C-289/93
ECLI:EU:C:1993:938
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61993CC0289
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE C-289/93
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 15 December 1993 *
Mr President, on 1 January 1989 at the latest. 3Article 7 (2) Members of the Court, obliges Member States to communicate to the Commission their laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning the application of the directive.
1. In these proceedings for failure to fulfil a Treaty obligation, the Commission alleges 3. Before the Court the defendant Member that the Italian Republic has not within the State merely drew attention to a draft law prescribed period transposed Directive under which the directive at issue would be 1 88/599/EEC into national law and/or not implemented by means of administrative informed the Commission of the text of the procedures. transposing provisions. That directive con tains the minimum requirements as to checks carried out by the Member States to ensure compliance with Community social legisla tion relating to road transport.
4. It is therefore established that it has not within the prescribed period fulfilled its obli gation to transpose the directive, and the Commission's application must conse quently be upheld to that extent. On the other hand, the Court should not make any finding on the point of failure to communi- cate the provisions, since there were no pro 2. Under Article 7 (1) of the directive, Mem 2 visions which could and should have been ber States were to bring into force the laws, communicated. regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive
3 — It may be noted in passing that the period of about six weeks for transposition appears remarkably short. The defendant * Member State has not, however, objected to tins. In this con Original language: German. nection the judgment in Case C-74/71 Commission v Ger- 1 — Council Directive of 23 November 1988 on standard check many [1992] ECR I-5437 should be noted, according to ing procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) which a Member State, in the context of an action for failure No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legisla to fulfil its obligations by reason of an infringement of a tion relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) directive, cannot argue that the directive is unlawful, but No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport only that it is legally non-existent (paragraphs 10 and 11 ). In (OJ 1988 L 325, p. 55). any event, if it wishes to plead that implementation of the 2 — With the exception of Portugal, for which the time-limit directive is absolutely impossible, it must substantiate that was 1 January 1990. assertion (paragraph 12).
I-526
COMMISSION v ITALY
5. I therefore propose that the Court:
(1) declare that by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with Directive 88/599/EEC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs, in accordance with the application.
I-527