Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (C-457/99)

law://eu/cjeu/1999/c-457-99@2026-11-15

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber)11 October 2001^noteIn Case C-457/99,Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,vHellenic Republic, represented by I.-K. Chalkias and D. Tsagkaraki, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges,Advocate General: S. Alber,Registrar: R. Grass,having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 June 2001,gives the following

Judgment

1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 1 December 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 and administrative provisions necessary to comply with:— Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (OJ 1995 L 265, p. 17);— Council Directive 95/69/EC of 22 December 1995 laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC (OJ 1995 L 332, p. 15); and— Commission Directive 97/72/EC of 15 December 1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1997 L 351, p. 55),the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those directives.

2By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 95/53, the first subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Directive 95/69 and the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 97/72, the Member States were required to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with each of those directives before, respectively, 30 April, 1 April and 31 March 1998, and to communicate them immediately to the Commission.

3Since it took the view that Directives 95/53, 95/69 and 97/72 had not been incorporated into Greek law within the prescribed period, the Commission initiated the procedure for Treaty infringement. Having sent the Hellenic Republic formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission, on 18 January 1999, issued a reasoned opinion requesting that Member State to adopt the measures necessary to comply with it within a period of two months from the date of its notification. Since the Hellenic Republic did not respond to that opinion, the Commission brought this action.

4The Hellenic Republic acknowledged in its defence that it had not transposed Directives 95/53, 95/69 and 97/72 within the periods prescribed therein. It stated, however, that the measures necessary for incorporating those directives into Greek law were being drawn up.

5Since it subsequently received notification from the Greek Government of two ministerial decisions incorporating Directives 95/53 and 97/72 into its domestic law, the Commission took formal notice of those decisions and discontinued its claims in respect of those two directives, whilst continuing with its action so far as it relates to Directive 95/69.

6Since the incorporation of Directive 95/69 into Greek law was not accomplished within the period laid down therein, the Commission's action must be considered to be well founded in relation to that directive.

7It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/69, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Costs

8Under 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. Furthermore, the first subparagraph of Article 69(5) provides that, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs shall be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party.

9In this case it follows from the foregoing that the Hellenic Republic has been unsuccessful in respect of Directive 95/69. With regard to the discontinuance of the claims in the application concerning Directives 95/53 and 97/72, it is not disputed that it resulted from the conduct of that Member State, which adopted the measures necessary for the implementation of those two directives only after the commencement of the Commission's action. The Hellenic Republic must therefore be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Fourth 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 95/69/EC of 22 December 1995 laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 October 2001.

Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (C-457/99)

Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (C-457/99)

Judgment

Costs

Operative part

Connections

Key facts

History · 1 version

Judgment

Costs

Operative part