Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
++++
Member States ° Obligations ° Implementation of directives ° Failure ° Justification ° Not permissible
(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)
Summary
A Member State may not rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal system to justify its failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down in Community directives.
Parties
In Case C-303/92,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of N. Annecchino, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
applicant,
v
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J.W. De Zwaan and T. Henkels, Legal Advisers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C.M. Spoo,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (OJ 1987 L 167, p. 54), Council Directive 88/661/EEC of 19 December 1988 on the zootechnical standards applicable to breeding animals of the porcine species (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 36), Council Directive 89/361/EEC of 30 May 1989 concerning pure-bred breeding sheep and goats (OJ 1989 L 153, p. 30), Council Directive 90/118/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of pure-bred breeding pigs for breeding (OJ 1990 L 71, p. 34) and Council Directive 90/119/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of hybrid breeding pigs for breeding (OJ 1990 L 71, p. 36), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty,
THE COURT,
composed of: C.N. Kakouris, President of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, M. Zuleeg and J.L. Murray (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, F. Grévisse, M. Diez de Velasco and P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Tesauro,
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 June 1993,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 July 1992, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (OJ 1987 L 167, p. 54), Council Directive 88/661/EEC of 19 December 1988 on the zootechnical standards applicable to breeding animals of the porcine species (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 36), Council Directive 89/361/EEC of 30 May 1989 concerning pure-bred breeding sheep and goats (OJ 1989 L 153, p. 30), Council Directive 90/118/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of pure-bred breeding pigs for breeding (OJ 1990 L 71, p. 34) and Council Directive 90/119/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of hybrid breeding pigs for breeding (OJ 1990 L 71, p. 36), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
2 The penultimate article of each of the five directives mentioned above provides that the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 87/328/EEC by 1 January 1989 at the latest and with the other directives by 1 January 1991 at the latest, and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
3 By the above dates the Commission had received no notification from the Netherlands Government on this subject and, by letters of 11 October 1989 (relating to Directive 87/328/EEC) and 25 April 1991 (relating to the other directives), it gave the Netherlands Government notice to fulfil its obligations. The Commission considered that the replies from the Netherlands Government were unsatisfactory and on 15 October 1990 and 13 November 1991 addressed reasoned opinions to it.
4 In its replies of 8 January 1991 and 21 November 1991, the Netherlands Government merely indicated that the legislative procedure for implementing the directives in question had begun. The Commission then decided to bring the present action.
5 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the procedure and the submissions and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
6 With regard to the subject-matter of the action, the Netherlands Government observes that the application and the reasoned opinions are not consistent. In the reasoned opinions, the Netherlands Government is alleged to have disregarded the third paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, by failing to implement the directives within the prescribed time-limits. In the application, the subject-matter of the action has been extended to include a breach of Article 8A of the Treaty. The Netherlands Government therefore considers that the complaint relating to Article 8A of the Treaty should be ruled inadmissible.
7 It should be observed that the Commission does indeed state for the first time in the application that the failure to implement the directives before 31 December 1992 could constitute a breach of Article 8A of the Treaty. However, it is clear from all the written observations submitted to the Court by the Commission that, by citing Article 8A, the Commission did not intend to put forward a new complaint, but merely sought to emphasize that the implementation of the directives in question had become urgent.
8 As far as the merits of the action are concerned, the Netherlands Government, admits the failure complained of and justifies the delay in implementing the directives in question by the complexity of the amending legislation required.
9 The Court has consistently held that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal system to justify its failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down in Community directives (see, in particular, Case C-246/88 Commission v Italy [1991] ECR I-2049).
10 It must, therefore, be held that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations in the terms of the form of order sought by the Commission.
Decision on costs
Costs
11 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species, Council Directive 88/661/EEC of 19 December 1988 on the zootechnical standards applicable to breeding animals of the porcine species, Council Directive 89/361/EEC of 30 May 1989 concerning pure-bred breeding sheep and goats, Council Directive 90/118/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of pure-bred breeding pigs for breeding and Council Directive 90/119/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of hybrid breeding pigs for breeding, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy