Arrêt de la Cour
Case C-89/03
Commission of the European Communities
v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations ? Failure to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC)
«Compétence judiciaire, reconnaissance et exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale — Règlement (CE) nº 44/2001 — Reconnaissance et exécution — Article 34, point 2 — Décision rendue par défaut — Motif de refus — Notion de défendeur défaillant 'en mesure' d'exercer un recours contre la décision — Défaut de signification et de notification de celle-ci.»
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 2 October 2003
Summary of the Judgment
Member States ? Obligations ? Implementation of directives ? Failure to fulfil obligations ? National system pleaded as justification ? Not permissible
(Art. 226 EC)
disp.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
2 October 2003 (1)
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC))
In Case C-89/03,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by S. Schreiner, acting as Agent,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993 L 121, p. 20), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
THE COURT (First Chamber),,
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 February 2003, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993 L 121, p. 20) or, at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2 In accordance with Article 19 (1) of Directive 93/15, Member States had to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 9 to 14 of the directive before 30 September 1993. Under Article 19(2), Member States had to adopt and publish before 30 June 1994 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions other than those mentioned in Article 19(1). They had to forthwith inform the Commission thereof and apply these provisions as from 1 January 1995.
3 Since Directive 93/15 had not been transposed into Luxembourg law within the period prescribed, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 226 EC. Having given the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg formal notice to submit its observations, on 26 June 2002 the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply with it within a period of two months of its notification. The information sent to the Commission by the Luxembourg authorities having indicated that Directive 93/15 had not yet been implemented, it decided to bring the present action.
4 Without disputing its delay in transposing Directive 93/15, the Luxembourg Government claims the delay was due to a reorganisation of competences between different national bodies in the area of explosives for civil uses. This having now been completed, a draft law intended to implement the directive is being drawn up.
5 According to settled case-law, Member States cannot plead domestic circumstances or practical difficulties to justify non-transposition within prescribed time-limits (see, on this point, Case C-52/91 Commission v Netherlands [1993] ECR I-3069, paragraph 36, and Case C-140/00 Commission v United Kingdom [2002] ECR I-10379, paragraph 60).
6 In those circumstances, the action brought by the Commission must be regarded as well founded.
7 It must therefore be held that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 93/15, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Costs
8 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 to be awarded against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the latter has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
hereby:
1. Declares that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, 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.
Wathelet
Jann
Rosas
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 2003.
R. Grass
M. Wathelet
Registrar
President of the First Chamber
1 – Language of the case: French. Top
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy