C-370/99
ECLI:EU:C:2000:580
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999CC0370
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-370/99
O P I N I O N OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 19 October 2000 1
1. Pursuant to Article 226 EC, the Com- 4. By letter of 18 May 1998, the Irish mission applies to the Court for a declara- authorities informed the Commission that tion that, by failing to adopt the laws, they were finalising a comprehensive new regulations and administrative provisions Bill which would update all aspects of Irish necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC copyright law and would implement the of the European Parliament and of the Directive. Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, 2Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
5. Since it had not received any further information, on 2 October 1998, the Com- mission sent Ireland a reasoned opinion pointing out that the time-limit for trans- position of the Directive had expired on 2. Article 16 of the Directive provides that 1 January 1998 and that Ireland was under Member States are to bring into force the an obligation to inform the Commission of laws, regulations and administrative provi- any implementing measure which had been sions necessary to comply with the Direc- adopted. tive before 1 January 1998 and that they are to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field governed by the Directive. 6. By letter of 1 December 1998, the Irish Government replied that the comprehen- sive new Bill on copyright and related rights was at an advanced stage of pre- paration and would shortly be ready for publication. 3. Since it had not been informed of any implementing measure adopted by Ireland, on 31 March 1998, the Commission gave Ireland formal notice to submit its observa- tions to it within two months. 7. Since that reply to the reasoned opinion, the Commission has not received any 1 — Original language: French. further information on the state of imple- 2 — OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20; 'the Directive'. mentation of the Directive in Ireland.
I - 298
COMMISSION V IRELAND
8. The Commission points out that, under six months from the date of its defence, by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the which time it hopes that the Commission, EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of having examined the Irish legislation, will Article 249 EC), directives are to be bind- find it possible to discontinue the proceed- ing, as to the result to be achieved, upon ings. each Member State to which they are addressed and that, under the first para- graph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now the first paragraph of Article 10 EC), Member States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. The infringement
12. According to settled case-law, a Mem- ber State may not plead provisions, prac- 9. The Irish Government does not deny its tices or circumstances existing in its inter- failure to implement the Directive within nal legal system in order to justify a failure the period prescribed. In this respect, it to comply with the obligations and time- states that the Irish authorities have endea- limits laid down in a directive. 3 voured to take every step necessary to transpose the Directive into domestic law. However, the provisions of the Directive cannot be effectively implemented without all aspects of Irish copyright law being revised and updated. 13. As regards the Irish Government's request for proceedings to be stayed, it should be observed that, if the Member State to which a reasoned opinion has been issued has not, by the end of the period which it is for the Commission to lay down 10. According to the Irish Government, the pursuant to the second paragraph of Arti- revision of Irish copyright law, which has cle 226 EC, put an end to the infringement been in progress since 1994, has resulted in with which it is charged, the Commission is a new Copyright and Related Rights Bill at liberty to decide whether or not to bring which has been published and whose the matter before the Court. Since the enactment is now imminent. Commission stated in its reply that it was maintaining the action, it is not appropriate to stay proceedings. 4
3 — See, in particular, Case C-470/98 Commission v Greece 11. The Irish Government requests the [2000] ECR I-4657, paragraph 11. 4 — See, in particular, Case C-212/98 Commission v Ireland Court to stay proceedings for a period of [1999] ECR I-8571, paragraph 12.
I-299
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-370/99
14. Since the Directive was not implemen- 15. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of ted within the period prescribed by it, the Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Commission's application must be held to unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay be well founded. the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings, which is the case here.
Conclusion
16. Consequently, I propose that the Court:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
I - 300