C-343/97 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)9 July 1998^noteIn Case C-343/97,Commission of the European Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, 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,νKingdom of Belgium, represented by Annie Snoecx, Assistant Adviser in the Directorate General for Legal Affairs, 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 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou, Judges,Advocate General: A. La Pergola,Registrar: R. Grass,having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 May 1998,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 October 1997, 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 all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with— Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), and— Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1994 L 297, p. 29),the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

2Under Article 23 of Directive 90/220 and Article 2 of Directive 94/51, the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith before 23 October 1991 and by 30 April 1995 respectively, and inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

3Upon the expiry of those time-limits, the Commission had not received from the Kingdom of Belgium any information concerning measures to implement Directives 90/220 and 94/51 other than that relating to the measures adopted by the Flemish Region with regard only to Directive 90/220. Accordingly, the Commission gave the Belgian Government formal notice on 8 February 1994 with regard to Directive 90/220, and on 2 August 1995 as regards Directive 94/51, to submit its observations to it within two months, pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty.

4So far as concerns Directive 90/220, the Belgian Government informed the Commission by two letters of 22 March and 12 October 1994 that the process of implementation was under way, so that the directive would be applicable throughout the Kingdom before the end of 1994. The letter of formal notice regarding Directive 94/51 remained unanswered.

5Since no official measure transposing Directives 90/220 and 94/51 into Belgian law had been forwarded to the Commission, the latter sent two reasoned opinions, on 11 October and 27 December 1996 respectively, to the Belgian Government requesting it to adopt the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under those two directives within two months.

6So far as concerns Directive 90/220, the Belgian Government forwarded to the Commission the text of a cooperation agreement between the federal and regional authorities, pointing out that the agreement had already been formally approved by the Walloon Region and would soon be approved by the other regions of the Federal State. The Belgian Government informed the Commission that the transposition of Directive 94/51 into national law was in hand.

7Since no information was forthcoming to the effect that the legislative procedure intended to transpose Directives 90/220 and 94/51 had been completed, the Commission initiated these proceedings.

8The Kingdom of Belgium does not deny its failure to adopt all the provisions necessary for the transposition of Directives 90/220 and 94/51 into national law.

9Since the transposition of the two directives has not been achieved within the period laid down therein, the action brought by the Commission must be considered to be well founded.

10It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 90/220 and 94/51, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Directive 90/220 and Article 2 of Directive 94/51.

Costs

11Under 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 the latter has been unsuccessful, 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 failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with— Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, and— Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms,the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Directive 90/220 and Article 2 of Directive 94/51;

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

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 July 1998.