C-323/97 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)9 July 1998^noteIn Case C-323/97,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, 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,νKingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, General Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges,Advocate General: G. Cosmas,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 May 1998,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 September 1997, 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 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (OJ 1994 L 368, p. 38, hereinafter ‘the directive’), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2Under the first paragraph of Article 14 of the directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith before 1 January 1996 and inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

3Since it had not received any notification concerning the transposition of the directive into Belgian law and had no other information enabling it to conclude that the Kingdom of Belgium had complied with that obligation, the Commission gave that State formal notice by letter of 27 February 1996 to submit its observations within two months.

4Having received no reply from the Belgian authorities, the Commission, by letter of 27 November 1996, issued a reasoned opinion in which it found that, by not adopting the measures necessary to comply with the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder, and called upon it to take the necessary measures within two months.

5By letter of 28 March 1997, the Belgian authorities replied that the Government was examining the difficulties raised by the transposition of the directive into national law, which required Article 8 of the Belgian Constitution to be revised first.

6In view of the fact that, in the meantime, no progress had been made, the Commission decided to bring this action.

7While not denying that the directive has not been implemented within the prescribed time-limit, the Kingdom of Belgium explains that the delay is due to the need to revise Article 8 of the Belgian Constitution, pursuant to the rules of procedure provided for in Article 195 of the Constitution. The Belgian Government further states that the process of implementing the directive is at a very advanced stage. The implementing law should thus be adopted during the second quarter of 1998 and published in the Moniteur Belge in the fourth quarter of 1998.

8The Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-107/96 Commission ν Spain [1997] ECRI-3193, paragraph 10).

9Since the directive has not been transposed into national law within the prescribed period, the Commission's action must be considered to be well founded.

10Accordingly, it must 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, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 14 thereof.

Costs

11Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of Belgium 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 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 14 of that directive;

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

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on. 9 July 1998.