C-441/00
ECLI:EU:C:2002:210
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0441
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION v UNITED KINGDOM
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL GEELHOED delivered on 21 March 2002 1
1. In the present case the Commission of the period provided for transposition the European Communities seeks a declar expired on 8 April 1999. ation by the Court that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Coun cil Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, 2the United King dom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.
3. The object of the directive is, inter alia, to improve the interlinking and interoper ability of national networks and also access to those networks.
4. The United Kingdom Government acknowledges that it did not transpose the directive within the period provided for. It points out that the directive was none the less partly implemented before expiry of 2. The directive was published in the the period for transposition. In that con Official Journal of the European Commu- nection it states that late implementation is nities on 17 September 1996. In accord partly attributable to the fact that the ance with Article 23(1), in conjunction committee established under Article 21 of with Article 25 thereof, the directive the directive has not yet determined the entered into force on 8 October 1996 and requisite technical specifications for inter operability (TSIs) as a result of which certain sections of the directive cannot yet 1 — Original language: Dutch. be implemented. It also states that no 2 — OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6. high-speed train is currently operational in
I - 4701
OPINION OF MR GEELHOED — CASE C-441/00
Ireland, or will be in the foreseeable future. 6. Nor is it relevant that in a Member State Accordingly the directive is said to be of no high-speed train is yet operational. In its very limited or no practical significance in judgment in Commission v Ireland the Northern Ireland. Court pointed out that the fact that an activity referred to in a directive does not yet exist in a particular Member State cannot release that State from its obligation to adopt laws or regulations in order to ensure that the provisions of the directive 5. In that connection it should be pointed are properly transposed. It is only where out that the Court has already held in transposition of a directive is pointless for regard to TSIs that it is not apparent from reasons of geography that it is not manda the terms of the directive and, in particular, tory. However, that is not so in the case of Article 23 thereof that preparing TSIs is a Northern Ireland, as may be seen from map precondition for the implementation of the 3.15 in Annex I to Decision No 1692/96/EC directive. It follows that the fact that the of the European Parliament and of the TSIs have not yet been adopted is irrelevant Council of 23 July 1996 on Community for the purposes of determining whether a guidelines for the development of the trans- Member State has fulfilled its obligations. 3 European transport network. 4
3 — Judgment in Case C-372/00 Commission v Ireland [2001] 4 — OJ 1996 L 228, p. 1. See Commission v Ireland, cited in ECR I-10303, paragraphs 14 and 15. footnote 3, paragraphs 11 to 13.
I - 4702
COMMISSION v UNITED KINGDOM
Conclusion
7. In light of the foregoing, 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, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(b) order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
I - 4703