Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (C-138/94)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber)14 December 1995^noteIn Case C-138/94,Commission of the European Communities, represented by José Luis Iglesias Buhigues, Legal Adviser, and James Macdonald Flett, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vIreland, represented by Michael A. Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Irish Embassy, 28 Route d'Arlon,THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges,Advocate General: C. O. Lenz,Registrar: R. Grass,having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 November 1995,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 May 1994, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 56, hereinafter ‘the Directive’) and/or in failing to inform the Commission forthwith thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 30 thereof, and under the Treaty establishing the European Community.

2Under Article 30(1) of the Directive the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 1 July 1992 at the latest and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3Since the Commission had not been informed of any provisions adopted by Ireland in order to comply with the Directive and since it had no other evidence from which it could conclude that Ireland had fulfilled its obligations under the Directive, the Commission, by letter of 14 October 1992, gave Ireland formal notice of its default in this matter.

4Since there was no reply to that letter, the Commission sent to Ireland on 11 May 1993 a reasoned opinion in accordance with Article 169 of the Treaty, drawing attention to Ireland's obligations under the Directive.

5By letter of 15 July 1993 from the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the European Communities, the Irish authorities stated that a procedure for transposing the Directive was in progress. Since it had not received any notification from Ireland that the necessary provisions had been brought into force, the Commission initiated the present proceedings.

6The Commission points out the obligations to which Ireland is subject in terms both of the Directive, in particular Article 30(1) thereof, and the first paragraph of Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty. It states that, by failing to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations.

7Ireland observes that in a letter of 11 August 1994 from its Permanent Representation to the European Communities it informed the Commission that it had complied with the Directive, save in so far as the obligations with respect to fish and fishery products were concerned. As regards those obligations, it had indicated that the procedure for transposing them into national law was in progress.

8While it accepts that Ireland has adopted some transposition measures, the Commission maintains that, by failing to comply with all its obligations under the Directive, Ireland has still failed to discharge its duty under it.

9Since Ireland has not adopted all the provisions necessary to comply with the Directive within the period prescribed in Article 30(1) thereof, the failure alleged by the Commission in that regard must be found to be established.

10It must therefore be held that by failing to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(1) of the Directive.

Costs

11Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they are asked for in the other party's pleadings. Since the Commission has asked for costs and Ireland has been unsuccessful, Ireland must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)hereby:

1.Declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(1) of that directive;

2.Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 December 1995.