C-190/99

COMMISSION V IRELAND

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 14 March 2000 *

1. In this action brought under Article (ii) the provisions of Chapter II, Section II 169 of the EC Treaty (now Arti- of Chapter III of Annex A and Chapter cle 226 EC), the Commission of the Eur- II of Annex C by 1 January 1997; opean Communities requests the Court to declare that Ireland has failed to transpose Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and (iii) other amendments by 1 July 1997. 91/496ÆEC (hereinafter 'the directive'). 1

2. Article 4(1), first and second subpara- graphs, of the directive provides: Member States shall have a further period which can extend to 1 July 1999 within which to comply with the provisions of Section I of Chapter III of Annex A.'

'Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi- sions necessary to comply with:

3. On 5 November 1997, having received no notification as to the measures adopted to transpose that directive into the Irish (i) the provisions of Article 7 and of legal system, and having in its possession Chapter I(1)(e) of Annex A by 1 July no other information allowing it to con- 1996; clude that Ireland had complied with its obligation to transpose the directive, the Commission instituted the procedure under * Original language: French. Article 169 of the Treaty by putting the 1 — OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1. Irish Government on formal notice to

6. In its statement of defence of 13 Sep- tember 1999, the Irish Government does not deny its failure to fulfil its obligations, but requests the Court to suspend the 11. That period had not yet expired on the proceedings for a period of three months date set by the Commission for compliance from the date of its defence to enable it to by Ireland with the reasoned opinion. complete implementation of the directive.

12. The action must therefore be dismissed in so far as it relates to adoption of the measures necessary for compliance with the 7. The Court has consistently held that 'the provisions referred to in the second sub- question whether a Member State has paragraph of Article 4(1) of the directive. failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end 2 — Judgment in Case C-316/96 Commission v Italy [19971 of the period laid down in the reasoned ECR I-7231, paragraph 14.

I - 4406

COMMISSION V IRELAND

13. Since the Commission has requested essentially fail in its submissions, I propose that Ireland be ordered to pay the costs, that the Court order Ireland to pay all of and since I take the view that Ireland must the costs.

Conclusion