C-138/96
ECLI:EU:C:1997:193
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61996CC0138
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER — CASE C-138/96
O P I N I O N O F ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO C O L O M E R delivered o n 15 April 1997*
1. By application lodged at the Registry of 3. Since it had received no information the Court of Justice on 25 April 1996, the regarding the adaptation of German law to Commission brought an action under Article Directive 92/116 within the prescribed time, 169 of the E C Treaty for a declaration that the Commission, acting in pursuance of by failing to adopt within the prescribed Article 169 of the Treaty, sent the German period the laws, regulations and administra- Government a formal letter on 10 February tive provisions necessary to comply with 1994 requesting it to submit its observations Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 on the failure to adapt its domestic law to December 1992 amending and updating the directive. Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat, ' the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
4. By letter of 28 April 1994 the German Government informed the Commission that a draft law on health inspections of poul- trymeat intended to implement Directive 92/116 would be laid before Parliament before the end of the first half of 1994.
2. Article 3(1) of Directive 92/116, amending the Community rules relating to health problems in trade in fresh poultrymeat in order to adapt them to the introduction of the internal market, provides that Member States are to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to com- ply with the directive not later than 1 Janu- 5. Since no national provision adapting ary 1994 and forthwith to inform the Com- domestic law to the directive in question was mission thereof. That time-limit is extended communicated, the Commission, by letter of to 1 January 1995 in the case of the new Ger- 5 October 1994, delivered a reasoned opin- man Länder covered by restructuring plans. ion to the German Government accusing it of failing to fulfil its obligations under the directive and requesting it to adopt the mea- * Original language: Spanish. sures necessary to comply with the opinion 1 — OJ 1993 L 62, p. 1. within two months.
I-3318
COMMISSION y GERMANY
6. By letter of 12 December 1994 the Ger- with the obligations and time-limits laid man Government informed the Commission down in Community directives. that it had not been possible to adhere to the timetable initially envisaged for implement- ing Directive 92/116. The draft law had been discussed in the Bundesrat and was to be submitted to the Bundestag at the beginning of 1995 so that it could be adopted in the spring of that year. By letter of 15 August 9. In this case Germany does not deny the 1995 the German Government informed the Commission's charge that it failed to fulfil its Commission that there had been a further obligations under Directive 92/116. N o n e delay in adopting the draft law owing to the the less, the German Government suggests problems which had arisen in dealing with it that the infringement proceedings should be in the Bundestag, as a result of which the stayed because the request that the Commu- Federal Government had been asked to nity rules be amended caused a major delay request the Commission to amend the direc- in adapting German law to the directive and tive in order to allow producers marketing because the law on health measures appli- fewer than 10 000 animals per annum to sell cable to poultrymeat was adopted on 17 poultrymeat from their holdings not only to July 1996 2 and the rules for its implementa- consumers but also to restaurants and com- tion will be adopted shortly. munities, provided that the animals were given regular veterinary inspections.
The Government's suggestion is irrelevant, since in this case there are no circumstances 7. Having received no further information which would justify a decision to stay pro- from the German Government regarding the ceedings pursuant to Article 82a(l)(b) of the adaptation of its domestic law to Directive Rules of Procedure. 92/116, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
10. In this case the Commission has demon- strated beyond doubt and without being contradicted by the German Government 8. Pursuant to Articles 5 and 189 of the E C that the Federal Republic of Germany did Treaty and Article 3 of Directive 92/116, the not adopt within the prescribed time Federal Republic of Germany was required the laws, regulations and administrative fully to adapt its domestic law to the direc- provisions necessary to comply with Direc- tive within the prescribed time. According to tive 92/116. It is therefore appropriate to the settled case-law of the Court, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply 2 — Bundesgesetzblatt I, 23 July 1996, p. 991.
I-3319
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER — CASE C-138/96
consider the Commission's action indepen- 11. Since the Commission's action is well dently of whether or not Germany adapted founded and its claims must be upheld, the its domestic law to bring it into line with the Federal Republic of Germany should be directive after the time prescribed therein ordered to pay the costs, pursuant to Article had expired. 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Conclusion
12. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat, the Fed- eral Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
I - 3320