ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Dutch Minister of Agriculture against those four decisions on the grounds that the amount charged in relation to the inspection of the cutting operations was excessive and the basis of its calculation was unfair. The parts of the fees concerning the other types of inspections were not in issue. It appears from the order for reference that the RW calculated the component of the fee relating to the inspection of the cutting operations on the basis of the weight of all the chickens placed in the room in which the cutting operations took place. The applicant considered that basis to be unfair because only 5% of the chickens placed in the room in question were cut and boned while the remaining 95% were wrapped there without being cut and boned. The complaint was rejected by the Minister. The applicant then appealed to the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven against the rejection of his complaint. Since the Dutch rules on the inspection fees are based on Community rules, in particular Council Decision 88/408/EEC, ( 2 ) the College van Beroep decided to seek a ruling from the Court on the following questions: ‘Is Article 3(1) of Council Decision 88/408/EEC of 15 June 1988 to be interpreted as meaning that the part of the fees referred to therein is payable only in respect of meat which is actually boned or cut up in the production stage between slaughter of the animal and storage of the meat, or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the fees are payable in respect of all the meat which is brought into the cutting plant, whether or not it undergoes any processing there in the form of boning or cutting? If the provision is to be interpreted differently, what is the correct interpretation?’
5.

Since it is clear that the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions were not timeously brought into force and that the Hellenic Republic thereby breached its obligations under Directive 92/5, it is unnecessary to address the question whether there has also been an infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty, particularly since the Commission has not argued any specific infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty going beyond the obligations flowing from the directive.
OPINION OFADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER —CASECJ80/95
OPINION OFADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER
delivered on27June1996*
1.Bythisaction,brought underArticle 169
oftheECTreaty,theCommission claims
that,byfailing toadoptwithin thepre­
scribed period thelaws,regulations or
administrative provisions necessary tocom­
plywithCouncil Directive 91/414/EECof
15July1991concerning theplacing ofplant
protection products onthemarket,1the
Hellenic Republic hasfailedtofulfilitsobli­
gations undertheECTreaty andthatdirec­
tive.ItalsoclaimsthattheGreekGovern­
mentshould beordered topaythecosts.
2.Article 23ofthedirective provides that
theMember Statesaretobringintoforcethe
laws,regulations oradministrative provi­
sionsnecessary tocomply withitbynolater
than25July1993andnotifytheCommis­
sionofthosemeasures forthwith .
3.On5October 1993,sinceithadreceived
nocommunication fromtheGreekGovern­
ment,theCommission initiated infringement
proceedings byaletterbeforeaction.Having
received noreplytothatletter,theCommis­siondelivered areasoned opinion on21Sep­
tember 1994.TheGreekGovernment again
failedtorespond ortotakethenecessary
measures toimplement Directive 91/414in
itsnational law.Consequently ,on27
November 1995,theCommission decided to
bringthisaction,theapplication being
received attheCourtRegistry on5Decem­
ber1995.
4.Initsdefence ,theGreek Government
doesnotcontest thefailuretofulfilobliga­
tionscomplained of.Itmerely statesthata
draftpresidential decreeintended tobringits
national legislation intolinewiththeprovi­
sionsofDirective 91/414hasalready been
drawnupbythecompetent department ,and,
afterfinalization ,willbesubmitted tothe
Council ofStateandthentothePresident of
theRepublic forsignature .Ithopestohave
thatpresidential decreeinplaceshortly.
5.Ithasbeenestablished that,whenthe
period laiddownbythedirective ranout,
thedirective hadstillnotbeenfullytrans­
posedintonational law.*Original language:French.
1—OJ1991L230,p.1.
I-4838

COMMISSION vGREECE
6.TheCommission's application must
therefore beupheld insofarasitrelatesto
thefailuretotranspose thedirective within
theprescribed period.7.UnderArticle 69(2)oftheRulesofPro­
cedure,theunsuccessful partyshould be
ordered topaythecosts.
8.Consequently ,Ipropose thattheCourt should:
(1)declare that,byfailing toadoptwithin theprescribed period thelaws,regula­
tionsoradministrative provisions necessary tocomply withCouncil Directive
91/414/EECof15July1991concerning theplacing ofplantprotection prod­
uctsonthemarket ,theHellenic Republic hasfailedtofulfilitsobligations
underArticle 23ofthedirective ;
(2)ordertheHellenic Republic topaythecosts.
I-4839
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 11 June 1996. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/157/EEC. - Case C-303/95.



