Avis juridique important
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Grand-duché de Luxembourg. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 98/76/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. - Case C-107/01.
European Court reports 2001 Page I-10357
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested
(Art. 226 EC)
PartiesIn Case C-107/01,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by J. Faltz, acting as Agent,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations (OJ 1998 L 277, p. 17) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 October 2001,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 6 March 2001, 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 Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations (OJ 1998 L 277, p. 17, hereinafter the directive) or, in any event, by not informing it of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.
2 Article 2(1), first subparagraph, of the directive provides:
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive no later than 1 October 1999. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
3 In accordance with the procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 226 EC the Commission, having given the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg formal notice to submit its observations, delivered a reasoned opinion to it by letter of 1 August 2000 requesting it to take the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the directive within a period of two months of delivery of that opinion.
4 By letter of 24 August 2000 the Luxembourg authorities stated that the national measures necessary to transpose the directive were in the course of being adopted.
5 As no other information relating to the transposition of the directive was sent to the Commission, it decided to bring the present action.
6 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg states that the draft law transposing, inter alia, the directive and two draft Grand Ducal Regulations were approved by the Conseil de governement on 21 July 2000. The Commission received copies of that draft legislation in August 2000.
7 Those matters do not, however, alter the fact that, as is apparent from the explanation submitted by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the directive was not implemented within the period fixed in the reasoned opinion. In those circumstances, the action brought by the Commission is well founded.
8 Consequently, it must be declared that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.
Decision on costsCosts
9 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. The Commission has applied for costs. Since the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.
Operative partOn those grounds,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
hereby:
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Top