Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (C-239/94)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)29 February 1996^noteIn Case C-239/94,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack, Legal Adviser, and David Mclntyre, a national officiai on secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the 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 Embassy of Ireland, 28 Route d'Arlon,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, 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 7 December 1995,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 30 August 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 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1991 L 128, p. 1) (hereinafter ‘the Directive’), or, alternatively, by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, in particular Article 17 thereof, and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty.

2Under the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the Directive, Member States were required to take the measures necessary to comply with the Directive no later than 6 November 1992 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3Ireland does not deny that the Directive has not been transposed within the prescribed period. It says, however, that ministerial regulations designed to transpose it are in the course of preparation.

4Since the Directive has not been transposed within the period prescribed by Article 17 thereof, the Commission's claim that Ireland is in breach of its obligations in that regard must be regarded as well founded.

5It must accordingly be held that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of the Directive and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty.

Costs

6Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since Ireland has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

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

1.Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of the Directive and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty;

2.Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 February 1996.