C-366/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:587
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0366
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ALBER— CASE C-366/00
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 25 October 2001 1
1. The action is directed against the failure with its obligations within two months. By to transpose, within the prescribed period, letter of 17 April 2000, Luxembourg Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March expressed the view that the Grand-Ducal 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on regulation intended to transpose the direc- the assessment of the effects of certain tive would probably be adopted in the public and private projects on the environ- second half of 2000. ment 2('Directive 97/11').
4. It is settled case-law that the merits of an action are not affected by the fact that the 2. Article 10 of Directive 97/11 provides default concerned may have been remedied that the directive was to be incorporated after the expiry of the time-limit prescribed into national law by 14 March 1999 at the by the reasoned opinion. The subject- latest. The Commission has brought an matter of the action is the Commission's action seeking a declaration that, by failing reasoned opinion. Even when the default is to transpose Directive 97/11 within the remedied after the time-limit prescribed by prescribed period or, in the alternative, by Article 226(2) EC has expired, there is still failing to inform the Commission that it an interest in pursuing the action, in order has done so, the Grand Duchy of Lux- to establish the basis of liability which a embourg has failed to fulfil its obligations Member State may incur, as a result of its under the EC Treaty. default towards other Member States, the Community or individuals. 3
3. Luxembourg does not dispute the claim. 5. The Grand Duchy does not dispute the On 23 November 1999, it sent the Com- fact that it has failed to transpose Directive mission a draft regulation. The Commis- 97/11 within the prescribed period. Con- sion found this to be inadequate and there- sequently, it is appropriate to uphold the fore, by reasoned opinion dated 26 January Commission's application. 2000, required the Grand Duchy to comply
3 — Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, 1 — Original language: German. paragraph 45; Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany 2 — OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5. [1991] ECR I-2567, paragraph 31.
I - 1750
COMMISSION v LUXEMBOURG
6. The Commission has also sought an ordered to pay the costs if they have been order requiring Luxembourg to pay the applied for in the successful party's plead- costs. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of ings. Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be
Conclusion
7. For the reasons set out above, I propose that the Court declare that:
(1) by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
(2) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is to pay the costs.
I - 1751