C-468/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:311
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0468
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-468/00
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL STIX-HACKL delivered on 31 May 2001 1
I — Facts, legal background and proce- force on 7 October 1996, so that this dure prescribed period expired on 7 April 1998.
1. In its action for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations under Article 226 EC, lodged 3. Since by that date, the Commission had with the Court on 22 December 2000, the not been notified by the French Govern- Commission applies for a declaration that, ment of any implementation measures or in not introducing the laws, regulations and receive any other information relating to administrative provisions necessary to com- the matter, by letter of 28 April 1999 it ply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of gave the French Government formal notice 23 July 1996 on the harmonisation of the to submit its observations within two conditions for obtaining national boatmas- months. ters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community 2(hereinafter 'the Directive'), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
4. By letter of 19 July 1999, the French Government replied, stating that the mea- sures to implement the Directive were being prepared.
2. Article 13 of the Directive requires the Member States to adopt the measures necessary to implement it in national law at the latest 18 months after the Directive enters into force and to inform the Com- mission thereof. The Directive entered into 5. On 31 January 2000, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 226 EC to the French Republic, 1 — Original language: German. requesting it to take the necessary measures 2 — OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31. within two months.
I - 6338
COMMISSION v FRANCE
6. The French Republic replied to this by 9. The French Republic makes no applica- letter of 8 April 2000, in which it promised tions in its defence. By letter of 16 March that it would pass the necessary implemen- 2001, the Commission waived its right to tation provisions by the end of the first half file a reply. of the year 2000.
7. No notification or information that the French Republic had taken the measures necessary to implement the Directive was II — The breach of Treaty obligations received in the following period, and there- fore, on 6 December 2000, the Commis- sion lodged an application initiating pro- ceedings at the Court.
Submissions of the parties
8. The Commission claims that the Court should 10. Referring to the obligations of the Member States under Article 249(3) EC, Article 10 EC and Article 13 of the Direc- tive, the Commission submits that the French Republic either did not take the 1. declare that, in not introducing the measures necessary to implement the Direc- laws, regulations and administrative tive or did not communicate these measures provisions necessary to comply with and so failed to fulfil the obligations in Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July question. 1996 on the harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boat- masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland water- way in the Community, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those 11. The French Republic does not deny provisions to the Commission, the that it failed to fulfil its obligation to French Republic has failed to fulfil its implement the Directive in national law obligations under that Directive; within the prescribed period, but it submits that the delay in implementing the Direc- tive is to be attributed to the extent of the legislative work and consultations neces- sary for this. However, it refers to the progress achieved and in this connection to 2. order the French Republic to pay the plans for a Decree on the navigation of costs. vessels on inland waterways and for an
I - 6339
OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-468/00
implementing regulation to this effect. The clearly wishes to show that it has made drafts of these two documents are attached efforts to implement the Directive, is to the defence as an annex. immaterial, since an application based on Article 226 EC is designed only to obtain an objective declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its Treaty obliga- tions and not proof of any opposition or inertia on the part of the Member State in question. 4
Assessment
12. Since the French Government does not deny that there has been delay in preparing the necessary legislative measures, it also does not deny that it has failed to imple- 15. The Commission's action is therefore ment the Directive within the prescribed well founded. period.
13. The French Government submits that there are domestic difficulties in preparing the necessary legislation. In regard to that submission, it is sufficient to point out that, according to the consistent case-law of the Court, a Member State may not invoke I I I— Costs provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. 3
16. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the losing party, on 14. Moreover, a submission such as that of application, shall be ordered to bear the the French Government in the present case, costs. Since the Commission has made such that the national legislative process has an application and the French Republic's reached an advanced stage, by which it submissions have been unsuccessful, it must bear the costs.
3 — See, inter alia, Case C-374/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-10799 in paragraph 13, and Case C-166/97 Com- 4 — See the judgment in Case 301/81 Commission v Belgium mission v France [1999] ECR I-1719, paragraph 13. [1983] ECR 467, paragraph 8.
I - 6340
COMMISSION v FRANCE
IV — Conclusion
17. In the light of the foregoing I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, in not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boat- masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.
I - 6341