ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn delivered on 15 January 1987. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - Directives on intra-Community trade in fresh meat and meat products - Failure to implement directives. - Case 386/85.



European Court reports 1987 Page 01061



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

My Lords,

In 1980 the Council adopted three directives dealing with health problems and public health policy in intra-Community trade in relation to certain meat and meat products . They were respectively numbered 80/214, 80/1099 and 80/1100 ( Official Journal 1980, L 47, p . 3; L 325, p . 14; L 325, p . 16 ).

It is perhaps of some importance to note that in the second two directives, 80/1099 and 80/1100, the Council stressed that the existence of a particular disease affecting pigs represented a danger for the Community' s stock of pigs and that steps should be taken to ensure that the disease is not spread in the course of trade in pigmeat .

Accordingly, dates were fixed for the implementation of those directives : 80/214 should have been implemented by 31 December 1980, and the other two by 1 July 1981 .

After asking the Italian authorities what had happened by letter dated 22 December 1983, and having not received a reply, the Commission on 7 June 1985 issued a reasoned opinion to the effect that Italy was in breach of its Treaty obligations . Subsequently, the Commission commenced these proceedings .

In its defence, as today before the Court, the Italian Government has pointed out that a draft to implement Directive 80/1099 is before the Parliament and apparently is about to go to the Senate . It seems that there is more delay in preparing the necessary legislation to give effect to Directives 80/214 and 80/1100 .

It is plainly a breach of the Treaty for these directives not to have been implemented in the time-limit fixed by the directives .

In my opinion the Commission is entitled to the declaration it seeks and to its costs against the Italian Government .
16.

I would accept that the Danish Government's interpretation is plausible in the light of the provisions of the directive, which are far from clear. I would even consider that Denmark was right, if the aim of the directive was solely to protect man and the environment against the risks arising from the placing on the market of dangerous substances. If that were so, it could be said that Denmark was fully satisfying the intention of the Community legislature, by actually reinforcing the protective effect of the directive's provisions.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 25 March 1987. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Protection of ground-water. - Case 1/86.



European Court reports 1987 Page 02797



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1 . The Commission complains that the Kingdom of Belgium did not adopt within the prescribed time-limit the measures necessary to implement throughout its national territory Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances .

2 . A decree of 24 January 1984, together with a number of orders of 22 March 1984 and 27 March 1985, implements ( as the Commission' s agent confirmed at the hearing ) the main provisions of the abovementioned directive in respect of the Flemish region .

3 . However, the agent of the Belgian Government has admitted that the measures designed to implement the provisions of Directive 80/68 in respect of the Walloon and Brussels regions are still being considered by the various competent authorities .

4 . The Belgian Government has pointed out that, as a result of the institutional reforms of 8 August 1980 transferring to the regions extensive powers in regard to the environment, the national government no longer has the necessary and sufficient powers to implement the directive whereas the establishment of the new institutions and regional administrations could only take place progressively, with the result that they were not immediately operational .

5 . It is undeniable, therefore, that the implementation of the directive in Belgium encountered exceptional difficulties . It is probably for that reason that the Commission allowed an additional four years to elapse between the date by which the directive should have been implemented ( 18 December 1981 ) and the date on which it brought its action ( 3 January 1986 ). In the meantime, one of the regions of the Kingdom of Belgium had implemented the directive .

6 . For my part, I can only refer to the settled case-law of the Court according to which "a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits resulting from Community directives ". ( 1 )

7 . Consequently, I propose that the Court should :

Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .

(*) Translated from the French .

( 1 ) See, for a recent example, the judgment of 10 March 1987 in Case

386/85 Commission v Italy (( 1987 )) ECR , paragraph 7, and many earlier judgments .
6.

The underlying objective of that provision would appear to be the following: the system of quotas brings with it a risk that existing patterns of trade will be disturbed. That risk would be aggravated by the activities of new operators which would be likely to have a significant effect on the structures and trade in existence prior to the protective measures. Therefore by limiting the shares of new operators to 10% of the total volume it is intended precisely to avoid too great a change. An interpretation according to which an amount of 10% was automatically allocated to new importers would be contrary to that objective. In fact existing importers whose entitlements are necessarily reduced proportionately as a result of the very existence of protective measures would not be able to rely on obtaining an equivalent share. That inequitable result would be contrary to the express purpose of Article 6 of the decision.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 11 January 1989. - Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities. - Sea fishing - Exceeding of quotas for 1983 - Financing by the EAGGF of expenditure relating to export refunds for mackerel. - Case 262/87.



European Court reports 1989 Page 00225

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Summary of the Opinion

The Opinion examines, inter alia, the Netherlands Government' s argument that the applicable regulation provided for no limit in regard to the quantities of fish for which export refunds could be paid, unlike the case with intervention . That argument is rejected by reference to the previous decisions of the Court and in the light of the general requirements of the fisheries policy .

The Opinion then considers whether, by analogy with what the Court decided in regard to 1981 and 1982 in its judgments of 15 December 1987 in Cases 326/85 and 237/86, which are similar to this case, there were special circumstances in 1983 which, by virtue of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, attenuate the general rules applicable, according to which financing is to be refused . The reply to that question is in the negative and it is based inter alia on the view that the Member State concerned may not rely on the principle of legal certainty since the fixing of national quotas was certainly not unforeseeable but was the outcome at the Community level of a long process of development at the level of public international law . Moreover, the principle of legal certainty does not necessarily play the same role in relations between the authorities of the Member States and the Community as it does in the relations between authorities and individuals . Reliance on the principle of legal certainty appears to be all the more unjustified in this case because the Member State concerned was itself in a position to put an end to the legal uncertainty by adopting preparatory measures in good time .

The application for annulment should be dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the costs .

(*) Original language : Dutch .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 28 April 1989. - Hoogovens Groep BV et Federacciai (Federazione imprese siderurgiche italiane) v Commission of the European Communities. - ECSC - Adjustment of delivery quotas. - Joined cases 218/87, 223/87, 72/88 and 92/88.



European Court reports 1989 Page 01711

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate Otto Lenz delivered his Opinion on 28 April 1989 . (* )He proposed that the Court should :

( 1)(a ) dismiss the application in Case 218/87;

( b ) order the applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings in Case 218/87;

( 2)(a ) declare void Commission Decision No 1433/87/ECSC of 20 May 1987;

( b ) order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings in Case 223/87, including the costs of the application for interim measures;

( 3)(a ) declare void Article 5 of Commission Decision No 194/88/ECSC of 6 January 1988;

( b ) dismiss the remainder of the application in Case 72/88;

( c ) order the parties in Case 72/88 to bear their own costs;

( 4)(a ) declare void Article 17 of Commission Decision No 194/88/ECSC of 6 January 1988;

( b ) order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings in Case 92/88, including the costs of the application for interim measures .

(*) Original language : German .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 12 October 1989. - Evagelos Adamou Exarchos v European Parliament. - Officials - Rejection of an application to take part in a competition. - Case C-331/87.



European Court reports 1989 Page 04185

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered his Opinion on 12 October 1989 . (*) He proposed that the application should be dismissed in so far as it sought the annulment of the procedure and of the appointment of the successful candidate . With regard to the application for an order requiring the European Parliament to restart the recruitment procedure, it was in any event inadmissible since the Court did not have jurisdiction to issue orders to the institutions . Finally, he proposed that the Court should apply Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure and rule that the European Parliament should bear its own costs .

(*) Original language : French .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 24 January 1989. - Knoeckel, Schmidt & Cie, Papierfabriken AG v Hauptzollamt Landau/Pfalz. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz - Germany. - Production refunds in the cereals and rice sector - Starch obtained partly from maize and partly from sugar-based products. - Case 13/88.



European Court reports 1989 Page 00337

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Walter Van Gerven delivered his Opinion on 24 January 1989 . (*) He concluded that the Court should rule as follows :

Article 4(3 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 can validly make the grant of a refund conditional on the presentation of a declaration stating that the starch to be used has not been produced from a raw material other than maize, wheat, rice or potatoes .

(*) Original language : Dutch .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 15 February 1989. - SpA Maxi Di v Ufficio del registro di Bolzano. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Bolzano - Italy. - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital. - Case 15/88.



European Court reports 1989 Page 01391

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion on 15 February 1989 . (*) He proposed that the Court should rule as follows :

"Article 11 of Directive 69/335/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, since 1 January 1972 at the latest, the Member States may not charge 'capital companies' within the meaning of Article 3 of that directive, in respect of the transactions set out in Article 11 thereof, tax of any kind other than capital duty or the duties referred to in Article 12 ."

(*) Original language : German .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 12 December 1989. - Rosaria Vella and others v Alliance nationale des mutualités chrétiennes. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour du travail de Mons - Belgium. - Social security for migrant workers - Period of incapacity in respect of which an allowance was received treated as a period of insurance. - Case C-324/88.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-00257

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion on 12 December 1989 . (*) He concluded by proposing that the Court should reply as follows to the question submitted to it for a preliminary ruling by the cour du travail, Mons :

"It follows from Article 1(r ) of Regulation No 3 and Article 1(r ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 that the periods which may be treated as periods of insurance are determined solely by reference to domestic legislation ."

(*) Original language : German .
61988C0246

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 16 April 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Euratom directives - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limits. - Case C-246/88.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-02049

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm
61989C0031

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 14 February 1990. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Council Directive 83/183/EEC - National legislation which fails to comply with obligations under Community law. - Case C-31/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-02139

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 16 May 1990. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance with a directive - Reports concerning the disposal of water. - Case C-162/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-02391

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion on 16 May 1990 . (*) He proposed that the Court should declare that, by failing to forward within the prescribed periods the reports referred to in Article 16 of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, Article 12 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, Article 10 of Council Directive 76/403/EEC of 6 April 1976 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls and Article 16 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste, in relation to the region of Brussels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty . He proposed that the Court should order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs .

