← Späť na vyhľadávanie
Súdny dvor Európskej únie·10.10.1989

C-38/89

ECLI:EU:C:1989:367

Súd
Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS
61989CC0038

BLANGUERNON

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 10 October 1989*

Mr President, States. 1 In other words, the principle of Members of the Court, reciprocity has no validity in Community law as far as the fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty is concerned. Unilateral I — Admissibility action may not be taken against the failure of individual Member States to fulfil such obligations; only the forms of procedure prescribed in Articles 169 and 170 of the 1. At the hearing today, the defendant's EEC Treaty may be used, by the representative stated that the criminal Commission and by the Member States of proceedings against his client had been the European Communities, for that discontinued as a result of an amnesty. To purpose. his knowledge, though, no request had been made to withdraw the reference made to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. According to its case-law, the Court remains seised of a request for a preliminary ruling until it is expressly withdrawn. Unless 4. Since, therefore, a Member State has not the Court should decide otherwise, only the power but actually a duty under therefore, the questions referred to it must Article 189 of the EEC Treaty to implement be answered. a directive within the prescribed period, it is undisputable that the individual citizen must comply with the national law corresponding to the directive, even if other Member States II — Substance have not yet fulfilled that obligation. It follows that he may not rely on a failure to implement the directive in other Member 2. As regards the substance of the request, States. the national court wishes to know whether national legislation which Member States are obliged to adopt in accordance with a directive based on Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty may enter into force indi­ 5. This applies also to the Fourth Council vidually so long as not all the Member Directive of 25 July 1978 on the annual States have enacted equivalent legislation. 2 accounts of certain types of companies, with which this reference is concerned. That directive is based on Article 54(3)(g) of the 3. It must be pointed out first of all that, as EEC Treaty, which provides for the coordi- the Court has consistently held, a Member State may not make the fulfilment of its 1 — See the judgments of 22 March 1977 in Case 78/76 own obligations under Community law Steinike und Weinhg v Germany (1977] ECR 595. at p 613, of 25 September 1979 in Case 232/78 Commission conditional upon the performance of the v France [1979] ECR 2729. and of 14 February 1984 m same obligations by the other Member Case 325/82 Commission v Germany [1984] ECR 777, at p. 793. See also Article 55 of the Constitution of the French Republic of 4 October 1958

* Original language German 2 — OJ 1978, L 222, p 11

I-87

OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE C-38/89

nation of the safeguards which, for the 8. Whilst the transposition of directives at protection of the interests of companies and different times in the individual Member others, are required by Member States with States may result in unequal treatment of a view to making such safeguards equivalent citizens in the different Member States, that throughout the Community. inequality of treatment derives from a legis­ lative technicality: a directive is binding as to the result to be achieved; however, its effectiveness depends — at least when it imposes obligations on individuals — on transposition by the legislatures of the Member States; as a result, not only the 6. Article 54(3)(g) mentions the equivalence forms and means chosen may be different of the safeguards and the directive itself also but also the date of transposition. Since stresses in its preamble the need for simul­ directives generally lay down a period taneous coordination in those fields because within which they are to be transposed and the activities of the companies or firms their substance may be transposed and concerned frequently extend beyond the brought into effect either at the beginning frontiers of their national territories. In the or at the end of that period, it is not only view of the defendant in the main possible but, so to speak, inherent in the proceedings, it runs contrary to those aims transposition of directives that they may of equivalence and simultaneous coordi­ come into force at different times. That is nation for the national legislation trans­ what clearly distinguishes them from regu­ posing the directive to enter into force at lations, which are directly applicable in each different times in different States. Member State from the date of their entry into force.

7. It should be noted, in that regard, that the requirement of equivalent safeguards expresses the actual degree of harmon­ ization to be attained by directives based on Article 54(3)(g). That provision does not, therefore, require complete standardization; 9. Furthermore, in the specific context of it is sufficient that the national safeguards the transposition of directives concerning should be equivalent in their effects. A legal company law, Member States must obligation on the Community legislature introduce the provisions of Community law and the Member States to make the national into their own different systems of company 3 applicability of implementing measures law, which may cause serious difficulties. dependent on the enactment of such In order to lessen those difficulties, the measures in all the Member States cannot, period allowed for the implementation of however, be inferred from Article 54(3)(g). individual provisions of the directive in The Community is based on observance of question is longer than that normally the law by the Member States, so that it may be assumed that the Member States 3 — See, in this connection, the Fifth Annual Report to the European Parliament on Commission monitoring of the have brought their pre-existing national application of Community law, p. 2 et seq. of the roneoed laws into line with the legal prescriptions of version, and the Fourth Progress Report of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament the directive at the time specified by the concerning the implementation of the Commission's White Paper on the completion of the internal market, p. 4, point directive. 14 et seq.

I-88

BLANGUERNON

prescribed in such cases. For that reason, that another Member State has not duly the period laid down for transposition in fulfilled its obligations under Community this case is two years. 4 law in that regard. The conclusions to be drawn from that state of affairs are, 10. It will not be easy to convince a primarily, a matter for the Member States national of a Member State that when laws and the political organs of the Community. come to be approximated he must put up In the present case, a solution is hardly to with the disadvantages arising from the fact be achieved through legal proceedings.

11. I therefore propose that the Court should answer the national court's question as follows:

'National legislation enacted on the basis of directives (such as, for example, those based on Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty) must enter into force no later than the date specified in the directive, even if all the Member States have not complied with their duty of transposition arising under the directive.'

4 — Last recital in the preamble to, and Article 55(1) of, the directive.

I-89

Text rozhodnutia bol prevzatý z verejne dostupných úradných zdrojov. Rozhodnutie je úradným dokumentom.
Navrhy_ga C-38/89 – Súdny dvor Európskej únie | AI Pravnik