C-383/00
ECLI:EU:C:2002:208
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0383
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION v GERMANY
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 19 March 2002 1
1. The European Commission seeks a so that the competent authorities may draw declaration by the Court that, by failing up external emergency plans. to adopt the necessary measures within the prescribed period, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards invol ving dangerous substances (hereinafter 'the Directive'). 2
3. Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and admin istrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive no later than 4 February 1999. 4
2. That provision requires Member States to ensure that establishments where dan 4. The defendant Member State has gerous substances are present in certain admitted, both in the administrative pro quantities 3 draw up internal emergency cedure 5and before the Court, 6that spe plans and supply the necessary information
4 — Article 24 allowed them a maximum period of 24 months from the time the Directive came into force. Under 1 — Original language: Spanish. Article 25, the Directive entered into force on 3 February 2 — OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13. Although in the application the 1997, so that the prescribed period expired on the same date Commission cites failure to fulfil obligations under the in 1999. Directive as a whole, 'and Article 11 thereof in particular', 5 — Communication of 20 July 2000, sent in a letter dated in its reply it specifies that 'the subject of the claim is the 3 August 2000 (see document VI of the annexes to the failure to transpose Article 11'. application). 3 — Article 9, in conjunction with Article 2(1). 6 — See point 2 of the defence to the application.
I - 4221
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-383/00
cific measures to implement Article 11 of regional authorities of the urgency of the the Directive in national law were not task are irrelevant. adopted within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion as regards the Länder of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern , Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein.
5. The German Government's acceptance 8. First, those difficulties have already been of the facts of the case means that there is taken into consideration by the Community no dispute as to the alleged failure to fulfil legislature when prescribing the period obligations, so that it is irrelevant that the within which Member States are to imple procedures for drawing up the provisions ment the Directive, a process in which the necessary for transposition have now Federal Republic of Germany was reached an advanced stage, since the ques involved, so that it was aware of the tion whether a Member State has failed to time-limit for incorporating the Directive fulfil its obligations must be determined by into national law. reference to the end of the period laid down 7 in the reasoned opinion.
6. That assessment is not undermined by the arguments put forward in its defence by the Federal Republic of Germany.
9. Second, a Member State may not, in order to exonerate itself from fulfilling its obligations, cite difficulties encountered in 8 implementing Community law or its own institutional peculiarities. 9 7. The complexity of the measures required for transposition of the Directive at both the federal level and the level of the Länder 8 — See the judgments in Case 128/78 Commission v United Kingdom [1979] ECR 419, paragraph 10; Case C-374/89 and the fact that the German Government Commission v Belgium [1991] ECR I-367, paragraph 10; on numerous occasions reminded the and Case C-327/98 Commission v france [2000] ECR I-1851, paragraph 21. 9 — See the judgments in Case C-259/94 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1947, paragraph J; Case C-214/96 Commis- sion v Spam [1998] ECR I-7661, paragraph 18; Case 7 — See, inter alia, the judgments in Case C-96/98 Commission v C-166/97 Commission v France [1999] ECR I-1719, para France [1999] ECR 1-8531, paragraph 19, and Case graph 13; Case C-166/97 Commission v France [1999] ECR C-435/99 Commission v Portugal [1000] ECR I-11179, I-1719, paragraph 13; and Case C-423/00 Commission v paragraph 16. Belgium [20021 ECR I-593, paragraph 16.
I - 4222
COMMISSION v GERMANY
10. Thus, the 'special features' of the case decisions of the Commission with a single cited by the defendant Government cannot addressee, 1but to my knowledge it has justify an application of Article 10 EC and never done so for the benefit of one of of the principle of genuine cooperation that several persons subjet to the same act or underlies it to the extent claimed in the provision. defence to the application. The Commis sion and the Member States must work together in good faith whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions and secondary legis lation, which prohibit individual deroga tions to the advantage of a Member State 10 from the obligations that apply to all. The Court has applied that principle when dealing with the implementation of specific
11. From the preceding observations, it can be seen that the Federal Republic of Ger many has failed to fulfil its obligations as alleged and that the application should therefore be upheld.
12. In accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the defendant Member 12 State should be ordered to pay the costs.
11 — See the judgments in Case 94/87 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 175, paragraph 9; Case C-404/97 Commis- sion v Portugal [2000] ECR I-4897, paragraph 40; and 10 — Moreover, the Commission could hardly derogate, even Case C-261/99 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2537, for only a single Member State, from a provision approved paragraph 24. by the Council. 12 — Codified version published in OJ 2001 C 34, p. 1.
I - 4223
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-383/00
Conclusion
13. I propose that the Court should uphold the application and:
(1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances by failing to bring into force within the period prescribed in Article 24 the laws, regulations and adminstrative provisions necessary to implement it in national law;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
I - 4224