Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2003:643
Date: 2003-11-27
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: General
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: France

summary of the opinion given on the application for approval by the Genetic Engineering Commission; .... The pre-litigation procedure 25. The French Government notified the Commission of the measures transposing the Directive in various letters sent between March 1992 and June 1998. 26. On 18 March 1998, the Commission addressed to the French Republic a letter giving that Member State notice to submit its observations on the complaint that the Directive had not been transposed correctly and in full. 27. Taking the view that the replies given by the French authorities were unsatisfactory, the Commission delivered to the French Republic a reasoned opinion by letter of 19 May 2000. In that opinion, the Commission called upon that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months of its notification. 28. The French Government subsequently addressed to the Commission, on 21 and 28 July 2000, two notes concerning the transposition of the Directive. The procedure before the Court 29. Having withdrawn, in its reply, the complaint alleging incomplete transposition of Article 15(1) of the Directive, the Commission now claims that the Court should: - declare that, by failing to transpose correctly and in full Articles 14(a) and (b), 15(2), 16(1) and 19(2) to (4) of the Directive and by failing to transpose the provisions of that directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and Article 249 EC, - order the French Republic to pay the costs. 30. The French Republic contends that the Court should: - dismiss the application, with the exception of the complaint alleging failure to transpose the Directive in respect of certain facilities falling under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence, and - order the Commission to pay the costs. The action The complaint relating to Article 14(a) of the Directive Arguments of the parties 31. According to the Commission, Article 14 of the Directive is broad in scope since it applies to any use of GMMs. However, that article has not been transposed with respect to: - uses of GMMs in Groups I or II for the purposes of teaching, research or development; - uses for industrial or commercial purposes by facilities other than those subject to authorisation, that is to say, those which must be declared. 32. The Directive requires that an emergency plan be drawn up and that the emergency services be informed where necessary, which suggests an assessment on a case-by-case basis. The Directive cannot be transposed correctly where the obligation to adopt those measures is simply excluded in respect of certain uses or types of facility. 33. The French Government submits, first of all, that it is unclear from the wording of Article 14(a) of the Directive whether there is an obligation to draw up emergency plans as a matter of course. Article 14(a) merely provides that the competent authorities of a Member State are to require that an emergency plan be drawn up where necessary. That phrase suggests that emergency plans are not drawn up automatically. To accept an interpretation precluding a distinction from being drawn according to the risk posed by the facility would simply mean that the definition of the scope of the obligation provided by the phrase where necessary would be removed. The wording of Article 14 of the Directive as amended by Directive 98/81 confirms that the competent authorities are under an obligation solely to determine whether an emergency plan is necessary and, if so, to ensure that such a plan is drawn up. 34. As regards uses for industrial or commercial purposes by facilities which have been classified for the purposes of environmental protection and are subject to authorisation, the French Government relies on Article 17 of Decree No 77-1133, which provides that the authorisation order may impose an obligation to draw up an internal plan of action (IPA) to be taken in the case of an accident. 35. With respect to facilities classed as subject to declaration, the French Government submits that prefects must lay down general requirements for all the categories of such facility in their département. The obligation to draw up an emergency plan is one of the measures which may be imposed in that connection. The French Government adds that, where the general requirements applicable to a category of facility do not provide for an obligation to draw up such a plan even though it is necessary in respect of a particular facility falling within that category, the Prefect may, under Article L. 512-12 of the Environment Code, adopt the necessary measures in the form of specific requirements. 36. According to the French Government, it makes no difference that the fact that an obligation to draw up an emergency plan may be imposed is explicitly stated with regard to facilities subject to authorisation whereas it is in the competent authority's discretion to lay down general or specific requirements for facilities subject to declaration. Since the risks posed by the latter facilities are less serious, the possibility of imposing an obligation to draw up an emergency plan need not be provided for expressly. 37. The competent administrative authority is therefore in a position to impose on the operator of any facility subject to the scheme of classified facilities an obligation to draw up an emergency plan. The French Government concludes that, where it is necessary that such a plan be drawn up for a particular facility, the administrative authority will be obliged to impose such a requirement. 38. The French Government adds that teaching and research facilities are subject to a similar obligation. Such facilities may operate only by virtue of approval granted on a case-by-case basis. That approval entails an obligation to comply with various requirements, for example those contained in the guide issued by the Genetic Engineering Commission but also those laid down in the joint orders of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Research. 