C-414/01
ECLI:EU:C:2002:577
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62001CC0414
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-414/01
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL STIX-HACKL delivered on 10 October 2002 1
1. By its application under Article 226 EC, directive by 4 June 2000, the time-limit for received at the Court of Justice on 17 Oc- its transposition, and the Commission had tober 2001, the Commission seeks a dec- received no other information in that laration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regard, it initiated the Treaty infringement regulations and administrative provisions procedure. After it had given the Kingdom necessary to comply with Directive of Spain an opportunity to submit its 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and observations and had not received any of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the reply within the period prescribed, it protection of consumers in respect of dis- delivered a reasoned opinion on 9 March tance contracts 2 or, in any event, by failing 2001 in which it called on the Kingdom of to inform the Commission of such provi- Spain to adopt the necessary measures sions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to within two months and to inform the fulfil its obligations under that directive. Commission thereof. The Commission also requests that the Kingdom of Spain be ordered to pay the costs.
4. In a letter of 25 June 2001 in reply to that reasoned opinion, the Spanish auth- orities pointed out that in order to trans- pose the directive into national law it was 2. In accordance with Article 15(1) of the necessary to amend Law 7/96 of 15 Janu- directive, the Member States were required ary 1996 (Law regulating retail trade). to bring into force the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions no later than three years after the directive entered into force, in other words by 4 June 2000, and immediately to inform the Commission thereof. 5. As the Commission did not subsequently receive either a draft law or any infor- mation as to the further course of the national legislative procedure, it brought the present action.
3. As the Commission had not been informed of any measures transposing the
1 — Original language: German. 6. The Kingdom of Spain does not deny its 2 — OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19. obligation to transpose Directive 97/7/EC
I - 11122
COMMISSION v SPAIN
within the prescribed period, however it adopted. It is therefore clear that the submits that it has initiated the national directive was not transposed within the procedure necessary to ensure transposition period prescribed. of the directive. The application must therefore be dismissed and the Commission ordered to pay the costs.
9. It is also settled case-law of the Court that the Member States may not plead provisions of national law in order to justify the failure to transpose a directive 7. It submits that the reason for the delay by the date required. 4 was that the Spanish legislature initially discussed in detail whether it was necessary to transpose the directive by amending Law 7/96 or enacting new provisions, or whether Law 7/96 in fact already met the requirements of Directive 97/7. After the decision had been taken to amend Law 7/96, the questions arose whether it was necessary to amend any other Spanish 10. The obligation under Community law legislation and whether there was any to transpose the directive follows, on the connection with the new legislation on one hand, directly from the directive and, e-commerce. on the other, from Articles 249(3) EC and 10 EC.
11. As the Kingdom of Spain has thus not 8. It is settled case-law of the Court that the complied with its obligation under Com- relevant time for determining whether a munity law, the Commission's application Member State has failed to fulfil its obli- should be upheld and a declaration made gations is the end of the period laid down in that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to the reasoned opinion. 3That period expired fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and on 9 May 2001 without the measures must pay the costs. required by the Commission having been
4 — Sec, inter alia, Case C-139/97 Commission v Italy [1998] 3 — Case C-384/99 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR ECR I-605, paragraph 11, or Case C-147/00 Commission v I-10633, paragraph 16. France [2001) ECR 1-2387, paragraph 26.
I-11123
OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-414/01
Conclusion
12. I therefore propose that the Court of Justice should rule as follows:
— By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts within the prescribed period, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
— The Kingdom of Spain must pay the costs.
I -11124