C-52/93

COMMISSION v NETHERLANDS

J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T (Sixth Chamber) 14 July 1994 *

In Case C-52/93,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by H . Van Lier, Legal Adviser, and V. Melgar, a French civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service of the Commission, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G. Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

T H E C O U R T (Sixth Chamber),

composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, M. Diez de Velasco (Rap- porteur), C. N . Kakouris, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges,

Advocate General: W. Van Gerven,

Registrar: D . Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 21 April 1994,

2 The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 83/189 provides that:

'Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission any draft tech- nical regulation, except where such technical regulation merely transposes the full text of an international or European standard, in which case information regarding the relevant standard shall suffice; they shall also let the Commission have a brief statement of the grounds which make the enactment of such a technical regulation necessary, where these are not already made clear in the draft.'

3 The provisions of Article 9(1) and (2) are as follows:

' 1 . Without prejudice to paragraph 2, Member States shall postpone the adoption of a draft technical regulation for six months from the date of the notification referred to in Article 8(1) if the Commission or-another Member State delivers a detailed opinion, within three months of that date, to the effect that the measure envisaged must be amended in order to eliminate or reduce any barriers which it might create to the free movement of goods.

2. The period in paragraph 1 shall be twelve months if, within three months follow- ing the notification referred to in Article 8(1), the Commission gives notice of its intention of proposing or adopting a directive on the subject.'

4 On learning that the Netherlands authorities had adopted on 9 October 1990 Amendment XIII to the PVS regulation on quality standards for flower bulbs (iris, lily), the Commission decided to initiate proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty. It considered that the said regulation was a technical regulation covered by

s In a letter dated 23 July 1992, the Netherlands Government informed the Com- mission that it would in future endeavour to avoid such omissions and that it had in the meantime given notification of another amendment to the same regulation.

I - 3604

COMMISSION v NETHERLANDS

9 The Commission commenced this action by application of 26 January 1993.

io It is not disputed that in accordance with Article 8 of the directive draft amend- ment XIII to the PVS regulation ought to have been notified forthwith to the Commission and that such notification was not given.

1 1 Furthermore, the Netherlands Government has from the start of the administrative stage of this procedure acknowledged the failure to fulfil its obligations.

T H E C O U R T (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Declares that, by adopting on 9 October 1990 Amendment XIII to the PVS regulation on quality standards for flower bulbs (iris, lily) without notifying it to the Commission at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Direc- tive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provi- sion of information in the field of technical standards and regulations;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Mancini Diez de Velasco Kakouris

Schockweiler Kapteyn