39. Although that guide is not, in itself, legally binding, approvals impose on operators of teaching or research facilities an obligation to comply with the requirements laid down in it. Accordingly, an obligation to draw up an emergency plan is imposed on all research and teaching facilities which must comply with containment level L3 or L4. As regards those research or teaching facilities which must comply with containment level L1 or L2, the French Government maintains that, since those levels reflect the lesser seriousness of the risk posed, the obligation to draw up an emergency plan cannot be automatic. Such an obligation may be imposed, if it appears necessary, on those facilities by way of specific requirements included in the approval decision. Findings of the Court 40. As the Court has consistently held (see, in particular, Case C-360/87 Commission v Italy [1991] ECR I-791, paragraph 13), Member States must, in order to secure the full implementation of directives in law and not only in fact, establish a specific legal framework in the area in question. 41. It is clear from the wording of Article 14(a) of the Directive that, before an operation covered by it commences, the competent authorities are to ensure that, where necessary, an emergency plan is drawn up. The Community legislature did not exclude generally certain types of facility from the obligation to draw up such a plan. It follows that the competent authorities must assess, on a case-by-case basis and in the light of the risks posed, whether it is necessary for an emergency plan to be drawn up. Effective transposition of Article 14(a) requires that the national rules impose on those authorities a specific obligation to carry out such an assessment where, with regard to certain types of facility, there is no requirement that an emergency plan be drawn up as a matter of course. 42. The French legislation does not satisfy that requirement. 43. It is true that, with respect to facilities classed as subject to declaration, the Prefect may impose an obligation to draw up an emergency plan by either general or specific requirements. However, there is no provision clearly imposing on him an obligation to assess, on a case-by-case basis and in the light of the risks posed, the need to draw up an emergency plan. 44. The same reasoning applies in relation to teaching or research facilities which must comply with containment level L1 or L2. The mere possibility of imposing on those facilities, by way of specific requirements, an obligation to draw up an emergency plan cannot be regarded as an effective transposition of Article 14(a) of the Directive. 45. The French Government submits that approvals impose an obligation to comply with the requirements contained in the guide issued by the Genetic Engineering Commission and that those requirements call for the drawing up of an emergency plan in respect of teaching or research facilities which must comply with containment level L3 or L4. However, even if that is the case in fact, the French Government has failed to show that the competent authorities are legally bound to provide for such an obligation in the approvals in question. In addition, only research laboratories are covered and not all teaching and research facilities which must comply with those containment levels. 46. Consequently, the action must be regarded as being well founded in so far as it relates to Article 14(a) of the Directive. The complaint relating to the first subparagraph of Article 14(b) of the Directive Arguments of the parties 47. The Commission points out that, as far as it as aware, the only provision transposing Article 14(b) into French law is Article 17 of Decree No 77-1133, which relates to the use of GMMs for industrial or commercial purposes. Article 17 provides that the authorisation order may lay down the emergency measures to be taken by the operator and the operator's obligations with regard to informing and alerting the persons liable to be affected by an accident as to the risks involved, the safety measures to be taken and the course of conduct to be followed. However, that provision concerns only facilities subject to authorisation and not all facilities. It also appears that Article 14(b) of the Directive has not been transposed with respect to use for teaching, research or development purposes. 48. As regards informing the public, the Commission submits that, even assuming that safety measures are provided for in the general and specific requirements to which those facilities may be subject, the fact that the public may have access to those requirements - which, as far as the public is aware, may or may not contain safety measures - is insufficient to fulfil the obligation to make those requirements available to the public directly and automatically. 49. The French Government observes that, as worded, the obligation laid down in Article 14(b) of the Directive is distinct from that which is the subject of the complaint relating to Article 14(a). The passage in the latter provision concerns the obligation to draw up an emergency plan while the passage in Article 14(b) concerns the obligation to inform the public of safety measures and of the correct behaviour to adopt in the case of an accident. 50. It is, however, difficult to distinguish an emergency plan from safety measures and rules on the conduct to be adopted in the case of an accident. The two obligations therefore appear to be closely linked. That interpretation is confirmed by the amendment made to Article 14 of the Directive by Directive 98/81. The effect of that amendment was, first, to move the phrase concerning the obligation to supply the emergency plans to the emergency services to the passage in point (b) of that article and, second, to limit the scope of the duty to inform so that it no longer applies in respect of any person liable to be affected but solely in respect of bodies and authorities liable to be affected. The provision in question therefore lays down an obligation to supply the emergency plans to the emergency services, to inform the bodies and authorities liable to be affected of the main provisions of those plans, to update them and to make them available to the public. 51. Given that it takes the view that an emergency plan need only be drawn up where it is necessary, the French Government did not provide for an obligation to communicate as a matter of course the measures provided for in such a plan to the authorities and bodies responsible for implementing it. 52. With respect to facilities classed as subject to authorisation, the obligation laid down in Article 14(b) of the Directive is expressly reproduced in Article 17 of Decree No 77-1133. With respect to facilities classed as subject to declaration, Article 27 of that decree provides that a copy of the notification of the general requirements applying to the facility is to be posted in the town hall for at least one month and must state that third parties may have access to those requirements there. 