C-213/98
ECLI:EU:C:1999:381
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61998CC0213
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-213/98
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 8 July 1999 *
1. In these proceedings the Commission of cedure provided for by Article 169 of the the European Communities seeks a declara- EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC). tion that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property 1and by failing to inform the Commission thereof, Ireland 4. By letter of 20 January 1995, it formally has failed to fulfil its obligations under the called on the Irish Government to submit EC Treaty. It has asked for costs. its observations concerning the alleged infringements of Community law. within a period of two months.
2. The Commission states that, under Arti- cle 15 of Directive 92/100, the Member States were to bring into force the laws, 5. By letter of 22 March 1995, the Irish regulations and administrative provisions Government informed the Commission necessary to comply with the Directive no that a total review of the Copyright Act later than 1 July 1994 and were to inform 1963 had been initiated in Ireland in 1994 the Commission thereof forthwith. and that a new bill was being prepared which would update Irish copyright law, embodying the provisions of Directive 92/100.
3. Having determined that that period had expired without its having been informed of any implementing measure adopted by Ireland, the Commission initiated the pro- 6. In the absence of further information, on 1 July 1997 the Commission sent Ireland a reasoned opinion, reiterating the fact that * Original language: French. the period set for transposition had expired 1 — OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61. on 1 July 1994 and that Ireland was
I - 6974
COMMISSION V IRELAND
required to inform it of any implementing 10. Ireland recognises its obligation to measure that it had adopted. comply with that directive. It states that Irish copyright law has remained unchanged since 1963 and it has therefore had to carry out a complete revision of the Copyright Act 1963. The Irish Government adds that the Law is at an advanced stage of preparation and should very shortly be ready for publication. It therefore requests that the Court suspend the proceedings for a period of six months. 7. The Commission, having received no information concerning the stage reached in the implementation of Directive 92/100, commenced the present Treaty-infringe- ment proceedings.
11. It is undisputed that the period for implementation laid down in Article 15 of Directive 92/100 expired over five years ago. The Irish Government does not deny that Directive 92/100 has not been trans- posed. Furthermore, according to settled case-law of this Court, a Member State 8. The Office of the Irish Permanent Repre- may not plead technical difficulties associ- sentative to the European Union responded ated, in particular, with the need to under- to the reasoned opinion by letter of take a comprehensive reform of legislation 26 August 1997 informing the Commission and with the time needed to do so. 2In that significant progress had been made in those circumstances, it is appropriate to the drafting of the bill. uphold the Commission's application for a finding that the obligations laid down by Directive 92/100 have not been fulfilled and to reject the request for suspension of these proceedings.
9. The Commission considers that Ireland's obligation under Article 15 of Directive 92/100 to adopt the laws, regulations and 12. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of administrative provisions necessary to com- Procedure of the Court, the unsuccessful ply with that directive by 1 July 1994 is party is to be ordered to pay the costs if undisputed. It states that that obligation they have been applied for in the successful also derives from the third paragraph of party's pleadings. Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Arti- cle 249 EC) and from Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC). 2 — Case C-329/96 Commission v Greece [1997] ECR I-3749.
I - 6975
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-213/98
Conclusion
13. Consequently, I suggest that the Court declare that:
(1) By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/100/ EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and by failing to inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 15 of that directive.
(2) Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.
I - 6976