Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
Member States Obligations Implementation of directives Failure to fulfil obligations not contested
(Art. 226 EC)
Parties
In Case C-370/99,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Banks and M. Desantes, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Ireland, represented by M.A. Buckley, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 19 October 2000,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2 Under Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 96/9, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive before 1 January 1998 and communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of domestic law which they had adopted in the field governed by that directive.
3 Since the Commission had not received any communication of the measures which Ireland was to take in order to implement Directive 96/9, by letter of 31 March 1998, it gave Ireland formal notice to submit its observations to it within two months.
4 By letter of 18 May 1998, the Irish authorities replied to that formal notice by referring to a Bill which was being finalised and which would implement Directive 96/9.
5 Since it had not received any further information, by letter of 2 October 1998, the Commission sent Ireland a reasoned opinion requesting it to comply with it within two months of notification of that opinion.
6 In response to that reasoned opinion, the Irish authorities stated in a letter of 1 December 1998 that the Bill transposing Directive 96/9 would be enacted shortly, but did not mention a precise date for enactment. According to that letter, the delay being experienced in transposing that directive was explained by the substantial legislative work which would be required to provide an effective and modern system of copyright and related rights.
7 In the absence of any subsequent information about the transposition of Directive 96/9 into Ireland's domestic legal system, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
8 The Commission recalls Member States' obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC) and under Article 16 of Directive 96/9 and submits that, in breach of those obligations, Ireland has failed to adopt in due time the measures required to transpose the provisions of that directive into its domestic law.
9 In its defence, and without disputing its failure to transpose Directive 96/9 into its domestic law within the time-limit prescribed, Ireland contends that, in order to implement the Directive, it has proved necessary to carry out a complete revision of the copyright legislation, a task which will shortly be completed. It requests, therefore, that the infringement proceedings be suspended for six months, which would enable it to adopt the necessary provisions of domestic law. After having examined those provisions, the Commission would be able to discontinue the proceedings.
10 The Commission, however, opposes that request for suspension of the proceedings, in particular because of the considerable time Ireland has had to transpose Directive 96/9, since the action was not commenced until one and a half years after the time-limit for transposition laid down by that directive had expired. The Commission adds that if it did not act within the normal time-limits laid down by the Court, it would be failing in its obligations as guardian of the Treaty.
11 For the reasons set out by the Advocate General in points 12 to 15 of his Opinion, the Court finds that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Decision on costs
Costs
12 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and Ireland has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
hereby:
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy