Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 1998. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/69/EC. - Case C-79/98.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-06039



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-79/98,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, 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

Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Annie Snoecx, Assistant Adviser in the Directorate General for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, 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 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1994 L 381, p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

THE COURT

(Third Chamber),

composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

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 July 1998,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 March 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 the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1994 L 381, p. 1, `the Directive'), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2 The first paragraph of Article 2 of the Directive provides that the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith by 1 September 1996 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3 On the expiry of that period, since it had not received any communication relating to the transposition of the Directive into Belgian law and had no other information enabling it to conclude that the Kingdom of Belgium had complied with that obligation, the Commission, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty, gave notice to the Belgian Government on 16 January 1997 to submit its observations on the matter within two months.

4 Since it received no reply to that letter, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Belgian Government on 3 September 1997 calling upon it to adopt the measures required in order to comply with its terms within two months of receipt of its notification.

5 By letter of 3 October 1997 the Belgian Government replied to the Commission that the Directive would be transposed into Belgian law by a royal decree, the text of which was appended to its letter, that the decree had been laid before the Ministers for Public Health and for the Environment for their signature and that it would be signed by the Head of State and published as soon as possible.

6 On 20 March 1998, since it had not been informed of any official and definitive transposition of the Directive, the Commission decided to bring the present application.

7 In its defence the Kingdom of Belgium does not dispute that the Directive in question has not been transposed with the prescribed period. It merely points out that the measures required for that purpose are in the course of being prepared, that a draft royal decree implementing the Community provisions in question will very soon be submitted to the King for signature and that the Court of Justice will be informed as soon as the royal decree enters into force.

8 Since the Directive in question has not been transposed within the period laid down therein, the action brought by the Commission must be held to be well founded.

9 It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt 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 the first paragraph of Article 2 thereof.

Decision on costs

Costs

10 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

(Third Chamber)

hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2 thereof;

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