← Späť na vyhľadávanie
Súdny dvor Európskej únie·10.1.2002

C-29/01

ECLI:EU:C:2002:10

Súd
Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS
62001CC0029

OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-29/01

O P I N I O N O F ADVOCATE GENERAL STIX-HACKL delivered on 10 January 2002 1

1. By its application under Article 226 EC, 2000 the Spanish Government submitted received at the Court of Justice on 24 its response in which it announced — January 2001, the Commission seeks a referring to a bill which already declaration that, by failing to adopt the existed — a draft law for the implemen- laws, regulations and administrative provi- tation of the directive and completion of sions necessary to comply with Council the legislative procedure towards the end of Directive 96/61/EEC of 24 September 1996 2001, which it justified by the need for concerning integrated pollution prevention consultation within Spain. The Commis- and control 2or, in any event, by failing to sion then brought the present action. communicate those provisions to the Com- mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The Commission also seeks an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs. 3. It is settled case-law of the Court of Justice that the relevant time for determin- ing whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations is the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. 3 That period expired on 27 September 2001 without the measures required by the 2. As no implementing provisions had been Commission having been adopted. The communicated to the Commission by Spanish Government in fact stated that 30 October 1999, the time-limit for imple- it was working on the implementing law menting the directive, and the Commission and that the national procedure was in had received no other information in that progress. regard, it initiated the Treaty infringement procedure. After it had given the Kingdom of Spain an opportunity to submit its observations, it delivered a reasoned opinion on 27 July 2000 in which it called 4. It is also settled case-law of the Court of on the Kingdom of Spain to adopt the Justice that the Member States may not necessary measures within two months and plead provisions of national law in order to to inform the Commission thereof. By letter justify the failure to implement a directive of 8 September 2000 the Kingdom of Spain by the date required. 4 sought an extension of one month, but its request was not granted. On 6 December 3 — Case C-384/99 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-10633, paragraph 16. 1 — Original language: German. 4 — Case C-139/97 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-605, paragraph 10, and Case C-323/97 Commission v Belgium 2 — OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26. [1998] ECR I-4281, paragraph 8.

I - 2504

COMMISSION v SPAIN

5. The obligation under Community law to 6. As the Kingdom of Spain has thus not implement the directive follows, on the one complied with its obligation under Com- hand, directly from the directive and, on munity law, the Commission's application the other, from Article 249(3) EC and should be upheld and a declaration made Article 10 EC. that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and must pay the costs.

Conclusion

7. I therefore propose that the Court of Justice should rule as follows:

(1) By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/61/EEC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control within the prescribed period, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(2) The Kingdom of Spain must pay the costs.

I - 2505

Text rozhodnutia bol prevzatý z verejne dostupných úradných zdrojov. Rozhodnutie je úradným dokumentom.
Navrhy_ga C-29/01 – Súdny dvor Európskej únie | AI Pravnik