53. The French Government points out that, where they submit an application for approval, certain teaching and research facilities are also subject to an obligation to lodge an information file with the town hall. Under Part I of Article 7 of Decree No 93-773, that file is to contain any information relevant to the classification of the genetically modified organisms which may be used in the facility and to the confinement measures, the action to be taken in the case of an accident and the technical specifications to which approval is made subject. With respect to other teaching and research facilities, the administrative authority may, where an emergency plan is necessary, also lay down the procedures to be followed in informing the public. Findings of the Court 54. First of all, the first subparagraph of Article 14(b) of the Directive refers, in the first sentence, to the persons liable to be affected by an accident and, in the third sentence, to the public and therefore to a larger collective which encompasses the first group. The first sentence lays down an obligation to inform the persons concerned without their having to request it. Under the third sentence, the information in question is also to be made available to the public, which must therefore be granted access to it. 55. Directive 98/81 amended the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 14(b) of the Directive to the effect that the new provision no longer refers to the persons but to the bodies and authorities liable to be affected by an accident. 56. It is settled case-law that the question whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations must be examined in the light of the position in which the Member State found itself at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [1992] ECR I-2353, paragraph 10). 57. Directive 98/81 was to be transposed by 5 June 2000 at the latest and, therefore, before expiry of the time-limit laid down in the reasoned opinion sent to the French Republic by the Commission. From that date at least, that Member State was no longer under an obligation to transpose the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 14(b) of the Directive. 58. Accordingly, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it relates to that provision of the Directive (see, to that effect, Commission v Italy, cited above, paragraph 13). 59. With respect to the complaint relating to the obligation to make available to the public the information on safety measures and the conduct to be adopted in the case of an accident, as laid down in the third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 14(b), that obligation was reproduced in Directive 98/81 to the extent that that directive imposes an obligation to make emergency plans, including the relevant safety measures to be adopted, available to the public. The Commission rightly submits that those plans are not necessarily available to the public in all cases, as is apparent from the observations of the French Government itself. Moreover, in order to transpose the provision in question effectively, emergency plans must be made available to the public as such. Therefore, the fact that the public has access to documents which contain various types of information and thus make it necessary to search for the emergency plans, such as the requirements to which the facilities may be subject, cannot be regarded as ensuring effective transposition of that provision. 60. Consequently, the action must be regarded as being well founded in so far as it relates to the third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 14(b) of the Directive. The complaint relating to the second subparagraph of Article 14(b), Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of the Directive Arguments of the parties 61. The Commission submits that the direct nature of the obligations imposed on the French authorities under the second subparagraph of Article 14(b), Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of the Directive does not discharge those authorities from having to establish a minimum framework for application at a national level. That framework must, in particular, identify the competent authorities authorised to provide information to the other Member States or lay down the procedure to be followed in doing so. This is all the more necessary because those obligations are intended indirectly to protect the public interest in the other Member States. 62. The Commission claims that the second subparagraph of Article 14(b), Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of the Directive cannot be regarded as having been transposed in the absence of such a minimum framework. 63. According to the French Government, the provisions can be distinguished by the fact that they have no effect in the internal legal order of the Member States. They merely govern the procedure for consultation between the Member States or between a Member State and the Community institutions. That is particularly apparent from the second subparagraph of Article 14(b) of the Directive, which refers to bilateral relations between the Member States. 64. In order to substantiate the present complaint, the Commission must show that the Directive cannot be guaranteed full effect unless the rules are applicable in the French internal legal order. However, it merely asserts that it is necessary to adopt a minimum framework for application which, in particular, identifies the competent authorities and lays down certain rules on implementation. 65. The French Government takes the view that it is unnecessary to adopt any measure in French law to ensure that the provisions in question are fully effective. 