C-410/97
ECLI:EU:C:1998:363
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61997CC0410
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR JARABO COLOMER — CASE C-410/97
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 14 July 1998 *
1. By the present action, brought under Arti 3. Since it subsequently received no further cle 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission communication, the Commission sent the seeks a declaration by the Court that by Grand Duchy of Luxembourg a reasoned failing to adopt within the prescribed period opinion (16 December 1996) calling upon it the laws, regulations or administrative provi to adopt the measures necessary in order to sions needed in order to comply with Council implement the Directive. The Luxembourg Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on Government again replied that it was pre the minimum safety and health requirements paring to amend its legislation in the matter for improved medical treatment on board (23 January 1997). vessels, 1the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
4. In the absence of any evidence of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having subse quently brought its legislation into line with the abovementioned Directive, the Commis sion brought its action before the Court on 21 October 1997.
2. During the pre-litigation procedure, the Commission sent the Grand Duchy of Lux embourg a letter of formal notice (on 16 May 1995) calling upon it to adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with the Direc tive, which were to have been adopted by 31 December 1994 at the latest. In reply to the 5. In the observations it submitted before the letter of formal notice, the Luxembourg Court, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg authorities informed the Commission (12 Sep admits the infringement with which it is tember 1996) that they were preparing to charged and acknowledges not having brought approve their legislation in that matter, to its legal system into line with the Directive which end they had submitted a draft decree within the prescribed time-limit. It states, before the Council of State. none the less, that it sent to its Parliament in March 1998 a draft law to that end, in view of the fact that the Council of State in July * Original language: Spanish. 1997 voted down the draft law which had 1 — OJ 1992 L 113, p. 19. been submitted before it.
I-6814
COMMISSION v LUXEMBOURG
6. Since, as the Commission charges, the 7. The defendant must bear the costs, pur Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has manifestly suant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Proce failed to fulfil its obligations and although the dure, since the applicant has applied for costs. tonnage of Luxembourg's shipping does not lead to the conclusion that the infringement complained of is especially serious, the appli cation must be upheld.
Conclusion
8. I therefore propose that the Court should uphold the Commission's application and:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regula tions or administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
I-6815