Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 1999. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 89/594/EEC. - Case C-250/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-02447



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-250/98,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Principal Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Head of the Subdirectorate for International Economic Law and Community Law in the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Anne de Bourgoing, Chargé de Mission in the same directorate, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II,

defendant,

"APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives, together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to the activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (OJ 1989 L 341, p. 19), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 89/594,

THE COURT

(First Chamber),

composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 23 February 1999,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 July 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives, together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to the activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (OJ 1989 L 341, p. 19, hereinafter `the Directive'), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2 Article 18 of the Directive amended Article 4 of Council Directive 78/1026/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1978 L 362, p. 1), and Article 19 of the Directive inserted a paragraph into Article 1 of Council Directive 78/1027/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of veterinary surgeons (OJ 1978 L 362, p. 7). Those two articles concern the conditions for mutual recognition of the diplomas necessary to exercise the profession of veterinary surgeon.

3 Pursuant to Article 28 of the Directive, Member States were to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the Directive by 8 May 1991 and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

4 Since it had not received any communication relating to the transposition into French law of Articles 16 to 20 of the Directive, concerning the profession of veterinary surgeon, and had no other information enabling it to conclude that the French Republic had complied with that obligation, the Commission gave formal notice to that Member State by letter of 11 October 1993 to submit its observations within a period of two months.

5 On 28 April 1994 the French Government replied that the measures necessary to comply with the Directive as regards the profession of veterinary surgeon had been adopted and sent the Commission a copy of the text of the Decree of 26 February 1991 amending the rules applicable to the exercise of that profession.

6 The Commission considered that it had not been informed of the provisions adopted in order to comply with Articles 18 and 19 of the Directive and, by letter of 22 January 1996, sent a reasoned opinion to the French Republic, requesting it to adopt the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the Directive within two months of notification of that opinion.

7 By letter of 29 July 1996 the French Government replied that it would shortly submit to the Parliament a draft law, the content of which had been approved by the Commission, amending Law No 82-899 of 20 October 1982 concerning the exercise of the activities of veterinary surgeons, in order to transpose Articles 18 and 19 of the Directive.

8 On 21 April 1997 the legislative process was interrupted by the dissolution of the French Parliament.

9 Since it received no further communication from the French Republic, the Commission initiated the present proceedings.

10 The French Government does not dispute that Articles 18 and 19 of the Directive were not transposed within the period prescribed. It states, however, that a new draft law transposing those provisions is due to be submitted to the Parliament in the near future.

11 Since the transposition of Articles 18 and 19 of the Directive has not been achieved within the prescribed period, the action brought by the Commission must be held to be well founded.

12 It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Decision on costs

Costs

13 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. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the French Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT

(First Chamber),

hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives, together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to the activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.