C-484/01
ECLI:EU:C:2003:36
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62001CC0484
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-484/01
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TIZZANO delivered on 16 January 2003 1
1. In the present proceedings under 3. By letter of 17 April 2000, the French A r t i c l e 1 4 1 ( 2 ) EA b r o u g h t on Republic communicated draft provisions 13 December 2001, the Commission of for the transposition of the directive into the European Communities seeks a declar- national law, in accordance with Article 33 ation that, by not adopting, or in the EA. However, the French authorities did alternative, by not communicating to the not subsequently provide the Commission Commission, all the laws, regulations and with any further information regarding the administrative provisions necessary to adoption of the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/43/Eu- comply with the directive. ratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ioniz- ing radiation in relation to medical expo- sure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Eura- tom (OJ 1997 L 180, p. 22, hereinafter 'the directive'), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
4. The Commission therefore served notice on the French Republic by letter of 28 July 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 2. Under Article 14(1) of the directive the France had to comply with its obligations Member States were to bring into force the under the directive. Following that opinion, laws, regulations and administrative provi- the French Republic communicated to the sions necessary to comply with the directive Commission certain measures transposing before 13 May 2000 and to inform the the directive. However, since the directive Commission thereof forthwith. was still not fully transposed into French law within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the Commission brought 1 — Original language: Italian. the present action.
I - 4976
COMMISSION v FRANCE
5. Without denying the Commission's alle- 6. I consider, therefore, that the action gations, the French Government merely must succeed and the French Republic must admitted in its defence that, upon the be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance expiry of the period prescribed in the with the order sought by the Commission. reasoned opinion, the provisions necessary for the transposition of the directive had still not all been adopted because the 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 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
I - 4977