C-93/94 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber)17 January 1995^noteIn Case C-93/94,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vKingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den Oosterkamp, Assistant Legal Advisers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo,THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), Judges,Advocate General: G. Tesauro,Registrar: R. Grass,having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 November 1994,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 March 1994, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin, and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (OJ 1990 L 363, p. 51), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

2Article 21(1) of Directive 90/667 provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with the directive by 31 December 1991 at the latest.

3The Commission points out in its application that under Article 189 of the Treaty a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. It follows from the binding nature of directives that the Member States are required to comply with the time-limits prescribed, as is clear — in particular — from the Court's judgment in Case 10/76 Commission v Italy [1976] ECR 1359.

4The Commission claims that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 90/667 into Netherlands law within the period prescribed in the directive, that is to say, by 31 December 1991 and thus jeopardizing the establishment of the internal market, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

5The Netherlands Government accepts that Directive 90/667 was not transposed within the period prescribed by the directive. By way of explanation it states that the primary reason for the delay is that the directive provides for an entirely new system requiring significant legislative amendment and that the implementing measures are currently going through the necessary parliamentary procedure.

6Consequently, by failing to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of the directive in question within the period prescribed, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of the directive.

Costs

7Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of the Netherlands has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

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

1.Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin, and amending Directive 90/425/EEC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of the first-mentioned directive;

2.Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 January 1995.