C-319/99
ECLI:EU:C:2000:333
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999CC0319
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION V FRANCE
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SAGGIO delivered on 20 June 2000 *
1. On 23 August 1999 the Commission dards for the transmission of television brought an action against the French signals. Under Article 8(1), 'Member States Republic under Article 169 of the EC shall bring into force the laws, regulations Treaty (now Article 226 EC) for failure to and administrative provisions necessary for fulfil obligations. It sought a declaration them to comply with this Directive within that, by failing to communicate within the nine months of its entry into force' and prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations 'they shall forthwith inform the Commis- and administrative measures necessary in sion thereof'. The directive came into force order to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of on the day of its publication, 23 November the European Parliament and of the Coun- 1995. Thus, the deadline for its transposi- cil of 24 October 1995 on the use of tion into national law was 23 August 1996. standards for the transmission of television signals, 1 alternatively by failing to adopt the measures necessary in order to comply therewith, the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The Commission also asked the Court to order France to pay the costs.
The relevant Community legislation
3. It should to be noted that Article 7 of the directive repeals Council Directive 92/38/ EEC of 11 May 1992 on the adoption of standards for satellite broadcasting of tele- vision signals. 2 This repeal took effect 2. Directive 95/47/EC of 24 October 1995 upon expiry of the period within which (hereinafter 'the directive') relates to stan- Member States had to transpose the 1995 directive.
* Original language: Italian. 1 — OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51. 2 — OJ 1992 L 137, p. 17.
I - 10441
OPINION OF MR SAGGIO — CASE C-319/99
The infringement procedure and submis- comply with the reasoned opinion, within sions of the parties two months of receipt of notification.
4. On 16 January 1997, not having received any communication from the French Government regarding implement- 6. The French authorities responded to the ing measures and having no information reasoned opinion initially by letter of from which it might infer that the French 15 December 1998. In that letter, they Republic had adopted all measures neces- acknowledged the delay in transposing the sary for that purpose, the Commission sent directive; by way of justification, however, it a letter of formal notice in accordance they pointed out that there had been a with the first paragraph of Article 169 of change of government in France, which had the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC), in slowed down the normal legislative process which it requested, inter alia, that the and asked the Commission to grant them a French Government submit its observations further period of two months so that they within two months. could draw up a precise timetable for transposition. The French authorities also requested a meeting with the competent departments of the Commission, in order to show them the draft implementing legisla- tion. As shown by the statements submitted by both the Commission and France, this meeting took place on 22 January 1999.
5. The French Government did not reply to this letter within the period specified. As a consequence, the Commission, again under the first paragraph of Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC), proceeded on 14 October 1998 to deliver a reasoned opinion to France, stating that, by not communicating the laws, regulations and On 8 June 1999, the French authorities administrative provisions necessary to com- sent the Commission a second letter; in ply with the directive, France had failed to this, among other things, they reported that fulfil its obligations under both the direc- the procedure for transposing the directive tive and the EC Treaty. The Commission was in hand and that, in order to complete therefore called upon the French Govern- this rapidly, the Government had secured ment to adopt the measures necessary to the presentation of an amendment — as
I - 10442
COMMISSION V FRANCE
part of the first-reading debate on the draft national provisions necessary for imple- law on broadcasting — specifically regard- mentation. It merely repeated that the ing implementation of the directive. They transposition procedures were in hand added that this draft law would be exam- and these would culminate in final adop- ined by the Senate in the autumn of 1999. tion of the legislation described in the letter of 8 June 1999 replying to the reasoned opinion 3 and of a series of regulatory instruments. However, the French Govern- ment gave an assurance that all possible efforts were being made to complete imple- mentation by June 2000.
7. However, the Commission received no communication regarding the final adop- tion of that draft law. It therefore reached the conclusion that the directive had not been transposed into French law and con- sequently decided to bring the present action against France under the second paragraph of Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC). In its application, the Commission pointed out that the Court has consistently held that the Member States are required to adapt their national legislation to accommodate the provisions The French Government also observed in of directives within the period specified its defence that the period of nine months therein and that they may not invoke rules, prescribed in Article 8 of the directive for practices or circumstances arising in their its implementation by the Member States own legal arrangements to justify failure to was particularly short, especially since, as act. In the light of that case-law, it was clear provided for in Article 7, the directive that France had not met the obligations repeals and replaces the directive of incumbent upon it since, at the end of the 1992. 4This gives rise to a situation which, period specified in the directive, it had in terms of legal certainty, is not of the adopted no provisions to implement it. simplest, making transposition of the direc- tive into national law particularly complex. The French Government explicitly acknowledges, however, that the fact that Member States have been allowed only a limited period of time to implement the directive is not an acceptable justification for its own delay in adopting the national implementing measures necessary.
8. In its defence, the French Government 3 — See point 6 of this Opinion. did not dispute the failure to adopt the 4 — See point 3 of this Opinion.
I - 10443
OPINION OF MR SAGGIO — CASE C-319/99
Whether there has been a failure to fulfil the Member States participate in the pre- obligations paratory work for directives and must therefore be in a position to prepare within the period prescribed the legislative provi- sions necessary for their implementa- tion...'. 6 9. In my view, this action is well founded. There can be no question but that France has failed to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it under the directive and the EC Treaty. As the French Government itself acknowledges, the transposition pro- cedure has not yet been completed; thus, even now France has not yet implemented the directive. The fact that the procedure for adoption of the national implementing measures necessary is in hand and that the French authorities are taking action to Costs bring it to completion by June 2000 cannot — now or in the future — cure the failure to fulfil the obligation. As is clear from the case-law of the Court, '... the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned 11. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be taken into account'. 5 ordered to pay the costs, if this has been requested. As the Commission has applied for costs, I propose that the French Repub- lic — which, in my view, has been unsuc- cessful — be ordered to pay the costs.
10. It is worth adding that France's failure to fulfil obligations cannot be justified either on the basis of the alleged brevity of the period allowed in Article 8 of the directive for transposition by the Member States. On that point, too, the case-law clearly states that '... the governments of
5 — See Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95 Commission v Greece [1998] ECR I-3343 paragraph 38. See also Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, para- 6 — See Case 301/81 Commission v Belgium [1983] ECR 467, graph 20 and Case C-60/96 Commission v France [1996] paragraph 11. See also Case 148/81 Commission v Belgium ECR I-3827, paragraph 15. [1982] ECR 3555, paragraph 5.
I - 10444
COMMISSION V FRANCE
Conclusion
12. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should rule as follows:
(1) By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
(2) The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
I - 10445