C-144/97
ECLI:EU:C:1997:526
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61997CC0144
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR COSMAS — CASE C-144/97
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL COSMAS delivered on 6 November 1997 *
1. In this action under Article 169 of the EC 3. Since the Commission had not received Treaty, the Commission asks the Court for a notification from the French Government declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regarding the transposition of the directive regulations and administrative measures nec- into national law and did not have any other essary in order to comply with Council information enabling it to conclude that the Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 French Republic had complied with its obli- widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC gations under the directive, it sent a letter of on the approximation of provisions laid formal notice to the French Government on down by law, regulation or administrative 10 February 1994. action relating to veterinary medicinal prod- ucts and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary medicinal prod- ucts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. 4. The French Government failed to reply to that letter, so the Commission issued a rea- soned opinion on 4 March 1996, in which it called on the French Republic to adopt, within two months from receipt of the opin- ion, the measures necessary to comply with the directive.
2. The first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Council Directive 92/74/EEC (‘the direc- tive’) provides as follows:
5. The French authorities stated in their reply to the reasoned opinion that they had prepared a draft law and decree in connec- tion with the transposition of the directive.
‘Member States shall take the measures nec- essary to comply with this directive by 31 6. By application lodged at the Court Regis- December 1993. They shall forthwith inform try on 16 April 1997 the Commission the Commission thereof.’ brought this action, seeking, first, a declara- tion that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations and, secondly, an order * Original language: Greek. for costs against it.
I-614
COMMISSION v FRANCE
7. The French Republic does not dispute the practices or circumstances existing in its legal Commission's charge against it. In its order in order to justify a failure to comply defence lodged on 26 May 1997, it merely with obligations and time-limits resulting pointed out that the draft law for transpos- from the EC Treaty and from Community ing the directive into the national legal order directives. 1 could not be enacted in good time by the National Assembly because the President of the Republic had recently dissolved Parlia- ment and called early elections. It also con- firmed that it was proceeding with the utmost diligence to fill the gap in its legisla- tion.
9. Accordingly, since the French Republic has not transposed the directive into national 8. The Court has consistently held that a law, the infringement pleaded by the Com- Member State may not plead provisions, mission is well founded.
Conclusion
10. In view of the foregoing, I p r o p o s e that the C o u r t should:
— declare that, b y failing t o a d o p t , w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d laid d o w n , t h e laws, regula- tions and administrative measures necessary in o r d e r t o c o m p l y w i t h C o u n c i l Directive 9 2 / 7 4 / E E C of 22 September 1992 w i d e n i n g t h e scope of Directive 8 1 / 8 5 1 / E E C o n t h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n of provisions laid d o w n b y law, regulation o r administrative action relating t o veterinary medicinal p r o d u c t s and laying d o w n additional provisions o n h o m e o p a t h i c veterinary medicinal p r o d u c t s , t h e F r e n c h R e p u b l i c has failed t o fulfil its obligations u n d e r t h a t directive; and
— o r d e r t h e F r e n c h R e p u b l i c t o p a y the costs.
1 — See Case C-303/93 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR 1-1901, Case C-65/94 Commission v Belgium [1994] ECR I-4627, Case C-135/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] I-1061 and Case C-294/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] ECR I-1781.
I-615