C-284/97

OPINION OF MR SAGGIO — CASE C-284/97

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SAGGIO delivered on 25 June 1998 *

1. On 1 August 1997, the Commission of the under the procedure provided for by Article European Communities brought an action 169 of the Treaty, the Commission called on under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a dec- that State to submit its observations within a laration that, by failing to adopt the laws, period of two months. regulations and administrative provisions nec- essary to comply with Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending Direc- tives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal prod- ucts (hereinafter 'the Directive'), 1 the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations 4. By letter of 25 October 1995 from the under the EC Treaty and the Directive. French permanent representation to the Euro- pean Union, the French authorities informed the Commission that to implement the Direc- tive it was necessary to amend the Public Health Code (code de la santé publique) and pointed out that a preliminary draft (avant- projet) law had been prepared and would be 2. Under the first paragraph of Article 3 of incorporated in a future draft law. the Directive, Member States were to take all appropriate measures to comply with the Directive, with the exception of Article 1(7), before 1 January 1995 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

6. In its application the Commission points Code was required and that the drafting of out that since, according to settled case-law, the documents required was now almost com- the Member States to whom a directive is plete. addressed are obliged to bring their domestic legislation into line with the provisions of that directive within the period prescribed therein and may not plead provisions, prac- tices or circumstances existing in their internal legal systems in order to justify a failure to 8. In the light of the evidence put forward by comply with the obligations and time-limits the parties I consider that the application laid down in Community directives, the defen- brought by the Commission is well founded. dant State has failed to fulfil its obligations The French Republic has not implemented under the Directive inasmuch as on expiry of the provisions of the Directive within the the period prescribed by the Directive it had period prescribed by Article 3 thereof. More- not adopted any measures to implement the over, it must be borne in mind that, according provisions thereof. to consistent case-law, the fact that the pro- cedure for transposing the Directive was in progress, as argued by the defendant govern- ment, does not mean that the application is unfounded or devoid of purpose since 'the 7. In its defence the French Republic does question whether a Member State has failed not dispute that it had failed to adopt the to fulfil its obligations must be determined by domestic provisions necessary to implement reference to the situation prevailing in the the Directive, merely pointing out that, to Member State at the end of the period laid transpose the Directive the adoption of a law down in the reasoned opinion, and subse- or decree (décret) amending the Public Health quent changes cannot be taken into account'. 2

(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.

I - 6094