Government of the Italian Republic points out that the acquisition of adequate knowledge, within the meaning of the directive, of the subject of "food hygiene and technology" is ensured by compulsory instruction in the subject entitled "inspection and control of foodstuffs of animal origin" mentioned in Group 18 of the annex to the order; the performance of such inspection and control duties necessarily presupposes a knowledge of methods of producing and marketing foodstuffs intended for consumption.
i6 As the Commission submitted and as is clear from the oral argument before the Court, the discipline mentioned in Group 18 of the annex to Order No 987 covers only part of the subject "food hygiene and technology" referred to by the directive. The Commission also rightly submitted that certain subjects directly related to food hygiene and technology are mentioned in Order No 987 amongst the supplementary subjects, which are optional for students of veterinary medicine. Consequently, it would be quite possible for such students to obtain a doctor's degree in veterinary medicine without receiving full training in that subject, which is incompatible with the requirements laid down in Article 1 of the directive.
JUDGMENT OF 18. 9. 1984 — CASE 221/83
i7 The Commission is therefore right in considering that the Italian Republic has not fully transposed Directive No 78/1027 in this regard.
is As regards the subject entitled "animal ethology and protection", which is mentioned in Group 3 of the annex to Directive N o 78/1027, the Government of the Italian Republic maintains that the acquisition of adequate knowledge of that subject is ensured by compulsory instruction in the subjects listed in Group 5 of the annex to Order N o 987, which are as follows:
"Zootechny:
(1) hygiene, appearance of animals, ethnology;
(2) genetics and breeding".
i9 It is clear from the oral arguments advanced before the Court that the subjects listed in Group 5 of the annex to Order No 987 do not correspond to the subject entitled "animal ethology and protection" mentioned in the annex to Council Directive N o 78/1027. The subjects specified by the directive essentially concern the teaching of the science of animal behaviour whereas the subjects listed in Group 5 of the Italian curriculum are related to the study of animal populations and techniques of reproduction and breeding.
20 In those circumstances the Commission is also right in considering that the Italian Republic has not fully transposed Council Directive N o 78/1027 in this regard either.
2i Accordingly, it must be held that:
By not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive No 78/1026 of 18 December 1978, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty; and that:
By not fully implementing Council Directive N o 78/1027 of 18 December 1978 and by failing to provide for compulsory instruction in the subjects
COMMISSION v ITALY
referred to as "animal ethology and protection" and "food hygiene and technology" as part of its curriculum for veterinary surgeons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Costs
22 Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the defendant has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive No 78/1026 of 18 December 1978, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
2. Declares that, by not fully implementing Council Directive No 78/1027 of 18 December 1978 and by failing to provide for compulsory instruction in the subjects referred to as "animal ethology and protection" and "food hygiene and technology" as part of its curriculum for veterinary surgeons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Mackenzie Stuart Koopmans Galmot
Bosco Everling Kakouris Joliét
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 September 1984.
P. Heim A. J. Mackenzie Stuart Registrar President