(*) Original language : French .
12.

It is noted by way of preliminary that the Italian legislature has not opted for rules providing that the dates for the opening and the closing of the hunting season should be fixed each year in the light of the circumstances but, instead, for rules which lay down those dates uniformly for each successive year. Is it permissible for a Member State which has opted for the latter solution to decree that the hunting season is to be open as from the time when, according to scientific data, most birds have normally left the nest? Or must it add to that ‘normal’ period for leaving the nest an extra period regarded by scientists as a safety margin in order to take account of birds which breed late and leave the nest late and of changeable circumstances? In view of the wording and rationale of the second sentence of Article 7(4) of the Directive I consider that the first question should be answered in the negative and the second in the affirmative. That provision lays down a general prohibition on the hunting of wild birds — it does not stipulate ‘most’ birds — so long as the young birds have not left the nest. In the light of this and of the rationale of the legislation as described above (in paragraph 10), I consider that the Member States may not fix the opening of the hunting season on a date on which, according to scientific opinion, young birds may still be in the nest, depending on specific, variable circumstances. That view is confirmed inter alia by the case-law of the Court to the effect that a faithful transposition into national law of the provisions of Directive 79/409 becomes particularly important in a case such as this in which the management of the common heritage is entrusted to the Member States in their respective territories. ( 14 ) In my view, faithful, and hence full, transposition of the provision at issue means that when they lay down the dates for the opening and the closing of the hunting season the Member States must take into account the safety margins indicated by scientific circles when determining the time when the young birds leave the nest. As a result, the Italian Government's argument to the effect that it is sufficient that most of the young birds should normally be independent at the time when the hunting season opens cannot be accepted.
2.

The principal Community regulations at issue in these proceedings are the same as those considered in Case C-62/89 Commission v France [1990] ECR I-925 and the relevant provisions are set out in the Report for the Hearing and Opinion in that case, as well as in the Report for the Hearing in these proceedings. For present purposes, it is sufficient to refer to two key provisions: first, Article 5(2) of Council Regulation No 170/83 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1) provides that Member States shall determine, in accordance with the applicable Community provisions, the detailed rules for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them. Secondly, Article 10(2) of Council Regulation No 2057/82 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the Member States (OJ 1982 L 220, p. 1) provides that: ‘Each Member State shall determine the date from which the catches of a stock or group of stocks subject to quota made by the fishing vessels flying its flag or registered in that Member State shall be deemed to have exhausted the quota applicable to it for that stock or group of stocks. As from that date, it shall provisionally prohibit fishing for that stock or group of stocks by such vessels... ’.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 20 February 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement a directive. - Case C-310/89.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-01381

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion on 20 February 1991. (*) He concluded that the Court should:

(1) Declare that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the provisions necessary to ensure the implementation of Council Directive 84/539/EEC of 17 September 1984, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

(2) Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(*) Original language: English.
10.

As pointed out above, the Commission primarily considers that the Community rules in question entail a categorical prohibition on a Member State laying down rules which preclude fishing boats from other Member States from engaging in fishing or from landing or trans-shipping catches. It is apparent from the Commission's arguments that it is currently of the view that rules such as those that applied to British fishing boats in the period from 1983 to 1986 would also be incompatible with Community law. In my view, however, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Court to decide the case on the basis of those arguments and thus indirectly to adopt a position regarding the original Irish 1983 rules. I consider that there are material differences between the Irish 1983 rules and the Irish 1986 rules if they are seen in the light of the amendments to the corresponding United Kingdom rules. After all in 1984 the Commission gave a positive assessment of the Irish 1983 rules, laying emphasis on the fact that the Irish rules were confined to prohibiting the British fishing boats in question from doing in Irish fishing grounds what they were prohibited from doing within British fishing limits under the United Kingdom rules. I consider that it is appropriate and sufficient for the Court to decide the case on the basis of the Commission's arguments in the alternative, namely that the Irish 1986 rules are incompatible with Community law on the grounds that they prevent British fishing vessels from engaging in fishing activities which they can lawfully engage in under the applicable rules in the United Kingdom. That consequence of the Irish rules represents, to my mind, a clear infringement of the principle of equal access to fishing resources, as embodied in Article 2 of Regulation No 101/76. Under no circumstances may such an infringement be justified on the grounds underlying the Community rules on the conservation of fishery resources or the quota system based thereon. Nor may it in any way be founded on the desire to ensure that there is a real economic link between fishing vessels and the country of registration or the wish to protect Irish fishing interests. On the same grounds it is not possible to regard the bans on landing or transshipping catches as justified.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 7 November 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Containers of liquids for human consumption - Transposition of a directive into national law. - Case C-192/90.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-05933

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion on 7 November 1991. (*) He proposed that the Court should uphold the Commission' s application and declare that, by not drawing up programmes for reducing the tonnage and/or volume of containers of liquids for human consumption in household waste to be finally disposed of, as provided for in Article 3 of Council Directive 85/339/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty. Furthermore, the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs.

(*) Original language: German.