C-45/99
ECLI:EU:C:2000:81
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999CC0045
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR SAGGIO — CASE C-45/99
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SAGGIO delivered on 10 February 2000 *
1. By application lodged on 16 February of collective agreements' and 'forthwith 1999, the Commission accuses the French inform the Commission thereof'. Arti- Republic of having failed to transpose cle 17(2) further requires the Member within the prescribed period into its legal States to make a reference to the directive system Council Directive 94/33/EC of in the national implementing provisions. 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work 1 (hereinafter 'the direc- tive'), or — in the alternative — of having failed to communicate the measures taken to transpose the directive. 3. Labour law in force in France contains numerous provisions relating to the sector governed by the directive. In particular the Code du Travail (Labour Code) (Arti- cles D 211, L 211 to L 213, L 221, R 234 and R 241) relates to the fields covered by the directive, while Law No 97-1051 of 18 November 1997 2contains rules specific Relevant Community and national legisla- to the maritime sector. tion
2. The directive, which was adopted on the basis of Article 118a of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have Facts and procedure been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) lays down minimum requirements designed to protect young persons in the workplace. Article 17(1)(a) and (c) pro- 4. By letter of 16 January 1997, the Com- vides that the Member States are to bring mission, not having received any informa- into force, 'not later than 22 June 1996', tion from the French Government on the the provisions necessary to comply with the transposition of the directive, requested directive itself or ensure, 'by that date at the that Government, pursuant to Article 169 latest, that the two sides of industry of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC), to introduce the requisite provisions by means submit its observations in that regard. The
* Original language: Italian. 2 —Journal officiel de la République française of 18 November 1 — OJ 1994 L 216 p. 12. 1997, p. 16723.
I-3616
COMMISSION V F R A N C E
French Government replied by way of a 6. The French Republic did not make any memorandum from its Permanent Repre- specific comment in the defence lodged on sentative dated 13 March 1997, which the 4 May 1999, but merely stated that 'the Commission found to be inadequate. It French Government will send as soon as therefore sent on 12 January 1998 a rea- possible to the Court of Justice and the soned opinion to the French Republic, Commission' a draft Law on the duration pursuant to the abovementioned Arti- of work, currently being drawn up by the cle 169 of the EC Treaty, according to relevant authority. which 'having failed to adopt the provi- sions ... necessary to comply with the direc- tive ..., France has failed to fulfil its obliga- tions under that directive' and called on it to comply therewith within two months from notification. The French Government replied to that reasoned opinion by a note of 13 March 1998 from its Permanent Representative which again the Commis- Failure to fulfil obligations sion deemed inadequate.
5. Accordingly, the Commission lodged, on 7. According to the Commission, the 16 February 1999, an application in accor- French Republic had not transposed fully dance with Article 169(2) of the EC Treaty, the directive into its legal system, thus claiming that the Court should: infringing Article 17( 1 )(a) which sets 22 June 1996 as the deadline for transposi- tion, nor had it communicated the adoption of the implementing measures, thereby infringing its obligation under Arti- cle 17(1 )(c). '(a) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt, alterna- tively to communicate to the Commis- sion, the laws, regulations and admin- istrative measures necessary in order fully to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young persons at work, 8. The French Government submits that the French Republic has failed to fulfil most of the legislative provisions of the its obligations under the EC Treaty and directive are already contained in national under that directive; legislation already in force, 3 and that therefore such legislation requires only minimum amendment, specifically only with regard to those provisions not cmbo-
(b) order the French Republic to pay the 3 — In particular in the provisions mentioned in paragraph 3 of costs'. this Opinion.
I - 3617
OPINION OF MR SAGGIO — CASE C-45/99
died in French law. The French Govern- of appropriate implementing measures in ment further states that it intends to adopt the matter. such amendments in the near future and that the relevant measures will be commu- nicated as soon as possible to the Court and to the Commission.
Moreover, so far as concerns the provisions in force that are claimed to correspond to the requirements of the directive, the mere prior existence in the law of a Member State of legislation corresponding to what the directive seeks to have transposed does not exonerate a Member State either from 9. I take the view that in the present case creating a legislative framework which there has been failure to fulfil obligations. ensures — so far as concerns legal cer- The French Government expressly tainty — the complete and effective trans- acknowledges that, three and a half years position of the directive itself by means of after the expiry of the deadline for adop- the adjustment of the entire area of law tion of the measures to implement the contemplated by the directive,5 or from the directive, many of its provisions are still obligation to communicate to the Commis- not embodied in the applicable legislation sion the adoption of any provisions. at the time of the entry into force of the directive. The matter concerns, as may be seen from the memoranda sent to the Commission by the French Permanent Representative on 13 March 1997 and 13 March 1998, how long adolescents aged 14 to 16 years may work during school I would also observe that in the present holidays, minimum daily rest periods for case the directive imposes the obligation on adolescents aged 14 to 16 years and the Member State of inserting in the adolescents aged 16 to 18 years and the implementing measures an express refer- weekly rest periods for young workers, ence to it and that, according to settled provision for a compulsory 30-minute case-law,6 the provision of such an obliga- break every four-and-a-half hours of work tion is in itself such as to preclude any and the application of the directive to national legislation already in existence adolescents undergoing training in under- from carrying out the transposition of a takings without an employment contract. directive into the legal system of a Member On the basis of these factors I believe that State. The alleged failure to fulfil obliga- 'clear breaches of the directive' 4 have been tions is also confirmed from this angle. established inasmuch as some parts of it have no equivalent in French legislation in force and that, in any event, the Commis- 5 — '[T]he provisions of a directive must be implemented with ... sion has not been informed of the adoption the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the need for legal certainty, which requires that ... the persons concerned must be enabled to ascertain the full extent of their rights' (Case C-207/96 Commission v Italy [19971 ECR I-6869, paragraph 26). 4 — Case 301/81 Commission v Belgium [1983] ECR 467, 6 — See, for example, Case C-137/96 Commission v Germany paragraph 18. [1997] ECR 1-6749, paragraph 8.
I-3618
COMMISSION V FRANCE
Costs ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for. Since the Commission lias applied for costs, I propose that the Trench 10. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Republic, which has been unsuccessful in Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be its pleadings, be ordered to pay the costs.
Conclusion
11. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
I - 3619