European Court reports 1996 Page I-03859



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

1 In the present Treaty-infringement proceedings, the Commission claims that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, (1) or at least by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2 Under Article 11 of Directive 91/157, Member States were required to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive before 18 September 1992 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3 The defendant does not dispute the breach of which it stands accused. It simply points out that the measures required to transpose the directive are in the process of preparation.

4 In those circumstances, I can only propose that the Court rule that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. I also propose that the Italian Republic be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

(1) - OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38.
10.

In this case, the conditions which would enable the Court to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the Commission's complaints, which were raised, let it be said, only in the second part of the written procedure, are not, in my opinion, satisfied. The Kingdom of Spain's defence, to the effect that its detailed system of domestic provisions satisfies the obligations imposed by the directives, has not been the subject of a real exchange of argument between the parties. However, I do not consider that the absence of thorough exploration in the course of the proceedings of the complaints made by the Commission against the Kingdom of Spain must necessarily lead the Court to conclude that the defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the two directives. Admittedly, the principle actore non probante, reus absolvitor applies also in proceedings before the Court for the failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations. However, it is just as certain that the difficulty encountered by the Commission in identifying the contentious points of the Spanish legislation, which, moreover, is neither easy to follow nor to interpret, cannot be attributed, at least to any great degree, to the Commission. At the most generous estimate, ( 4 ) the adoption of the Spanish law, the appropriateness of which is in dispute, was notified to the Community executive after the originating application had been lodged. To hold that the directives in question have been correctly transposed solely because the defendant Member State adopted new provisions during the proceedings, thereby obliging the applicant to reformulate the subject-matter of the action for failure to fulfil obligations, would run counter to the demands of substantive justice. ( 5 ) And it would be contrary to the principles of procedural economy and proper administration of justice to find the defendant Member State free from fault or simply not to rule on this point at all, and, in that case, force the Commission to initiate ex novo proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations on the same grounds as those in point in this case.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 6 March 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribeb period. - Case C-311/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-02939



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 In these proceedings, the Commission alleges that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, (1) and in particular Article 45, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the directive. In the alternative, the Commission seeks a declaration that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the above provisions by not immediately informing the Commission of such measures.

2 Article 45 requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose the directive, apply them by 1 July 1994 (2) and inform the Commission thereof immediately.

3 The French Republic does not deny that it has not transposed the directive within the prescribed period. It merely states that the relevant draft legislation has been entered on the parliamentary agenda for the year 1996/97.

4 As it is clear, therefore, that the directive in question has not been transposed within the prescribed period, there is no need to examine the Commission's alternative plea.

5 I therefore propose that the Court declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and in particular under Article 45 thereof. I also propose that the French Republic be ordered to pay the costs.

(1) - OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84.

(2) - Under Article 45(2), however, other periods apply to Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 12 June 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Removal from the register. - Case C-354/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-06007



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 In the present Treaty-infringement proceedings, the Commission claims that, by failing to adopt and/or notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty.

2 Member States were required under Article 70(1) of that directive to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it before 1 January 1994 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3 The defendant submits solely that Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 (2) provided for the transposition of the directive within one year of that Law's coming into force and that, after it had proved impossible to comply with that period, a further one-year period was laid down in Law No 52 of 6 February 1996 (3) following the entry into force of the 1996 Law. It states that the procedure for transposing the directive has in the meantime reached its concluding stages, since a corresponding draft has already been submitted to the Parliament.

4 Since the defendant does not therefore deny that it failed to transpose the directive within the prescribed period, it is unnecessary to examine the Commission's complaint regarding failure to notify it of the transposition measures adopted.

5 I accordingly propose that the Court rule that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty. I also propose that the Italian Republic be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

(1) - OJ 1991 L 374, p. 7.

(2) - `Community Law 1993'.

(3) - `Community Law 1994' (sic).
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 12 October 2000. - Commission of the European Communities v Ireland. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 95/50/EC. - Case C-347/99.



European Court reports 2000 Page I-11647



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In this case the Commission seeks a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. In its defence Ireland does not contest the infringement. It states merely that work is continuing on a draft of regulations to implement the directive, and that it is hoped that the implementing regulations will be made in the near future.

Conclusion

3. In those circumstances the Court should in my opinion:

(1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 22 February 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/106/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. - Case C-444/99.



European Court reports 2001 Page I-03789



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. The Commission of the European Communities has brought this action before the Court under Article 226 EC seeking a declaration that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (hereinafter the Directive).

