CELEX: 62002CC0029
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-05 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 5 November 2002. # Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. # Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/83/EC. # Case C-29/02.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALALBER delivered on 5 November 2002  (1)
         Case C-29/02 Commission of the European CommunitiesvKingdom of Spain
            ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 98/83/EC – Quality of water intended for human consumption))
            
      
         
      1.  The Commission has applied for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to communicate to the Commission
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998
      on the quality of water intended for human consumption,  
      
         			(2)
         		 the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
      
      2.  Article 17 of Directive 98/83 provides: 
      1.  Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive
      within two years of its entry into force. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof....
      
      2.  The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the
      field covered by this directive.
      
      
      3.  The directive entered into force on 25 December 1998. It should therefore have been transposed by 25 December 2000.
      
      4.  Not having received any information regarding transposition of the directive, the Commission initiated the procedure for failure
      to fulfil Treaty obligations and, by letter of 6 April 2001, requested the Kingdom of Spain to submit its observations within
      two months.
      
      5.  By letter of 13 June 2001, the Spanish Government informed the Commission that the provisions of the directive were to be
      transposed by two royal decrees which were then being prepared. One of the decrees related to bottled water, the other contained
      the remaining provisions.
      
      6.  On 26 July 2001, the Commission sent the Kingdom of Spain a reasoned opinion. In it, the Commission noted the ongoing Treaty
      infringement and set the Kingdom of Spain a time-limit of two months in which to take the measures necessary to transpose
      the directive.
      
      7.  By letter of 12 October 2001, the Spanish Government informed the Commission of the stage reached in the legislative procedure
      which was still in progress.
      
      8.  On 1 February 2002, the Commission brought this action, in which it requests the Court to make the declaration set out in
      point 1 and to order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs of the proceedings. The Kingdom of Spain contends that the action
      should be dismissed and the Commission ordered to pay the costs.
       Analysis
      
      9.  Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, the Member States are to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of
      the obligations resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. Such action includes directives which, pursuant
      to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which they
      are addressed. That obligation involves, for each Member State to which a directive is addressed, the timely adoption, within
      the framework of its national legal system, of all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective,
      in accordance with the objective which it pursues. 
      
         			(3)
         		
      10.  Although the Spanish Government claims that the action should be dismissed, it does not dispute that the provisions necessary
      to transpose Directive 98/83 have not yet come into force. It has merely explained the procedure for adoption of the two royal
      decrees. However, the mere initiation of the procedure for adoption of a legal measure designed to transpose a directive into
      national law does not suffice to fulfil the obligations under the directive. 
      
         			(4)
         		
      11.  Nor are the merits of an action affected by the fact that the default concerned may have been remedied after the expiry of
      the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion. 
      
         			(5)
         		 Therefore, even if the provisions in question had, in the meantime, come into force, that would not militate against a declaration
      that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. 
      
      12.  The decision on costs is to be taken in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
        Conclusion
      
      13.  For the reasons set out above, I propose that the Court should:
      (1) declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human
      consumption, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; 
      
      (2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. 
      
      
      
       1 –
         
           Original language: German.
      
      2 –
         
         OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32; corrigendum OJ 2001 L 111, p. 31.
      
      3 –
         
         See Case C-119/00  
             Commission  v  
             Luxembourg  [2001] ECR I-4795, paragraph 12, and Case C-29/01  
             Commission  v  
             Spain  [2002] ECR I-2503, paragraph 9.
         
      
      4 –
         
         See  
             Commission  v  
             Spain , cited in footnote 3, paragraph 10.
         
      
      5 –
         
         Case C-365/97  
             Commission  v  
             Italy  [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraph 45, and Case C-147/00  
             Commission  v  
             France  [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26.