C-160/99
ECLI:EU:C:2000:179
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999CC0160
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION V FRANCE
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 30 March 2000 *
1. In this case the Commission seeks a ships comply with all conditions for carry- declaration that, by maintaining unamen- ing out cabotage in that Member State, ded Article 257(1) of the French Customs including ships registered in Euros, once Code as regards Community shipowners that Register is approved by the Council.' covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regula- tion (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabo- tage), 1 France has failed to fulfil its obliga- tions under that regulation.
3. Certain derogations concerning France are contained in Article 6, which provides, so far as material, as follows:
2. Article 1(1) of the regulation provides as follows:
'1. By way of derogation, the following maritime transport services carried out in the Mediterranean and along the coast of Spain, Portugal and France shall be tem- porarily exempted from the implementa- tion of this Regulation: 'As from 1 January 1993, freedom to provide maritime transport services within a Member State (maritime cabotage) shall apply to Community shipowners who have their ships registered in, and flying the flag of a Member State, provided that these
* Original language: English. 1 — OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7 . — cruise services, until 1 January 1995,
I - 6139
OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-160/99
— transport of strategic goods (oil, oil 4. The French legislation on maritime products and drinking water), until cabotage is contained in the French Cus- 1 January 1997, toms Code of 11 May 1977. Article 257(1) of the Code provides that transport services carried out between the ports of metropo- litan France shall be reserved to ships flying the French flag. However, the Minister responsible for the merchant navy may authorise a foreign ship to carry out a particular transport service.
— services by ships smaller than 650 gt, until 1 January 1998,
5. France acknowledges that the Code in its present form does not comply with the — regular passenger and ferry services, regulation, and that draft legislation until 1 January 1999. amending the Code has not yet been enacted. France relies however on two steps which have been taken. First, a circular (Circular No 93-S-030 of 19 March 1993) setting out the content of the regulation was published in the Official Customs Bulletin No 1139 of the same date. Secondly, a footnote to Article 257 of the Code contains a reference to the 2. By way of derogation, island cabotage in regulation, setting out its full title (but no the Mediterranean and cabotage with more than that). regard to the Canary, Azores and Madeira archipelagoes, Ceuta and Melilla, the French islands along the Atlantic coast and the French overseas departments shall be temporarily exempted from the imple- mentation of this Regulation until 1 Janu- ary 1999.
6. The Commission replies that neither the circular nor the footnote can remedy the failure to amend the Code. I agree. Only the amendment of the offending legislation can terminate the infringement. As the Court has held, the incompatibility of 3. ...' national legislation with provisions of
I - 6140
COMMISSION V FRANCE
Community law, even those which are in my view wholly inadequate, given that directly applicable, can be remedied only the Article is simply incompatible with the by means or national provisions of a regulation. As the Court has held, 'the binding nature which have the same legal principles of legal certainty and the protec- force as those which must be amended. 2It tion of individuals require, in areas covered is clear that the circular cannot remedy the by Community law, that the Member failure to amend the Code. States' legal rules should be worded unequi- vocally so as to give the persons concerned a clear and precise understanding of their rights and obligations and enable national courts to ensure that those rights and obligations are observed'. 3 Those require- 7. As regards the footnote to Article 257 of ments are manifestly not satisfied by the the Code referring to the regulation, that is provisions of the Code.
2 — See, tor example, Case 168/85 Commission v Italy [1986] 3 — Case 257/86 Commission v Italy [1988] ECR 3249, ECR 2945. paragraph 13 of the judgment. paragraph 12 of rhe judgment.
I-6141
OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-160/99
Conclusion
8. Accordingly, the Court should in my opinion:
(1) declare that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of the French Customs Code as regards Community shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
I - 6142