C-365/93

COMMISSION v GREECE

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 9 February 1995 *

A — Introduction 2. By that date the Commission had received no communication whatsoever regarding the adoption of measures to implement the directive and therefore brought an action for breach of the Treaty. On 28 July 1991 the Commission wrote to the defendant Member State calling upon it to submit its observa­ tions on the complaint of breach of obliga­ tions within two months. There was no response. In a reasoned opinion of 15 Octo­ ber 1992 the Commission gave it a new period of two months within which to com­ ply with its obligations. That period, too, elapsed without any comment from the Member State on the complaints. On 27 July 1993 the Commission brought an action 1. In this action against the Hellenic Repub­ before the Court of Justice. lic for breach of the Treaty the Commission seeks a declaration that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regu­ lations and administrative provisions needed to comply fully with Council Directive 89/48/EEC 1 on a general system for the rec­ ognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu­ B — Analysis cation and training of at least three years' duration and to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty. The first paragraph of Article 12 of the directive provides that the Member States are to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive within two years of its notification and shall inform the Commis­ sion thereof forthwith. Since the directive 3. The Commission acknowledges that the was notified to the Member States on 4 Janu­ defendant government issued a joint Decree 2 ary 1989 , that period expired on 4 January of the Ministers for the Economy, Health, 1991. Welfare and Social Security on 1 February 1993 which partly implemented the directive, but it was restricted to the health and welfare professions. Compliance with the directive * Original language: German. 1 — OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16. was therefore only partial, and the breach of 2 — Sec footnote 2 to Directive 89/48. the Treaty thus continued.

3 — Prof. Emmanouil Konstantinidis of Athens University, Pres­ ident of DIKATSA (Diapanepistimiako Kentro Anagnorissis Tition Spoudon tis Alloaapis, Interuniversity Centre for the Recognition of Foreign Diplomas) and Prof. Georgios Kal­ kanis as surrogate. 4 — a) DIKATSA for diplomas obtained on completion of uni­ versity education. 10. Moreover, if the requirements of Article b) ITE (Instituto Technologikis Ekpaidefsis, Technical Train­ 9(1) were sufficiently satisfied by means of ing Institute) for diplomas obtained on completion of train­ ing in a technical institute of higher education. the existing procedures before the competent

I-502

COMMISSION v GREECE

authorities already in place that circumstance if the introduction of special procedures and would have to have been formally communi­ competent authorities is not necessary in cated to the Commission in order to satisfy order to be able to implement Article 9(1) of the obligations laid down by Article 12 of the directive, there has been a breach of the the directive. Treaty at least as regards the failure to com­ municate the relevant provisions to the Commission under Article 12 of the direc­ tive. The action must therefore be upheld.

11. It is clear that at the time of the oral pro­ cedure on 12 January 1995 there had been no steps to transpose the directive fully into national law. The Presidential Decree Costs intended to implement the directive gener­ ally was not yet in force. Since the action is confined to seeking a declaration that Direc­ tive 89/48 has not yet been fully transposed into national law the partial implementation of the directive by legal measures introduced 12. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Pro­ after completion of the procedure prior to cedure the unsuccessful party shall pay the the action is not sufficient to defeat it. Even costs.