ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Joined opinion of Mr Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 18 June 1998. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Case C-324/97. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Case C-326/97. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 95/27/EC - Failure to transpose within the precribed period.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-06099



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 The present Opinion concerns two uncontested infringement actions by the Commission against Italy and Belgium, respectively, for their failure to comply with Article 2 of European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Council Directive 86/662/EEC on the limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders (hereinafter `the Directive'). (1)

2 Article 2 of the Directive provides that Member States shall bring into force the measures necessary to comply with the Directive by 31 December 1995. As the Commission had received no notification of such measures from either Member State by the deadline set, it initiated the procedure provided in Article 169 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter `the Treaty') against each of them by sending a formal letter of complaint on 27 February 1996. As neither Member State replied, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion in each case on 5 March 1997, and initiated proceedings before the Court on 15 September 1997, by applications which were both registered at the Court on 17 September 1997.

3 Neither Member State has contested the infringement alleged. In their respective statements in defence, Italy has undertaken to expedite the process for the adoption of a regulation to implement the Directive, while Belgium has indicated that the transposition procedure has entered into its final phase.

Conclusion

4 In these circumstances, I would recommend that:

- in Case C-324/97, the Court declare that, by failing to adopt or communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Council Directive 86/662/EEC on the limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders by 31 December 1995, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under this Directive and Articles 189 and 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and order the Italian Republic to pay the costs; and

- in Case C-326/97, the Court make a similar declaration and order against the Kingdom of Belgium.

(1) - OJ 1995 L 168, p. 14.
26.

The preamble to Regulation No 308/97 is in similar vein. The second and third recitals are identical to those in Regulation No 307/97. The fourth to the ninth recitals continue: ‘Whereas the Community and the Member States attach particular importance to the protection of their forest resources and whereas they have given international undertakings on the sustainable development of forests and the protection of forest regions ...; Whereas, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92, 60 million hectares of forest, equivalent to about a half of European forests, have been classified as fire-risk zones; Whereas fires continue to restrict the sustainable development of forests in fire-risk zones, thus reducing the contribution of forests to the development of sustainable agriculture and the management of rural areas; Whereas protecting forests against fire therefore directly contributes to the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39(1)(b) of the Treaty; Whereas the Community system of information on forest fires established under Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 has permitted the development of Community cooperation on forest fires; whereas the development of that system will provide an effective instrument for better evaluating forest-fire protection measures and for better analysing the causes of fires; Whereas, therefore, the scheme as provided for by Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 should be continued, in particular to strengthen the consistency of forest measures financed in fire-risk zones, to reinforce the fight against the causes of fires and to improve prevention and monitoring systems and whereas the duration of the scheme should be extended for five years, thus bringing the period of application of the scheme to 10 years from 1 January 1992’.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 10 June 1999. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) - Air traffic - Registration of aircraft. - Case C-203/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-04899



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 By application of 28 May 1998 the Commission asked the Court for a declaration that, by requiring that Community economic operators be resident or established in Belgium before they can register aircraft under the second subparagraph, points (c) and (d), of Article 3(3) of the Royal Decree of 15 March 1954 regulating air traffic, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC).

2 The oral procedure in this case had already reached a close and the Opinion was delivered on 4 March 1999.

3 By order of 26 March 1999 the Court ordered the oral procedure to be reopened under Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure.

4 However, the parties waived a fresh hearing.

5 Since no further points of law or fact were raised, reference may be made to the content of my Opinion of 4 March 1999.

6 In conclusion therefore I propose that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by requiring Community economic operators to be resident or established for one year in Belgium before they can register aircraft under the second subparagraph, points (c) and (d), of Article 3(3) of the Royal Decree of 15 March 1954 regulating air traffic, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC);

(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 10 June 1999. - Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. - Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/43/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. - Case C-391/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-07381



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 In this action the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court of Justice for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the period allowed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1) (hereinafter `the Directive'), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2 Under Article 16 of the Directive, Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive not later than 30 months after its adoption, that is to say, by 14 December 1995, and immediately to inform the Commission of the measures adopted.

