C-212/98
ECLI:EU:C:1999:491
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61998CC0212
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION V IRELAND
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 7 October 1999 *
1. By the present application, the Commis- dure provided for in Article 169 of the EC sion of the European Communities requests Treaty (now Article 226 EC). the Court to declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Direc- tive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmis- 4. By letter of 16 May 1995, the Commis- sion 1 ('the Directive'), Ireland has failed to sion gave Ireland formal notice to submit fulfil its obligations under that directive. its observations within a period of two months.
5. By letter of 28 July 1995, the Irish 2. Under Article 14 of the Directive, the Government stated that it had undertaken Member States were to bring into force the a comprehensive review of the Copyright laws, regulations and administrative provi- Act 1963 and that the provisions of the sions necessary to comply with it before Directive would be incorporated in the new 1 January 1995. Under the same article, legislation. they were required to inform the Commis- sion immediately of the provisions adopted.
6. On 17 July 1996, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland requesting it to comply with the Directive within a period 3. As it had not received any information of two months. relating to the transposition of the Direc- tive into the Irish legal system, the Com- mission initiated the pre-litigation proce-
* Original language: French. 1 — Council Directive of 27 September 1993 (OJ 1993 L 248, 7. By letters of 2 and 9 August 1996, the p. 15). Irish Government communicated its inten-
I - 8573
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-212/98
tion to adopt the necessary provisions as 11. Second, the Irish Government states soon as possible. that the measure implementing the Direc- tive will be published shortly. It requests the Court to order that proceedings be stayed for a fixed period, in order to enable it to comply with its obligations. 3
8. The Commission brought the present action on 9 June 1998.
In my opinion, that request cannot be granted. If it agreed to stay proceedings merely on the grounds put forward by the 9. In its pleadings, the Irish Government Irish Government, the Court would be does not deny the complaint made against condoning Ireland's failure to fulfil its it. Nevertheless, it makes two sets of obligations rather than adjudicating on observations. the existence of that failure.
10. First, it describes a number of difficul- ties connected with the scale of the reform of the Copyright Act and the need to 12. Consequently, I propose that the Court implement the Directive by way of primary should allow the Commission's application. legislation rather than regulation.
On this point, we must bear in mind that, 13. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of according to settled case-law, the Court of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be Justice considers that a Member State ordered to pay the costs if they have been cannot rely on provisions, practices or applied for in the successful party's plead- circumstances existing in its internal legal ings. Since Ireland has been unsuccessful, it order in order to justify its failure to should be ordered to pay the costs, as comply with the obligations and time-limits requested by the Commission. laid down by a directive.2 3 — The Irish Government states that '... [after] a period of six months ... the Commission, ... having examined the Irish 2 — See, for example, Case C-238/95 Commission v Italy [1996] legislation, will find it possible to discontinue the proceed- ECR 1-1451, paragraph 7; and Case C-323/96 Commission ings so that the Court of Justice will not be troubled further v Belgium [1998] ECR 1-5063, paragraph 42. with this case' (point 6 of the Defence).
I - 8574
COMMISSION V IRELAND
Conclusion
14. On the basis of the foregoing, I propose that the Court:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;
(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
I - 8575