Case C-342/02: Action brought on 26 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal product, hormone, live animal, national implementing measure, veterinary drug, veterinary legislation

26.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261/11

ties on 20 September 2002 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by D. Martin and H. Krep-
pel, acting as Agents.

represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities
and aptitudes for persons designated for activities relating
to protective and preventive measures, the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 10 and 249 EC and Article 7(8) of Council
Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduc-
tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety
and health of workers at work (1);

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Luxembourg authorities do not deny that they have failed,
to date, to adopt laws or regulations defining the necessary
capabilities and aptitude for persons designated for activities
relating to protective and preventive measures.

The Commission therefore takes the view that the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the EC Treaty and Directive 89/391.

( 1) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Action brought on 26 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French
Republic

(Case C-342/02)

(2002/C 261/18)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with:

a) Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(3) and 9 of Council Directive
96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohib-
ition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances
having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of
β-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC,
88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (1), and

b) Articles 9a(1), 9b, first indent, 13(b) and 15(2) of
Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on
measures to monitor certain substances and residues
thereof in live animals and animal products and
repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC
and Decisions 89/187/EEC, 91/664/EEC (2),

its obligations under the
France has failed to fulfil
abovementioned directives and the third paragraph of
Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the
EC Treaty;

2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 July 1997
without the French Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
referred to in the Commission’s application.

(1) OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3.
(2) OJ 1996 L 125, p. 10.