C-364/97
ECLI:EU:C:1998:420
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61997CC0364
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LA PERGOLA — CASE C-364/97
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LA PERGOLA delivered on 17 September 1998
I — Purpose of the present proceedings, argu the Commission thereof immediately. The ments of the parties and legal analysis Commission did not receive any communica tion from Ireland regarding transposition of the Directive and had no information enabling it to confirm whether or not Ireland had in fact fulfilled its obligations. Accordingly, on 27 February 1996 the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the 1. In the present proceedings, the Commis sion of the European Communities has asked Treaty, sending the Irish Government a letter the Court to declare that, within the meaning of formal notice, inviting it to submit its and for the purposes of Article 171 of the EC observations within two months. In the Treaty (hereinafter 'the Treaty'), Ireland has absence of any official reply to that letter, the failed to fulfil its obligations under Article Commission delivered a reasoned opinion to 189, third paragraph, of the Treaty and Article the Irish authorities on 23 December 1996, 13(1) of Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 calling upon them to adopt the measures nec November 1993 concerning the minimum essary to comply with the Directive within safety and health requirements for work on two months. board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (hereinafter 'the 1 Directive').
2. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Directive, Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive by 23 November 1995, and to inform 3. Since the Irish Government maintained its silence, the Commission brought the present proceedings on 22 October 1997. Ireland does not contest the allegation that it has failed to * Original language: Italian. fulfil its obligations; however, the Irish Gov 1 — OJ 1993 L 307, p. 1. As stated in the seventh recital in the preamble to the Directive, the rules laid down by Council ernment requested that the present proceed Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health ings be stayed for a period of three months, of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) are fully applicable to work on board fishing vessels, 'without prejudice to more since ministerial regulations for the transposi stringent and/or specific provisions' contained in the Direc- tion of the Directive were shortly to be tive at issue which, as its title indicates, has the status of an 'individual Directive'. adopted.
I - 6594
COMMISSION v IRELAND
4. However, even if the facts show that the Member State found itself at the end of the Directive in question has been transposed into period laid down in the reasoned opinion and national law, this cannot, to my mind, be that the Court cannot take account of any 2 accorded the effect of rendering the present subsequent changes'. What matters, there proceedings brought by the Commission fore, is solely the fact that, on expiry of the unfounded or devoid of purpose. It is settled period set by the Commission in its reasoned law 'that the question whether there has been opinion, the Directive had not yet been trans a failure to fulfil obligations must be exam posed into the Irish legal system. ined on the basis of the position in which the
II — Conclusion
In the light of the foregoing observations, I therefore propose that the Court:
— uphold the application, declaring that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 con cerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Direc tive; and
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
2 — See Case C-200/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4299, paragraph 13, Case C-361/95 Commission v Spain [1997] ECR I-7351, paragraphs 13 and 14, and the most recent case, Case C-285/97 Commission v Portugal [1998] ECR I-4895, para graph 8).
I - 6595