C-119/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:213
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0119
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION V LUXEMBOURG
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL GEELHOED delivered on 5 April 2001 '
Facts the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
1. In this case the Commission of the European Communities requests the Court:
2. Article 2(1) of Directive 97/36 provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administra tive measures necessary to comply with — to declare that, by not adopting the that directive not later than 31 December necessary laws, regulations and admin 1998, and immediately inform the Com istrative measures to comply with mission of them. Directive 97/36/EC2 amending Direc tive 89/552/EEC,
— or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of them, 3. Since it had not received any notification 1 — Ongm.il language: Dutch. of the measures which the Grand Duchy of 2 — Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Luxembourg had taken to implement Council or 30 June 1997 amending Directive 89/552/EĽC or the Council on the coordination of certain provisions laid Directive 97/36 the Commission sent for down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting mal notice to the Grand Duchy of Luxem activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60). bourg on 12 March 1999 to submit its
I - 4797
OPINION OF MR GEELHOED — CASE C- 119/00
observations. In reply to that formal noti- within a few months and that the proceed- fication, the Luxembourg Government sta- ings before the Court for failure to fulfil its ted, in a letter dated 27 May 1999, that it obligations will thus be deprived of pur- was in the process of preparing the neces- pose. sary measures to comply with that direc- tive. It attached to its letter a draft law, which was expected to come into force in November 1999. Following that, the Com- mission sent the Government a reasoned opinion on 9 July 1999. The Luxembourg Government replied on 8 November 1999. In that reply, it referred back to its earlier letter of 27 May.
Failure to fulfil obligations
5. Let us remember that according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circum- stances in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. That case-law was again recently con- firmed by the Court in Commission v Greece. 3
4. On the basis of that information the Commission brought this case before the Court on 27 March 2000. In its defence, received at the Court on 6 June 2000, the Luxembourg Government does not contest the justification of the action so far as the 6. The fact that it is expected that the lateness of the implementation of Directive national legislation intended to implement 97/36 is concerned. However, it again relies Directive 97/36 may meanwhile have been on the abovementioned national draft law. adopted when the Court considers the It states that the delay in adopting the law failure alters nothing. is connected to its complex technical char- acter and the necessary consultations. It expects that the law will now be adopted 3 — Case C-470/98 [2000] ECR I-4657.
I - 4798
COMMISSION V LUXEMBOURG
Conclusion
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances set out above, I suggest that the Court should:
(a) declare that:
— by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations and administrative measures to comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Directive 89/552/EEC of the Council on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
— or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of them,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
I - 4799