C-347/99 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber)14 December 2000^noteIn Case C-347/99,Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,vIreland, represented by M.A. Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Irish Embassy, 28 Route d'Arlon,THE COURT (Second Chamber),composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges,Advocate General: EG. Jacobs,Registrar: R. Grass,having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 October 2000,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 September 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (OJ 1995 L 249, p. 35), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2Under the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of that directive, Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/50 by 1 January 1997 and are forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3Since it had not received any information concerning measures taken by Ireland to comply with Directive 95/50, the Commission gave Ireland formal notice, by letter of 5 November 1997, to submit its observations within two months.

4By letter of 8 September 1998, the Irish authorities directed the attention of the Commission to an attached copy of a letter of 5 January 1998, addressed to the Secretary-General of the Commission, which gave details of arrangements being made and difficulties being encountered in the preparation of legislation to implement Directive 95/50. The letter stated that it was expected that the legislative process would be completed during the course of the next parliamentary session, that is before the end of 1998.

5Since it had not received any further information on the measures that had been taken by Ireland to comply with Directive 95/50, the Commission on 24 September 1998 sent Ireland a reasoned opinion requesting it to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive within two months from the notification of that opinion.

6In their reply of 2 February 1999, the Irish authorities informed the Commission that the legislation required to facilitate accession by Ireland to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) had been fully enacted and that the implementing regulations, which would ensure full implementation of the requirements of Directive 95/50, would be communicated to the Commission as soon as possible.

7In a letter of 26 April 1999, the Irish authorities informed the Commission that Ireland had not yet implemented Directive 95/50 and that, therefore, it was not in a position to submit the annual report on its application as required under Article 9(1) of the directive.

8Since it received no further information from the Irish Government on the transposition of Directive 95/50, the Commission decided to make the present application.

9In it, the Commission points out that the obligation on the part of Ireland to take measures in order to comply with Directive 95/50 is not disputed. It states that Ireland has not informed it of the provisions adopted to that end, and since it is in possession of no other information enabling it to conclude that Ireland has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume that Ireland has not yet adopted such provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

10Without denying the charge, Ireland merely states, in its defence, that work is continuing on a draft of regulations to implement Directive 95/50.

11Accordingly, since the directive in question has not been transposed within the prescribed period by Ireland, the Commission's action must be considered to be well founded.

12It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with Directive 95/50, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Costs

13Under 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 and Ireland has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

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

1.Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2.Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 December 2000.

Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (C-347/99)

Judgment

Costs

Operative part

Connections

History · 1 version

Judgment

Costs

Operative part

Key facts