66. The obligations imposed by those provisions are to be fulfilled within the framework of bilateral relations with the neighbouring Member States and with the Community institutions. Those relations are governed by a body of provisions entrusting the conduct of relations with foreign States to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that of relations with the Community institutions to an inter-ministerial body answering to the Prime Minister, namely the Secretariat-General for inter-ministerial coordination of matters relating to European economic cooperation. Those general provisions identify the authorities responsible, where appropriate, for providing the information in question. Since the provisions at issue govern neither relations between the State and individuals nor relations between individuals, specific legislation in French domestic law would serve no purpose. 67. Moreover, identical provisions could have been laid down in a Community regulation or decision and not in a directive. Had that been the case, no measure would have been necessary in domestic law in order to guarantee their full effect. Findings of the Court 68. It is clear from the Court's case-law that a provision which concerns only relations between Member States and the Commission need not, in principle, be transposed. Nevertheless, given that the Member States are under an obligation to ensure full compliance with Community law, the Commission may show that compliance with the provision of a directive governing such relations requires the adoption of specific measures transposing that provision into the national legal order (see, to that effect, Case C-72/02 Commission v Portugal [2003] ECR I-6597, paragraphs 19 and 20). 69. Where a Member State has elected not to lay down expressly the legal framework within which the national authorities are to maintain such relations, it is responsible for any infringement of the relevant obligations under Community law. 70. In the present case, the second subparagraph of Article 14(b), Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of the Directive all concern solely relations between a Member State and the Commission or the other Member States. 71. As regards the Commission's argument that a minimum framework for application of the provisions must be laid down in the internal legal order, it should be noted that the Commission has not claimed that the French competent authorities are prevented from applying those provisions and guaranteeing that they take full effect. 72. Moreover, the Commission has not established that compliance with those provisions requires the adoption of specific measures of transposition in national law. It maintains its complaint even in the case that Article 15(2) of the Directive is complied with in practice. The Commission has also failed to put forward arguments showing that the practice followed by the French authorities runs counter to the obligations laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 14(b) and Article 16(1) of the Directive. 73. Consequently, the action must be dismissed in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 14(b), Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of the Directive. The complaint relating to Article 19(2) and (3) of the Directive Arguments of the parties 74. According to the Commission, the French legislation does not state that, where the notifier wishes certain information contained in the application for authorisation to be treated as confidential, he must provide verifiable justification. 75. Article 19 of the Directive, the purpose of which is clearly to impose obligations on notifiers and to confer on the public a right of access to information on the uses of GMMs, cannot be regarded as having been transposed by general provisions which do not lay down in detail the scheme provided for by the Community provision. 76. Similarly, none of the evidence available states that the competent authority is under an obligation to consult the notifier before making its decision and that it is to inform the notifier of that decision. 77. According to the French Government, Article 2 of Decree No 77-1133 specifies the required content of applications for authorisation which, with respect to facilities classed as being subject to authorisation, serve as notification for the purposes of the Directive. It states, with regard to the production processes which the applicant wishes to carry out, that, where appropriate, the applicant may submit, in a single copy and under separate cover, information the dissemination of which, in his view, may entail the disclosure of production secrets. No other provision of Article 2 or Article 3 of that decree provides for such an option. 78. The French Government adds that Article 27 of Decree No 77-1133 governs the procedure for publication of the declaration which, with respect to facilities classed as subject to declaration, serves as notification for the purposes of the Directive. It refers, in particular, to the last paragraph of that article. 79. With respect to teaching and research facilities, the second paragraph of Article 2 of Decree No 93-773 provides, in the last sentence, that the applicant is to indicate in the application for approval the information which, in his view, must remain confidential. 80. Therefore, in the case of all three categories of facility concerned by the implementation of the Directive, the notifier has the option of requesting that certain information provided by him together with the application for authorisation, declaration or approval remain confidential. 81. The competent administrative authority is under no obligation to treat information as confidential simply because the notifier has requested such treatment. The fact that the application does not bind that authority is apparent from the wording of the national provisions in question, for example the use of the conditional tense in the legislation relating to classified facilities or the addition of the clarification in [the applicant's] view in the legislation governing teaching and research facilities. It would therefore be superfluous to state that the competent authority is to decide which information is in fact to be regarded as confidential since that is sufficiently clear from the fact that the notifier's right is limited to indicating the information which, in his view, must remain confidential. 