3 Having received no communication regarding the transposition of the Directive into Greek law, the Commission initiated the pre-contentious procedure provided for by Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC).

4 By letter of 27 February 1996 the Commission gave the Hellenic Republic formal notice to submit its observations within a period of two months.

5 By letter of 14 May 1996 the Hellenic Republic indicated that it was in the process of adopting legislation to transpose the Directive.

6 On 23 December 1996 the Commission sent the Hellenic Republic a reasoned opinion in which it called on it to comply with the Directive within a period of two months.

7 Having received no reply to that opinion, the Commission brought the present action.

8 Whilst it has asked for the action to be dismissed, the Hellenic Republic does not dispute the claim made against it. In its defence it observed that the legislation implementing the Directive was very shortly to be signed by the competent ministers.

9 Thus, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, (2) the Court is invited to uphold the Commission's action.

10 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 Hellenic Republic has been unsuccessful, it should be ordered to pay the costs.

Conclusion

11 In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court:

- declare that, by failing to implement, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive, and

- order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) - OJ 1993 L 175, p. 1.

(2) - See, for example, Case C-283/97 Commission v Belgium [1998] ECR I-6081, and Case C-386/97 Commission v Greece [1998] ECR I-6127.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 14 October 1999. - Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/56/EC - Air transport - Civil aviation - Investigation of accidents and incidents - Transposition. - Case C-138/99.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-09021



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 In this case the Commission seeks a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to implement Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents or incidents, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

2 Article 12(1) of the directive provided that Member States should bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive not later than 21 November 1996.

3 In its Defence, lodged at the Court on 19 May 1999, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not deny that it has failed to adopt the necessary measures. It explains that the reasons for the delay are exclusively procedural and refers to the procedural difficulties which have arisen.

4 In those circumstances the Commission's application is well founded.

Conclusion

5 I therefore conclude that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to implement Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents or incidents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive

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

(1) - OJ 1994 L 319, p. 14.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 18 October 2001. - Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof - Austria. - Social security for migrant workers - Unemployment insurance - Replacing social security conventions concluded between Member States with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Preservation of advantages enjoyed previously as a result of a combination of domestic law and the law of the relevant convention - Free movement of workers. - Case C-277/99.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-01261



Opinion of the Advocate-General

Conclusion

81. For the above reasons, I propose that the Court give the following answers to questions referred by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof:

The first question:

The case-law of the Court relating to retaining the validity of social security conventions which have been replaced by Regulation No 1408/71 applies also where a migrant worker has made use of 'freedom of movement' (or more precisely, has anticipated it) before the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71, but also before the EC Treaty came into effect in his home State, that is, at a time when he could not yet rely on Article 39 et seq. EC in the State of employment.

The second and third questions:

Provisions under a convention between two Member States, more favourable than the scheme deriving from the application of Regulation No 1408/71, are applicable in the present case for the whole period of exercise of freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 39 et seq. EC, even if, inter alia, the claims involved are raised after the return from the State of employment to the home State. Claims based on periods of insurance which were acquired before the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71 must also be assessed in accordance with the more favourable convention.

The fourth question:

There is no need to answer the fourth question.
((Appeal – Competition – Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty – Exchange of information – Normal competition – Adoption of a decision by the Commission – Procedural rights – Composition of the Chamber – Failure to consider evidence))
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 20 September 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 97/41/EC, 98/51/EC and 98/67/EC. - Case C-166/00.



European Court reports 2001 Page I-09835



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In this action the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 97/41/EC, 98/51/EC and 98/67/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

2. According to its settled case-law, the Court of Justice considers that, in an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

3. In this case it is clear from the documents before the Court that, at the end of the period of two months fixed by the reasoned opinion, that is 5 October 1999, the Hellenic Republic had not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 97/41, 98/51 and 98/67. The Greek Government does not dispute those facts, even though it seeks the dismissal of the action.

Conclusion

Therefore, I suggest that the Court should uphold the Commission's action and declare that:

(1) By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives:

- 97/41/EC of the Council of 25 June 1997 amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables,

- 98/51/EC of the Commission of 9 July 1998 laying down certain measures for implementing Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector, and

- 98/67/EC of the Commission of 7 September 1998 amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 97/41, Article 10(1) of Directive 98/51 and Article 7(1) of Directive 98/67.

