AS A RESULT OF THE DIRECTIVE A BILL WAS PREPARED IN BELGIUM BUT HAD NOT YET BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE BELGIAN PARLIAMENT WHEN THE ACTION FOR A DECLARATION WAS BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION .
5 IN ITS DEFENCE THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT EMPHASIZED FIRST OF ALL THE EXTENT OF THE TECHNICAL , INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH EXPLAIN WHY , IN SPITE OF THE EFFORTS IT HAS MADE , IT HAS NOT YET BEEN POSSIBLE TO PLACE THE BILL INCORPORATING THE DIRECTIVE INTO NATIONAL LAW BEFORE PARLIAMENT . MOREOVER , SPECIAL PROBLEMS ARE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS DECIDED TO USE THE DIRECTIVE AS AN OCCASION FOR RECASTING THE BELGIAN BANKING LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO ALL CREDIT INSTITUTIONS .
6 ALTHOUGH THOSE CIRCUMSTANCE MAY EXPLAIN THE DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THE DIRECTIVE , THEY CANNOT EXPUNGE THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM ' S FAILURE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS . THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT PLEAD PROVISIONS , PRACTICES OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITS INTERNAL LEGAL ORDER TO JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OBLIGATIONS UNDER COMMUNITY DIRECTIVES .
7 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT ALSO CONSIDERS THAT INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS ARE GIVEN BOTH IN THE REASONED OPINION AND IN THE COMMISSION ' S APPLICATION , IN SO FAR AS THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE DIFFICULTIES ENTAILED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE OR TO ANY DEGREE OF INERTIA OR OPPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE BELGIAN STATE IN THAT REGARD . FURTHER , IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PERIOD ALLOWED IN THE REASONED OPINION IS INADEQUATE .
8 IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN ACTION BASED ON ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY DEPENDS ONLY ON AN OBJECTIVE FINDING OF A FAILURE TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS AND NOT ON PROOF OF ANY INERTIA OR OPPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED . AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED , THE OPINION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 169 MUST BE CONSIDERED TO CONTAIN A SUFFICIENT STATEMENT OF REASONS TO SATISFY THE LAW WHEN IT CONTAINS A COHERENT EXPOSITION OF THE REASONS WHICH LED THE COMMISSION TO THE CONVICTION THAT THE STATE CONCERNED HAD FAILED TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY . TO THAT EXTENT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REFER TO ANY DIFFICULTIES ENTAILED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED .
9 FINALLY , THE DIRECTIVE ALLOWED THE MEMBER STATES A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS FOR THE ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTING MEASURES . THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS LAID DOWN IN THE REASONED OPINION MERELY CONSTITUTES AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD IN WHICH THE MEMBER STATE IS INVITED TO PUT AN END TO THE FAILURE WITH WHICH IT IS CHARGED . FURTHER , THE COMMISSION WAITED ALMOST TWO YEARS AFTER SENDING THE REASONED OPINION BEFORE BRINGING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT . IT IS THEREFORE FUTILE FOR THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCE TO CHALLENGE THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS LAID DOWN IN THE REASONED OPINION