Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (69/86)

Contents

Judgment of the Court12 February 1987^noteIn Case 69/86Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Prozzillo, Legal Adviser to the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G. Kremlis, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,vItalian Republic, represented by Luigi Ferrari Bravo, Head of the Department for Contentious Diplomatic Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Ivo Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,THE COURTcomposed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, C. Kakouris and F. Schockweiler (Presidents of Chambers), T. Koopmans, K. Bahlmann, R. Joliet and G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, Judges,Advocate General: Sir Gordon SlynnRegistrar: D. Louterman, Administratorhaving regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing on 14 January 1987,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the same sitting,gives the following

Judgment

1By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 March 1986 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action before the Court under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that by not complying with the judgment given by the Court on 15 November 1983 in Case 322/82 Commission v Italy [1983] ECR 3689, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty.

2In that judgment the Court declared that:‘The Italian Republic, by not effecting quality controls of fruit and vegetables marketed within Italian territory as required under Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 427) and by not providing monthly statements relating to the inspections carried out during the previous month, as required by Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2638/69 of the Commission of 24 December 1969 laying down additional provisions on quality control of fruit and vegetables marketed within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1962 (II), p. 611), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2150/80 of 18 July 1980 (Official Journal L 210, p. 5), has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.’

3Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for the background to the dispute 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.

4The Commission considered that the Italian Republic had not given effect to the Court's judgment of 15 November 1983 and commenced the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EEC Treaty. After requesting the Italian Republic to submit its observations it delivered a reasoned opinion on 26 September 1986. When no reply to that opinion was received, it brought this action.

5The Commission submits that, following the judgment of 15 November 1983, the Italian Republic was required by Article 171 of the EEC Treaty to take the necessary measures to bring to an end the failure to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty by complying with Regulation No 1035/72 of the Council and Commission Regulations Nos 2638/69 and 2150/80. The Italian Republic has not complied with the judgment of the Court.

6The Italian Government states that, with a view to complying with Regulation No 1035/72 of the Council and Commission Regulations Nos 2638/69 and 2150/80 and the judgment of the Court of 15 November 1983, it has undertaken a study and drawn up a detailed plan of action. In order to implement that plan, it has inserted in the draft plurennial law for the carrying out of planned interventions in agriculture, laid before the Chamber of Deputies on 13 March 1986, a provision for the creation of the structures needed for the inspections which it must carry out and for the transmission of information which it is required to undertake under the aforesaid regulations. At the hearing the Italian Government indicated that, unfortunately, owing to various difficulties, it had still not been possible to enact that law.

7It must be pointed out in this regard that the Court has consistently held that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or situations in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with its obligations under Community law. In its judgment of 15 November 1983 the Court held that in not carrying out the quality controls and not providing monthly statements relating to the inspections carried out under the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1035/72 of the Council and Regulation No 2638/69 of the Commission, as amended by Regulation No 2150/80, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

8Article 171 of the EEC Treaty does not specify the period within which a judgment must be complied with. However, it is beyond dispute that the action required to give effect to a judgment must be set in motion immediately and be completed in the shortest possible period. In the present case, such period has been greatly exceeded.

9It must therefore be declared that by failing to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 15 November 1983 in Case 322/82, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty.

Costs

10Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs Since the Italian Republic has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURThereby:

(1).Declares that, by failing to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 15 November 1983 in Case 322/82, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty;

(2).Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 February 1987.