C-345/92 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court23 March 1993^noteIn Case C-345/92,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ingolf Pernice, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Roberto Hayder, a representative of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vFederal Republic of Germany, represented by E. Röder, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the German Embassy, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter,THE COURT,composed of: O. Due, President, M. Zuleeg and J. L. Murray (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, F. Grévisse, M. Diez de Velasco and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges,Advocate General: G. Tesauro,Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 February 1993,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 August 1992, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EECTreaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 1987 in Case 412/85 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 3503, and hence necessary for the full implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

2In that judgment the Court declared that, by authorizing in Paragraph 22(3) of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (Federal Law on the protection of nature) derogations from the measures for the protection of birds provided for by Directive 79/409, mentioned above, the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

3Since the Commission did not receive notification of the measures which should have been taken by the German authorities in order to ensure compliance with the abovementioned judgment, it initiated the procedure provided for by Article 169 of the Treaty, at the end of which it brought the present proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations.

4Reference is made to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the procedure 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.

5The Federal Republic of Germany states that the provisions required for compliance with the Court's judgment should soon be approved by the legislative authorities.

6It must be pointed out that, even if Article 171 of the Treaty does not specify the period within which a judgment must be complied with, the common interest attaching to the immediate and uniform application of Community law requires that the process of complying with a judgment be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (see the judgment in Case 169/87 Commission v France [1988] ECR 4093, paragraph 14).

7The Commission's claim for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations must therefore be upheld.

Costs

8Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Federal Republic of Germany has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURThereby:

1.Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 1987 in Case 412/85, and hence necessary for the full implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

2.Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 March 1993.