C-372/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:588
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0372
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION / IRELAND
O P I N I O N OF ADVOCATE GENERAL GEELHOED delivered on 25 October 2001 1
1. In this case the Commission of the ought to have fulfilled their obligations European Communities requests the Court under the directive by 8 April 1999 at the to declare, pursuant to Article 226 EC, that latest. Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system 2 in force ('the directive'). 5. The Irish Government acknowledges that the directive was not implemented in good time. It points out in that regard that the competent minister has reached an 2. The object of the directive is to improve advanced stage in drafting legislation. The the interlinking and interoperability of Irish Government observes also that there national networks and also access to those are currently no high-speed trains opera- networks. tional in Ireland. In addition, it notes that at the time the defence was lodged in this action the technical specifications for inter- operability (TSIs) referred to in Chapter II 3. By virtue of Article 23(1) of the directive of the directive had not yet been approved the Member States are required to amend or finalised. and adopt the legal and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the directive no later than 30 months after its entry into force. In addition, the Member States must forthwith inform the 6. I would observe that the Irish Govern- Commission thereof. ment has not disputed the infringement. The fact that no high-speed trains are currently operational in Ireland is irrele- vant. The Court has on many occasions 4. Article 25 of the directive provides that ruled that the fact that an activity referred the directive is to enter into force on the to in a directive does not exist in a 21st day following its publication in the particular Member State cannot release Official Journal of the European Commu- that State from its obligation to adopt laws or regulations in order to ensure that all the nities. Since the directive was published on provisions of the directive are properly 17 September 1996, it entered into force on transposed. 3 8 October 1996 and the Member States
1 — Original language: Dutch. 3 —Case C-339/87 Commission v Netherlands [1990] ECR I-851, and Case C-214/98 Commission v Greece [20001 2 — OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6. ECR I-9601.
I - 10305
OPINION OF MR GEELHOED — CASE C-372/00
7. To my mind, the observation concerning meet the essential requirements laid down TSIs is also without pertinence. As the in Annex III to the directive. Those essen- Commission has correctly pointed out tial requirements apply independently of during the written procedure, under Arti- the existence of TSIs. The fact that the TSIs cle 4 of the directive the trans-European have not yet been completed cannot, there- high-speed rail system, subsystems and fore, amount to justification for late imple- their interoperability constituents must mentation of the directive.
Conclusion
In the light of the facts and circumstances set out above, I propose that the Court should:
(a) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(b) order Ireland to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(2) of Rules of Procedure.
I - 10306