C-303/93

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-303/93

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 13 April 1994 *

My Lords, provisions necessary in order to comply with this directive during the six months following its notification. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

1. In these proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty the Commission contends that the Republic of Italy has failed to comply with 2. Member States shall communicate to the its obligation to implement Council Direc- Commission the texts of the provisions of tive 90/486/EEC of 17 September 1990 ' national law which they adopt in the field amending Council Directive 84/529/EEC 2 governed by this Directive.' on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electrically oper- ated lifts. The preamble to Directive 90/486 recited that 'the scope of Directive 84/529 should be extended as a matter of urgency since manufacturers face significant technical barriers to intra-Community trade which The directive was notified to the Member threaten to distort the market'. States on 24 September 1990. Therefore the time-limit for implementing it expired on 24 March 1991.

2. Article 2 of Directive 90/486 provides: 3. In a letter dated 28 June 1991 the Com- mission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 169. It drew to the attention of the Italian Government the fact that the directive should have been transposed into national law by 24 March 1991 and stated that the ' 1 . Member States shall adopt and publish Commission had received no information the laws, regulations and administrative indicating that this had been done in Italy. The letter further stated that if the Italian Government believed that national legisla- tion in force was already in conformity with * Original language: English. the directive it should communicate the 1 — OJ 1990 L 270, p. 21. 2 — OJ 1984 L 300, p. 86. terms of the provisions in question, clearly

8. At the hearing, the Agent of the Italian 6. In its defence the Italian Government did Government stated that the legislation had not deny that a breach of Community law recently been approved and would shortly had taken place. However it observed, as had be published. However, even assuming that the Commission in its application, that Arti- at that stage the infringement is terminated, cle 3 of Italian Law N o 142 of 19 Febru- it is not disputed that the legislation was not ary 1992, containing provisions relating to in force at the expiry of the time-limit laid the performance of obligations resulting down by the Commission's reasoned opin- from Italy's membership of the European ion, which is the material date. 4 Communities (Community Law for 1991), authorized the Italian Government to imple- ment by means of regulations the Commu- 3 — See, for example, Case 52/75 Commission v Italy [1976] nity directives listed in Annex C of that law. ECR 277; Case 91/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1099. 4 — See the judgment of today's date in Case C-313/93 Commis- Directive 90/486 was listed in Annex C. The sion v Luxembourg [1994] ECR 1-1279, paragraph 10.

I -1903

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-303/93

Conclusion

9. I am accordingly of the opinion that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the provisions necessary to ensure the implementation of Council Directive 90/486/EEC of 17 September 1990, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;