C-138/96 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)12 June 1997^noteIn Case C-138/96,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vFederal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Röder, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat in that Ministry, acting as Agents,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,Registrar: R. Grass,having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 April 1997,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 April 1996, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat (OJ 1993 L 62, p. 1, hereinafter ‘the Directive’), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the EC Treaty.

2Member States were required under Article 3(1) of the Directive to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it not later than 1 January 1994, except in the case of establishments situated in, inter alia, the new Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany covered by restructuring plans, which were required to transpose the Directive not later than 1 January 1995. Member States were required under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) to inform the Commission forthwith of the provisions adopted.

3Since it did not receive any notification from the Federal Republic of Germany regarding transposition of the Directive, the Commission sent to it, on 10 February 1994, a letter of formal notice in accordance with Article 169 of the Treaty. In that letter the Commission requested the German Government to submit to it its observations within two months of receipt.

4By letter of 28 April 1994 the German Government informed the Commission that the draft Law on health standards for poultrymeat, designed to transpose the Directive, would be put before the Bundestag before the end of the first half of 1994.

5In the absence of any subsequent notification by the German Government, the Commission sent to it, by letter of 5 October 1994, a reasoned opinion in which it criticized that Government for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and the Treaty and called on it to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the opinion within two months of its notification.

6Following that reasoned opinion, the German Government, by letter of 12 December 1994, informed the Commission that it had not proved possible to meet the timetable envisaged for adopting the Law referred to in the letter of 28 April 1994, but added that the draft Law had in the meantime been discussed in the Bundesrat and was to be put before the Bundestag in early 1995, so that the Law could be adopted in the spring of 1995. By way of additional information, the German Government annexed the draft Law to its letter to the Commission.

7In a further communication, dated 15 August 1995, the German Government informed the Commission that, in view of the problems that had arisen, the Law was unlikely to be promulgated before the first quarter of 1996.

8In the absence of any other communication allowing it to conclude that the Federal Republic of Germany had in the interim fulfilled its obligations under the Directive, the Commission brought the present action for failure to fulfil obligations.

9The German Government does not contest the infringement with which it is charged. It has, however, pointed out that the Law on health measures applicable to poultrymeat was published on 23 July 1996 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 991) and that the procedure to adopt the regulation implementing that Law, and consequently transposing the Directive, would be completed by the end of 1996 at the latest.

10Submitting, in addition, that the delay in transposing the Directive did not obstruct intra-Community trade, the German Government requested the Court to stay the present proceedings until the national implementing regulation had been adopted. That request was rejected.

11Since the Directive was not transposed within the period which it prescribed, the action brought by the Commission must be held to be well founded.

12It must accordingly be held that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.

Costs

13Under 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 COURT (Sixth Chamber)hereby:

1.Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 June 1997.