Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (29/81)

III —Submissions and arguments of the parties

In its application the Commission claims that since directives are binding in character Member States have an obligation to comply with the periods prescribed by them for the adoption of national implementing provisions.An infringement of the Treaty by a Member State exists irrespective of the organ of the State whose act or omissions were the cause of the failure to implement a directive. The Member State in question may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal system in order to justify its conduct.Those principles have been consistently confirmed by the Court in its decisions (see, inter alia, Case 52/75, Commission ν Italy [1976] ECR 277; Case 10/76, Commission ν Italy [1976] ECR 1359; Case 163/78, Commission ν Italy [1979] ECR 771; Case 42/80, Commission ν Italy [1980] ECR 3635; Case 43/80, Commission ν Italy [1980] ECR 3643; Case 44/80, Commission ν Italy [1981] ECR 343; and Case 45/80, Commission ν Italy [1981] ECR 353).In its defence the Italian Government states that the directive in question was included with a view to its implementation in a special draft law which was transmitted to the national administrative authorities concerned in order to obtain the necessary approval from them before the draft law was presented to Parliament. During the approval phase, however, some of those authorities commented in substance on a number of provisions, requesting that the text of the draft law be more detailed. Naturally, the result of this was to slow down the procedure for approving the law in question.The Italian Government has already approached the authorities concerned to ensure that consideration of the draft law will proceed as quickly as possible. It therefore hopes to be able very shortly to submit the draft to Parliament for approval and for the adoption of the corresponding law so that the object of the action may be considered to have been eliminated in substance.In its reply the Commission points out that the defence gives no details of the period required for the adoption of the draft law.