C-351/01
ECLI:EU:C:2002:355
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62001CC0351
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-351/01
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 6 June 2002 1
1. In the present proceedings brought with inform the Commission thereof.' against the French Republic for failure to Since, by that date, the Commission had fulfil its obligations under the Treaty, the not received any information regarding Commission claims that the Court should: transposition of the directive, on 8 August 2000 it sent the French Republic a letter of formal notice. The French Government replied by way of a letter from the French (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the Permanent Representation of 16 Novem- laws, regulations and administrative ber 2000, in which it referred to the provisions necessary to comply with preliminary draft of a law transposing the Directive 98/5/EC of the European directive. On 24 January 2001, the Com- Parliament and of the Council of mission addressed a reasoned opinion to 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice the French Republic and set a time-limit of of the profession of lawyer on a two months for compliance with the permanent basis in a Member State requirement to transpose the directive. other than that in which the qualifi- cation was obtained, 2 the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli- gations under that directive;
4. It is undisputed that upon the expiry of that period the laws, regulations and (2) order the French Republic to pay the administrative provisions necessary to costs. transpose the directive had not been adopted. At that time, as in the proceedings before the Court, the French Government 2. Pursuant to Article 16 of the directive, referred to progress made in the legislative the period prescribed for transposition procedure. It is, however, settled case-law expired on 14 March 2000. that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation at the end of the period laid down in the 3. Paragraph 1 of that provision states: reasoned opinion.3 Since it is undisputed 'Member States shall bring into force the that, at that time, the directive had not yet laws, regulations and administrative provi- been transposed into the French legal sions necessary to comply with this direc- system, the French Republic has failed to tive by 14 March 2000. They shall forth- fulfil its Treaty obligations.
1 — Original language: German. 3 — See, to that effect, Case C-364/00 Commission v Nether- 2 — OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36. lands [2002] ECR I-4177.
I - 8102
COMMISSION v FRANCE
Costs ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's plead- ings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the French Republic has been 5. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be pay the costs.
Conclusion
6. I therefore propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
I-8103