(2) The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
((Annulment proceedings – State aid – Common organisation of the wine market – Aid for the conversion of vineyards in Charentes))
((Appeal – Transparency – Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom – Access to documents held by the Commission emanating from the authorities of Member States or third countries – The authorship rule))
((References for preliminary rulings from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien and the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations – Proceedings for preliminary rulings – Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) – Article 2(1)(b) and Article 15(1) and (2) of Directive 79/112/EEC – National rule which prohibits generally, subject to special authorisation, health-related information from appearing on the label of a foodstuff))
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/105/EEC – Medicinal products – Inclusion in the scope of national health insurance schemes – Procedure for defining categories of reimbursement))
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Registration procedure and calculation of the period of validity of driving licences issued by other Member States))
(i)

Non-application of the exemption provided for in Article 87(2)(c) EC and the inadequate statement of grounds on that point in the decision
Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 10January2002. - Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 96/61/EC. - Case C-39/01.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-02513



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. By its application lodged at the Court of Justice on 29 January 2001 pursuant to Article 226 EC the Commission seeks a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The Commission also seeks an order for costs against the United Kingdom.

2. It is settled case-law of the Court of Justice that, in an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

3. As is clear from the pleadings, when the period of two months prescribed in the reasoned opinion of the Commission delivered on 3 August 2000 came to an end, the United Kingdom had not taken all the necessary measures, in particular in relation to off-shore installations, in order to comply with Directive 96/61.

4. The United Kingdom Government does not dispute that it did not adopt the necessary laws, regulations or administrative provisions to implement Directive 96/61 within the prescribed period.

5. The obligation in Community law to implement the directive derives both directly from the directive and from the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC.

6. As it is thus established that the United Kingdom has not fulfilled its obligations in Community law, the application of the Commission should be granted and this Member State should be declared to have failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and ordered to pay the costs.

Conclusion

7. It is therefore proposed that the Court of Justice should rule as follows:

(1) By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(2) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear the costs.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 11 July 2002. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 97/11/EC - Environmental impact assessment of certain public and private projects - Incomplete transposition. - Case C-348/01.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-10249



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 By an action brought on 10 September 2001 the European Commission has requested the Court, pursuant to Article 226 EC, to declare that, by failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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 (1) (`the Directive'), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission fully of those provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2 In these proceedings the Commission complains in particular that France:

(i) failed to transpose Article 1(7) and (11) of the Directive for all public or private works projects other than those relating to installations classified as being for the protection of the environment;

(ii) failed to transpose fully Annex II to the Directive in so far as projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes, initial afforestation and wind farms are not covered by the rules governing environmental impact studies.

3 In its defence the French Government acknowledged its failure to fulfil its obligations as regards the first complaint, but denied the second complaint. In its reply the Commission took account of the fact that Annex II to the Directive had in fact been transposed into the national legal order and therefore withdrew the second complaint.

4 Following the Commission's withdrawal of the second complaint, the present case concerns solely the failure to transpose Article 1(7) and 11 of the Directive. Since the failure to fulfil obligations criticised by the Commission is not disputed in that regard, I therefore consider that the action must succeed.

5 However I consider that, in the light of Article 69(2), (3) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure, the French Government's application for costs should be allowed, given that the Commission withdrew one of its two original complaints without giving specific reasons why the conduct of the defendant government might be blamed for that withdrawal.

Conclusion

6 I therefore propose that the Court should make a declaration as follows:

(1) By failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Article 1(7) and (11) of 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, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission fully of those provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(2) The parties to bear their own costs.

(1) - OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 79/409/EEC – Conservation of wild birds))
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Articles 12 EC and 49 EC – Access to local museums – Advantageous admission charges for Italian nationals and Italian residents))
((Brussels Convention – Lis pendens – Concept of the same cause of action – Objection of set-off))
((Trade marks – Approximation of laws – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 12(1) – Revocation of trade mark – Interpretation of the term genuine use))
((Annulment of Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February 2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGG) – Milk and milk products))