Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-208/96)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)2 October 1997^noteIn Case C-208/96,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hubert van Vliet, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vKingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Cooperation and Development, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgium Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of: G. E Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges,Advocate General: P. Léger,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 September 1997,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 June 1996, 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 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (OJ 1993 L 62, p. 69), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

2Article 27 of the directive provides that Member States are to bring into force the measures necessary to comply with the directive before 1 October 1993 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3Since it had received no communication from the Belgian Government of the measures transposing the directive, the Commission initiated proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 169 of the Treaty and sent a letter of formal notice to the Belgian Government on 3 December 1993, requesting it to submit its observations within a period of two months.

4The Belgian Government did not reply to that letter and on 26 September 1994 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion requiring it to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the opinion within two months of its notification.

5By letter of 9 October 1995 the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that the existing legislation partially satisfied the requirements of the directive and that a draft royal decree completing its transposition was almost ready.

6Since then, the Commission has received no further communication from the Belgian authorities.

7It was in those circumstances that the Commission brought the present action.

8The Kingdom of Belgium does not deny that it has not, until now, adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive. It points out that, in so far as the directive is not covered by the existing legislation, two royal decrees must still be adopted in order to complete the transposition. It justifies the delay in adopting those measures on the grounds of the budgetary implications of one of the two decrees.

9It is, however, settled case-law that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or situations of its own internal legal order in order to justify its failure to respect the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive (see, in particular, Case C-107/96 Commission v Spain [1997] ECR I-3193, paragraph 10).

10Since the directive was not transposed within the period prescribed therein, the action brought by the Commission in relation to it must be regarded as being well founded.

11It must therefore be held that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 thereof.

Costs

12Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Kingdom of Belgium, and since the latter has failed in its submissions, the Kingdom of Belgium must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

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

1.Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 thereof;

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

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 1997.