C-83/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:66
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0083
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-83/00
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 30 January 2001 1
1. In the present Treaty-infringement pro- namely the date of expiry of the two-month ceedings, the Commission is seeking a period laid down in the reasoned opinion of declaration that, by failing within the 10 August 1999. This had not even been prescribed period to adopt the laws, reg- done by the time that the proceedings were ulations and administrative measures instituted on 7 March 2000. necessary in order to implement the provi- sions of Directive 97/24/EC 2of the Eur- opean Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands 4. The Netherlands Government does not has failed to comply with its obligations deny that it has failed to fulfil its obliga- under the Treaty, together with an order tions, but points out that a series of adverse requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands circumstances have coincided to cause the to pay the costs. delay in the transposition. Reference was made in the course of the written procedure to a draft of the implementing legislation which had been revised in the interim.
2. Under Article 8(1) of Directive 97/24, the Member States were required by no later than 18 December 1998 to bring into force the laws, regulations and administra- tive measures necessary in order to comply 5. According to the settled case-law of the with that directive and forthwith to inform Court of Justice, a Member State cannot the Commission thereof. rely on provisions, practices or circum- stances existing in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a Community directive. 4I therefore propose that an order should be made against the 3. It is undisputed that the requisite laws, Kingdom of the Netherlands in the terms regulations and administrative measures sought. An order for costs should be made were not enacted by what was, according in accordance with Article 69(2) of the to settled case-law, the decisive date, 3 Rules of Procedure.
1 — Original language: German. 4 — See paragraph 9 of the judgment in Case C-303/92 2 — OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1. Commission v Netherlands [1993] ECR I-4739. See also 3 — See paragraph 16 of the judgment in Case C-384/99 paragraph 11 of the judgment in Case C-139/97 Commis- Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-10633. sion v Italy [1998] ECR I-605.
I - 2352
COMMISSION V NETHERLANDS
Conclusion
6. I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to implement the provisions of Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty; and
(2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
I - 2353