C-163/97
ECLI:EU:C:1998:14
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61997CC0163
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR COSMAS — CASE C-163/97
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL COSMAS delivered on 15 January 1998 *
1. In this action under Article 169 of the E C 3. Since the Commission had not received Treaty, the Commission asks the Court for a notification from the Kingdom of Belgium 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 it Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 had complied with its obligations under the widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC directive, on 10 February 1994 it sent a letter on the approximation of provisions laid of formal notice under reference down by law, regulation or administrative SG(94)D/1879 to that State and set a period action relating to veterinary medicinal prod- of two months for the submission of obser- ucts and laying down additional provisions vations. on homeopathic veterinary medicinal prod- ucts, 1 the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
4. In its reply of 12 June 1995 2 the King- dom of Belgium stated that the measures needed in order to comply with the directive were contained in a draft royal decree which, 2. The first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of at that time, was still being dealt with by the Council Directive 92/74/EEC ('the direc- Ministry of Public Health. tive') provides as follows:
5. After establishing that the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to adopt the measures 'Member States shall take the measures nec- necessary in order to comply with the essary to comply with this directive by 31 directive within the period laid down, the December 1993. They shall forthwith inform Commission sent a reasoned opinion to that the Commission thereof.' State by letter of 22 May 1996, 3 in which it
* Original language: Greek. 2 — Letter under reference RVD/nfd 11/91/550/50.533. 1 — OJ 1992 L 297, p. 12. 3 — SG(96)D/4751.
I-1182
COMMISSION v BELGIUM
concluded that it had failed to fulfil its obli- Kingdom of Belgium failed to adopt the gations under the directive. The Commission appropriate measures to comply with the called upon it to adopt the measures neces- directive or provide any substantive infor- sary to comply with the reasoned opinion mation thereon, thus failing to fulfil its obli- within two months. gations under Article 189 of the Treaty and Article 10 of the directive. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits resulting from the EC Treaty and from Community directives. 5
6. Since the Commission did not receive any information indicating that the directive had been transposed into Belgian law, it brought this action by application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 April 1997, seeking, first, a declaration that the Kingdom of Bel- gium had failed to fulfil its obligations and, secondly, an order for costs against it. 8. The Kingdom of Belgium does not dis- pute the Commission's claim that it failed to take the action required. It merely states that the draft royal decree by which the directive is to be transposed into national law has been submitted to the Council of State for its opinion.
7. As the Commission correctly states, under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty directives are to bind the Member States as to the result to be achieved. That obligation includes the obli- gation to comply with the time-limits laid down by a directive. 4 In this case, the rel- 9. In view of the above, I consider that the evant provisions of the directive require the infringement by the Kingdom of Belgium Member States to take the appropriate mea- which the Commission pleads is well sures by 31 December 1993 and forthwith to founded. inform the Commission thereof. Notwith- standing the expiry of the time-limit, the
5 — See Case C-303/93 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR I-1901, Case C-65/94 Commission v Belgium [1994] ECR I-4627, Case C-135/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] ECR I-1061 4 — Judgment of the Court in Case 10/76 Commission v Italy and Case C-294/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] ECR [1976] ECR 1359. I-1781.
I-1183
OPINION OF MR COSMAS — CASE C-163/97
Conclusion
10. I therefore propose that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period laid down, the laws, regula- tions and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal products and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary medicinal products, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
I-1184