Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 February 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/659/EEC - Failure to implement. - Case C-135/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01061



Parties

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Parties

In Case C-135/96,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national official on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, General Adviser to the Legal Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive 91/659/EEC of 3 December 1991 adapting to technical progress Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos) (OJ 1991 L 363, p. 36), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,

THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber),

composed of: G.F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. 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 16 January 1997,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 24 April 1996, 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 the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive 91/659/EEC of 3 December 1991 adapting to technical progress Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos) (OJ 1991 L 363, p. 36, hereinafter `the directive'), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

2 Under Article 2(1) of the directive, Member States were required to adopt and publish the provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 1 January 1993 and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

3 Since it was not informed by the Belgian Government of the measures taken to transpose the directive into national law, the Commission instituted against that Government the procedure for failure to fulfil its obligations set out in Article 169 of the Treaty by sending to it, on 12 March 1993, a letter of formal notice requesting it to submit its observations within two months.

4 Since the Belgian Government did not reply to that letter, the Commission sent to it, on 24 October 1994, a reasoned opinion with which it was required to comply within two months of notification.

5 By letter of 27 December 1994, the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that a draft royal decree was being prepared in the Ministry of Public Health, a copy of which was sent by letter of 6 January 1995.

6 Since that date, the Commission has not received any other communication from the Belgian authorities.

7 It was in those circumstances that the Commission brought the present action.

8 While the Kingdom of Belgium does not deny the infringement of which it stands accused, it refers to the forthcoming adoption of a royal decree intended to remedy that infringement.

9 In those circumstances, since the directive was not transposed into national law within the period prescribed therein, Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations, as the Commission contends.

10 It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) thereof.

Decision on costs

Costs

11 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of Belgium has been unsuccessful, it 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 the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive 91/659/EEC of 3 December 1991 adapting to technical progress Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 91/659;

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