Case C-129/02: Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2002-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bathing water

1.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 131/11

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a)

declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of
Justice on 16 December 1999 in the case of Commission
v Luxembourg (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the
EC Treaty;

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-122/02)

(2002/C 131/20)

(b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the
Commission a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros per day for
each day that it fails to comply with the aforementioned
obligations, running from the date of notification of the
judgment, that being the date of commencement of its
non-compliance with its obligations in the present case;

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(c)

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although Article 228 EC does not indicate the period of time
allowed to a Member State to comply with its obligations, the
fact remains that compliance with a judgment delivered against
is must be commenced forthwith and completed as rapidly as
possible. In the present case, all the provisions and measures
necessary in order for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to
bring its legislation into conformity with the Court’s judgment
should have been adopted and brought into force long ago; at
the time when the Commission issued its reasoned opinion,
over a year had already elapsed since delivery of the judgment
of the Court.

In the Commission’s view, a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros
per day is appropriate, having regard to the seriousness and
duration of the non-compliance and the need to impose an
effective penalty. The Commission has calculated the amount
of the periodic penalty which it was required to indicate to
the Court by using the calculation method defined in its
communication of 8 January 1997 (2). It has applied a weight-
ing of 10 to take account of the seriousness of the non-
compliance, and a weighting of 1.8 in respect of the duration
thereof.

(1) Case C-138/99, OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
regulations and administrative measures necessary in
order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of
Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
2000 but the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the
measures required.

(1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.

Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-129/02)

(2002/C 131/21)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 131/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.6.2002

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-
mission any information concerning the quality of bath-
ing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 13 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 Decem-
ber 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the social conflict giving rise
to the omission which has been established cannot justify that
omission. Although, according to a general principle common
to the laws of the Member States, force majeure is deemed to
arise in the event of an occurrence possessing, simultaneously,
the characteristics of being beyond the control of the State,
being unforeseeable and being irresistible in its effects, the
social conflict in issue here does not fulfil those criteria. The
fact that checks continued to be carried out on the ground, in
accordance with the requirements of the directive, cannot
absolve France of its obligations under Article 13 of the
directive, which has its own particular purpose. The Com-
mission further notes that, as at the expiry of the period stated
in the reasoned opinion, the French authorities had not sent
the Commission any information concerning the quality of
bathing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, and that
it had still not done so as at the date of the present application.

(1) OJ L 31 of 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-131/02)

(2002/C 131/22)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gerald Braun, of the Legal Service of the
Commission of the European Communities, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2000/24/EC (1) of 28 April 2000
amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/
EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the
fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products
of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables respectively,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty;

2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In view of the binding nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC, the Member States to which a directive is
addressed are obliged to transpose it into national law in such
a way that it becomes fully effective on expiry of the period
for transposition. The period prescribed in Article 5(2) of the
directive expired on 31 December 2000 without the Republic
of Austria having adopted the necessary provisions.

(1) OJ L 107, 2000, p. 28.

Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-132/02)

(2002/C 131/23)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Member State other than that in which the qualification
was obtained (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;