C-395/99
ECLI:EU:C:2000:449
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999CC0395
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-395/99
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 14 September 2000 *
1. In these infringement proceedings the — points 10, 12, 19 and 20, Commission alleges failure to transpose two directives.
on 1 April 1998;
2. Article 2(1) of Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Direc- tive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in foodstuffs1 states: (b) the other provisions of this Directive by 1 October 1999.
'Member States shall bring into force the They shall forthwith inform the Commis- laws, regulations and administrative pro- sion thereof. visions necessary to comply with:
3. Council Directive 9 6 / 9 3 / E C of (a) the following provisions provided for 17 December 1996 on the certification of in Article 1: animals and animal products 2 should have been transposed by 1 January 1998.
— point (4): Article 6(1), Article 9d(2), 4. The Commission received no communic- Article 9e(3), Article 9f, Article 9g, ation from the Italian Republic concerning Article 9h, Article 9i, Article 9j, Art- the transposition of either directive. It icle 9n, Article 9o, therefore sent it, on 16 July 1998 in respect of Directive 96/51 and on 3 June 1998 in
* Original language: German. 1 — OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39. 2 — OJ 1997 L 13, p. 18.
I-11156
COMMISSION V ITALY
respect of Directive 96/93, letters of formal ive provisions necessary to comply notice pursuant to Article 169 of the EC with Treaty (now Article 226 EC), inviting it to submit observations within two months. Those letters remained unanswered.
(a) Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs and 5. For that reason, on 11 December 1998, reasoned opinions in respect of both direct- ives were sent to the Italian Republic, prescribing a final period of two months for their transposition. (b) Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certi- fication of animals and animal products,
6. The Italian authorities replied only in respect of Directive 96/93/EC. By letter of 22 February 1999 they informed the Com- or in any event by failing to commun- mission that an appropriate draft law was icate such provisions, the Italian under preparation. Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga- tions under the Treaty and those direct- ives;
7. The Commission therefore brought the present proceedings against the Italian (2) order the Italian Republic to pay the Republic on 11 October 1999. costs.
8. The Commission points out that, under The Commission claims that the Court the third paragraph of Article 189 of the should: EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) and Art- icle 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), the Member States are required to take whatever measures are necessary to trans- pose the directives into national law before the expiry of the period prescribed for that (1) declare t h a t , by failing to a d o p t the purpose, and to inform the Commission of laws, regulations and a d m i n i s t r a t - such measures immediately. According to
I - 11157
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-395/99
the Commission, those periods expired Treaty infringement would have been only without the Italian Republic having 11 days old and the pre-litigation pro- informed it of the provisions to transpose cedure referred to expressly relates only to the directives in question into national law. that part of the directive.
9. The Italian Republic acknowledges that it has not transposed the directives in time, 11. On that construction the action is well and gives as the reason for that the founded. On the material date for the complexity of its national procedures. It purposes of the infringement proceed- states that the preparatory work on trans- ings — when the period of two months posing the directives in question is at an from 11 December 1998 prescribed in the advanced stage and that the adoption of reasoned opinion expired — the grievance appropriate legal provisions is imminent. which is the subject of the application had indisputably not yet been remedied, even taking into account any extensions of the period on account of delays in the post. The Italian Republic should therefore be 10. In the light of the grounds of the declared to have failed to fulfil its obliga- Commission's application, the latter must tions, as claimed in the application. be construed as referring, in respect of Directive 96/51, only to the failure to transpose the provisions mentioned in Art- icle 2(1)(a). The intention to bring a more far-reaching action cannot be imputed to 12. The appropriate order as to costs the Commission since, on the one hand, at follows from Article 69(2) of the Rules of the time of bringing the action a possible Procedure.
I - 11158
COMMISSION V ITALY
Conclusion
13. I therefore propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(a) Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs and
(b) Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and those directives;
(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
I - 11159