Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:333
Date: 2013-05-29
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Free movement of capital
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 22 October 2013 1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Special judicial procedure for the enforcement of judgments of the Court — Treatment of failures of Member States to fulfil their obligations which the Court has held on the basis of Article 258 TFEU to be well founded (Art. 258 TFEU) 2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Effects — Obligations of the Member State at fault — Compliance with the judgment — Failure to fulfil obligations resulting from the combination of two provisions of national law — Repeal by the Member State of one of those provisions — Repeal sufficient to comply with that judgment in full (Art. 260(1) TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 23) 2. Under Article 260(1) TFEU, if the Court of Justice finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, that Member State is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court. The operative part of the judgment of 23 October 2007 in Case C‑112/05 Commission v Germany is of particular importance so far as concerns the failure to fulfil obligations established by the Court, for the Court established in that judgment a failure to fulfil obligations resulting from the combination of two provisions of national law, and not from each of those provisions considered in isolation. That conclusion is confirmed by the grounds of the judgment, in the light of which the operative part of that judgment must be construed. Consequently, the repeal or amendment of only one of those provisions can suffice to fully comply with that judgment. (see paras 33, 35-37, 39, 40)