C-483/01
ECLI:EU:C:2003:35
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62001CC0483
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-483/01
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TIZZANO delivered on 16 January 2003 1
1. In the present proceedings under for the transposition of the directive into A r t i c l e 1 4 1 ( 2 ) EA b r o u g h t on national law, in accordance with Article 33 13 December 2001, the Commission of EA. However, the French authorities did the European Communities seeks a declar- not subsequently provide the Commission ation that, by not adopting, or in the with any further information regarding the alternative, by not communicating to the adoption of the measures necessary to Commission, all the laws, regulations and comply with the directive. administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Eu- ratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1, hereinafter 'the directive'), the French Republic has 4. The Commission therefore served notice failed to fulfil its obligations under that on the French Republic by letter of 28 July directive. 2000. In reply, France stated that, whilst it was doing its utmost, it had not yet adopted measures to transpose the direc- tive. Therefore, on 17 January 2001, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion laying down a period of two months within which France had to comply with its obligations under the directive. Following that opinion, 2. Under Article 55 of the directive the the French Republic communicated to the Member States were to bring into force the Commission certain measures transposing laws, regulations and administrative provi- the directive. However, since the directive sions necessary to comply with the directive was still not fully transposed into French before 13 May 2000 and to inform the law within the period prescribed in the Commission thereof forthwith. reasoned opinion, the Commission brought the present action.
3. By letter of 17 April 2000, the French Republic communicated draft provisions 5. Without denying the Commission's alle- gations, the French Government merely 1 — Original language: Italian. admitted in its defence that, upon the
I - 4962
COMMISSION v FRANCE
expiry of the period prescribed in the 6. I consider, therefore, that the action reasoned opinion, the provisions necessary must succeed and the French Republic must for the transposition of the directive had be ordered to pay the costs in accordance still not all been adopted because the with the order sought by the Commission. adoption procedure had taken longer than anticipated.
Conclusion
7. I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
I - 4963