82. For the same reason, it would serve no purpose to state that those requests for confidential treatment are to be accompanied by justification. Since it is not sufficient to request that the information be treated as confidential in order for that request to be granted, the notifier must necessarily attach justification in order for it to be granted. According to the French Government, since confidential treatment is the exception, it is self-evident that a request for confidential treatment must be justified. Findings of the Court 83. It is settled case-law that for the transposition of a directive into the legal order of a Member State it is essential that the national legislation in question effectively ensures that the directive is fully applied, that the legal position under national law is sufficiently precise and clear and that individuals are made fully aware of their rights and obligations (see Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499, paragraph 9, and Case C-97/01 Commission v Luxembourg [2003] ECR I-5797, paragraph 32). 84. There is no clear and unequivocal statement in Article 2 of Decree No 77-1133 concerning facilities classed as subject to authorisation, Article 27 of that decree concerning facilities classed as subject to declaration or the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Decree No 93-773 concerning teaching and research facilities that the applicant must provide verifiable justification, as is required by the second sentence of Article 19(2) of the Directive. 85. The argument that a request for confidential treatment must be justified because such treatment is the exception cannot be accepted. While the transposition of a directive by specific laws or administrative measures may be superfluous given the existence of general principles of constitutional or administrative law, recourse to a principle such as that relied on in the present case by the French Government does not ensure, in a sufficiently clear and precise manner, that the second sentence of Article 19(2) of the Directive is applied in full. The notifier must be able to identify from the wording of the national legislation the conditions to which confidential treatment is made subject, including that of verifiable justification. 86. The French Government has failed to put forward any arguments refuting the complaint relating to the obligation under Article 19(3) of the Directive to consult the notifier. 87. With respect to the obligation, provided for in the same provision, to inform the notifier of the decision adopted by the competent authority as to which information is to remain confidential, the French Government has failed to rely on any provision of French administrative law expressly imposing on the administrative authorities an obligation to notify such a decision. 88. Consequently, the action must be regarded as well founded in so far as it relates to Article 19(2) and (3) of the Directive. The complaint relating to Article 19(4) of the Directive Arguments of the parties 89. According to the Commission, there is no provision in the French legislation enabling it to take the view that Article 19(4) of the Directive has been transposed correctly. 90. With respect to facilities classed as subject to authorisation, the French Government submits that all of the information listed in Article 19(4) of the Directive must be included in the application for authorisation, with the result that it is made public in the course of the public inquiry and, therefore, can in no case remain confidential. 91. Teaching and research facilities manipulating GMMs in Classes 3 and 4 of Group II are required, under Part I of Article 7 of Decree No 93-773, to make available to the public a file of information containing any information relevant to the classification of the genetically modified organisms which may be used in the facility and the opinion given on the application for authorisation by the Genetic Engineering Commission, which guarantees transposition of the obligation to ensure that the evaluation of foreseeable effects of the proposed research cannot remain confidential. 92. The French Government concedes that some marginal adjustments to the French legislation may be necessary to ensure that Article 19(4) of the Directive is fully effective as regards facilities classed as subject to declaration or teaching and research facilities having to comply with the containment level required for Class 1 of Group I or Class 2 of Group II. Findings of the Court 93. It is sufficient to state that the French Government has acknowledged that, as regards facilities classed as subject to declaration and certain teaching and research facilities, the French legislation must be adjusted to ensure that Article 19(4) of the Directive is fully effective. The transposition of that provision must therefore be regarded as incomplete. 94. Consequently, the action must be regarded as being well founded in so far as it relates to Article 19(4) of the Directive. The complaint of failure to transpose the Directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry of Defence 95. In its defence, the French Government admits that certain facilities used by the Ministry of Defence are not covered by any measure transposing the Directive. 96. Accordingly, the action must be regarded as well founded in so far as it relates to transposition of the Directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry of Defence. 97. In light of all the above findings, it must be declared that, by failing to transpose correctly and in full Article 14(a) and (b), first subparagraph, third sentence, and Article 19(2) to (4) of the Directive and by failing to transpose the provisions of that directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Costs 98. Under 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. However, under Article 69(3) of those Rules, the Court may order that the costs be shared or that the parties bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. In this case, since the parties have each been partially unsuccessful, each must be ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly and in full Article 14(a) and (b), first subparagraph, third sentence, and Article 19(2) to (4) of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress Directive 90/219, and by failing to transpose the provisions of that directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; 2. Dismisses the remainder of the action; 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs. Skouris Gulmann Puissochet Macken Colneric Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 27 November 2003. R. Grass V. Skouris Registrar President 1: Language of the case: French.