2. Article 2 of the Directive requires each Member State to liberalise the combined transport operations referred to in Article 1 from all quota systems and systems of authorisations no later than 1 July 1993.

3. On 28 July 1998, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Italian Government because a system of quotas and authorisations for combined transport operations still applied in Italy. It brought this action on 15 November 1999. The Italian Government admitted its failure and stated, both in its defence and its rejoinder, that it would comply with its obligations from 1 January 2001 through the adoption of Decree No 85 of 14 March 1998, which entered into force on 22 May 1998. That Decree provides for a complete liberalisation of combined transport operations on 1 January 2001 and a transitional system until that date. According to the Italian Government that measure deprives this action of any purpose.

4. The Commission considers, on the other hand, that the Italian Republic is still guilty of failure to fulfil its obligations, in any event until 1 January 2001. Both the legislation applying until the entry into force of Decree No 85 and the transitional system which it established (from April 1998 until 1 January 2001) are incompatible with the Directive. The Italian Republic should have complied with those obligations from 1 July 1993. Moreover, the Directive did not allow a transitional system.

5. In an action based on Article 226, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. The Court cannot therefore take account of any subsequent changes. Since the Commission has not discontinued the proceedings, its action must be held to be well founded.

Conclusion

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:

(a) declare that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the timely implementation of Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, and

(b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
(Failure to fulfil obligations – Article 28 EC – National administrative and legal practice according to which certain vitamin and mineral preparations that are lawfully manufactured or marketed in other Member States as food supplements are regarded as being medicinal products)
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 3 May 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 97/59/EC. - Case C-110/00.



European Court reports 2001 Page I-07545



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In the present case, the Commission of the European Communities has applied to the Court, pursuant to Article 226 EC, for a declaration that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October 1997 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).

2. Member States were required under Article 2 of the Directive to adopt all necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions at the latest on 31 March 1998. They were to inform the Commission immediately of such measures.

3. Neither in the pre-litigation nor in the litigation phase has the Government of Austria denied the infringement. It has explained the state of affairs in relation to the legislative process and pointed out that, in view of Austria's constitutional structure internally, a series of special implementing measures are necessary, that is to say at the level of the Länder. The Austrian Government adds, in its defence, that, although the time-limit laid down in the reasoned opinion has already expired, a number of measures have been adopted at both the federal and Länder levels. The Commission took note of that information, but at the same time found that the Directive has not yet been completely implemented in a number of areas nor at all levels of the Federal State.

4. In an action under Article 226 EC, the issue of whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it was at the end of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion. As Austria had not fulfilled its obligations and even now has not completely fulfilled its obligations under the Directive, the Commission's application must be allowed. In that regard, I would note that, according to settled case-law, reliance on the internal constitutional structure cannot be pleaded as a defence.

Conclusion

5. In the light of the facts and circumstances set out above, I propose that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October 1997 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 25 October 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incomplete transposition of Directive 97/11/EC. - Case C-366/00.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-01749



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. The action is directed against the failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 97/11).

2. Article 10 of Directive 97/11 provides that the directive was to be incorporated into national law by 14 March 1999 at the latest. The Commission has brought an action seeking a declaration that, by failing to transpose Directive 97/11 within the prescribed period or, in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission that it has done so, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

3. Luxembourg does not dispute the claim. On 23 November 1999, it sent the Commission a draft regulation. The Commission found this to be inadequate and therefore, by reasoned opinion dated 26 January 2000, required the Grand Duchy to comply with its obligations within two months. By letter of 17 April 2000, Luxembourg expressed the view that the Grand-Ducal regulation intended to transpose the directive would probably be adopted in the second half of 2000.

4. It is settled case-law that the merits of an action are not affected by the fact that the default concerned may have been remedied after the expiry of the time-limit prescribed by the reasoned opinion. The subject-matter of the action is the Commission's reasoned opinion. Even when the default is remedied after the time-limit prescribed by Article 226(2) EC has expired, there is still an interest in pursuing the action, in order to establish the basis of liability which a Member State may incur, as a result of its default towards other Member States, the Community or individuals.

5. The Grand Duchy does not dispute the fact that it has failed to transpose Directive 97/11 within the prescribed period. Consequently, it is appropriate to uphold the Commission's application.

6. The Commission has also sought an order requiring Luxembourg to pay the costs. 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.

Conclusion

7. For the reasons set out above, I propose that the Court declare that:

(1) by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

(2) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is to pay the costs.