C-140/01
ECLI:EU:C:2001:706
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62001CC0140
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-140/01
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 13 December 2001 1
1. The Commission is bringing the present notified it, by letter of 17 October 2000, of infringement proceedings against the King- the adoption of the decree in December dom of Belgium for belated or incomplete 2000. When the action, which was regis- transposition of Council Directive tered at the Court on 28 March 2001, was 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules brought on 27 March 2001, the Commis- and standards for passenger ships. 2 It sion had still not been notified of the claims that the Kingdom of Belgium has complete transposition of the directive. failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive and under the EC Treaty.
3. The Commission claims that the Court should:
2. Article 14 of the directive provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi- sions necessary to comply with this direc- tive not later than 1 July 1998. Since no (1) declare that, by failing to notify the measures transposing the directive were laws, regulations and administrative communicated to the Commission by that measures necessary in order to comply date, or even thereafter, it sent a letter of with Council Directive 98/18/EC of formal notice dated 11 August 1999 to the 17 March 1998 on safety rules and Belgian Government. In its reply of 27 Sep- standards for passenger ships, alter- tember 1999 the Belgium Government natively to adopt the measures necess- transmitted the Royal Decree of 12 No- ary in order to comply therewith, the vember 1981 which covered a proportion Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil of the matters dealt with by Directive its obligations under the said directive 98/18. The adoption of a further Royal and under the EC Treaty; Decree transposing the directive was noti- fied. On 7 September 2000 the Commis- sion delivered a reasoned opinion in response to which the Belgian Government
1 — Original language: German. (2) order the Belgian Government to pay 2 — OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1. the costs.
I - 2106
COMMISSION v BELGIUM
4. In the pre-litigation procedure and in the system of a Member State cannot justify proceedings before the Court the Belgian failure to comply with obligations and Government referred both to the Royal time-limits laid down in Community direc- Decree of 12 November 1981 and a Royal tives or, consequently, the belated or Decree of 9 December 1998 by which the incomplete transposition of a directive. directive had been transposed at least in Since Directive 98/18 had not been trans- part. However, both in the pre-litigation posed completely into national law by the procedure and in the proceedings before the end of the period laid down in the reasoned Court the Belgian Government conceded opinion, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to that Directive 98/18 had been transposed fulfil its obligations under Community law. only partially and that work was under way on a Royal Decree transposing the directive in full.
5. The Court has consistently held 3that the material time for the purpose of deter- mining whether a Member State has failed 7. The Member State's obligation to trans- to fulfil its obligations is the end of the pose the directive arises, firstly, from the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. directive directly, and, secondly, from the In any event, when the two-month period third paragraph of Article 249 EC, read in which was laid down in the reasoned conjunction with Article 10 EC. Since the opinion of 7 September 2000, and which Kingdom of Belgium has accordingly failed began to run on notification of the letter to fulfil its obligations under Community containing the opinion, expired, the noti- law, I propose that judgment be given fied Royal Decree had still not been against it in the terms sought in the enacted. application.
6. The Court has also consistently held 4 that practices or circumstances in the legal
3 — See Case C-384/99 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-10633, paragraph 16. 8. The decision on costs should be given in 4 — Case C-303/92 Commission v Netherlands [1993] ECR accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules I-4739, paragraph 9, and Case C-139/97 Commisison v Italy [1998] ECR I-605, paragraph 10. of Procedure.
I - 2107
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-140/01
Conclusion
9. I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply fully with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said directive and under the EC Treaty.
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
I - 2108