Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-216/94)

law://eu/cjeu/1994/c-216-94@2026-11-13

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)13 July 1995^noteIn Case C-216/94,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Marie-José Jonczy, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vKingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, Director of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of: Ε Α. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. E Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, 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 11 May 1995,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 July 1994, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed period and, in the alternative, by not notifying to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16; ‘the directive’), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

2The main purpose of the directive is to establish a general system for the recognition of diplomas in all Member States. The first paragraph of Article 12 requires Member States to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive within two years of its notification and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. That period expired on 4 January 1991.

3Having received no notification of national measures implementing the directive, and having no other information to show that the Kingdom of Belgium had proceeded to implement it, the Commission put the Belgian Government on formal notice by letter of 28 June 1991 to present its observations within two months.

4The Belgian Government requested and obtained a one-month extension of that period, and then replied, in a letter of 14 October 1991, that a series of provisions was in preparation in order to enable the directive to be implemented.

5In the absence of any further information, the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion to the Belgian Government on 6 November 1992, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, to the effect that, by not adopting the measures for implementing the directive within the prescribed period and/or by not notifying them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its Community obligations. The Commission requested Belgium to take the necessary measures in order to comply with the opinion within two months.

6That opinion remained unanswered, whereupon the Commission brought this action.

7The Belgian Government lodged its defence at the Court Registry on 27 September 1994, attaching the text of the Law of 29 April 1994 {Moniteur Belge, 20 July 1994), which enables the King to take measures, by order debated in cabinet, to implement the obligations arising from the directive. In the Government's submission, that Law has implemented the directive in Belgian law. It adds, however, that implementing measures have been taken in some sectors, whilst other measures have yet to be adopted.

8The Commission considers, first, that since the Law of 29 April 1994 contains nothing more than an enablement for measures implementing the directive to be taken, it cannot itself constitute sufficient implementation. In any event, it was not notified to the Commission until 22 September 1994, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

9The Commission then points out that the Belgian Government itself acknowledges that measures necessary for implementing the directive have not yet been adopted in all sectors. In any event, no measures for putting the Law of 29 April 1994 into effect have been notified to the Commission.

10It appears from the file that on 4 January 1991, the expiry date of the period for implementing the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium had not yet taken any measures to put it into effect.

11In those circumstances, the declaration sought by the Commission must be granted.

12The Court must therefore declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations.

Costs

13Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the defendant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)hereby declares:

1.By not adopting within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

2.The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 July 1995.

Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-216/94)

Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-216/94)

Judgment

Costs

Operative part

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version

Judgment

Costs

Operative part