CELEX: C2001/245/32
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-286/01: Action brought on 19 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

C 245/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1.9.2001
Under Article 12(4) the Member States are to establish a                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the
animal species listed in Annex IV(a). The Swedish legislation            —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
does not cover all the species listed in Annex IV(a).                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 98/18/EC (1) of 17 March 1998 on
Under Article 15 Member States are required to prohibit the                    safety rules and standards for passenger ships, the Portu-
use of methods and forms of capture etc listed in Annex VI of                  guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the species listed in Annex Va, and in cases where, in                         the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and
accordance with Article 16, derogations are applied, of the                    Article 14 of Directive 98/18/EC;
species listed in Annex IVa. The right to derogate from the
prohibition in Article 15 is limited to the situations listed in         —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to communicate
Article 16. Under Swedish law, however, the government and                     such measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Repub-
authorities have a right to investigate freely in certain cases                lic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same provisions;
where derogations are to be granted from the rules on                          and
prohibition laid down by Article 15.
                                                                         —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Article 16(1) lists the situations in which it is possible to
derogate from the rules in Articles 12 to 14 and 15(a) and (b).          Pleas in law and main arguments
A general condition for allowing a derogation is that there is
no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not
detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their           of Article 249 requires Member States to adopt the measures
natural range. In addition, one of the reasons in Article 12(1)(a)       necessary to transpose directives addressed to them into their
to (e) must obtain. For reasons of legal certainty it is necessary       domestic law. Despite the expiry of that period, which is laid
that the situations and requirements set out in a rule on                down in Article 14(1) of Directive 98/18/EC, and despite the
derogation such as Article 16 be transposed verbatim into                specific notification requirement provided for in Article 4(2)
national rules or that there be a direct reference to the directive.     of the directive, the Portuguese Republic has not brought into
Under the Swedish legislation the government can allow                   force the necessary provisions and, in any event, has not
derogations on the basis of various considerations. The                  communicated them to the Commission.
Swedish rules on derogation therefore do not conform to
Article 16 and nor do they refer to those provisions in the
directive.                                                               (1) OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 July 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                                      (Case C-286/01)
                                                                                                      (2001/C 245/32)
Action brought on 17 July 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                             Republic                                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 July
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by P. Nemitz and B. Mongin, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-282/01)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2001/C 245/31)
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 July                    Directive 98/10/EC (1), and in particular Article 6(3) and
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            (4) and Articles 10, 21 and 26, the French Republic has
represented by Bernard Mongin and Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                   failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that
acting as Agents.                                                              directive and Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 245/19
—     Order the French Government to pay the costs.                      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by P. Nemitz and B. Mongin, acting as Agents.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Article 32 of Directive 98/10/EC provides that Member States                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
are to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                  Directive 97/51/EC (1), the French Republic has failed to
with this Directive by 30 June 1998 and forthwith inform the                   fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive and
Commission thereof.                                                            Article 249 EC; and
                                                                         —     Order the French Government to pay the costs.
There is no question but that the French authorities must
adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3)
and (4) and Articles 10, 21 and 26 of the directive.                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Article 3 of Directive 97/51/EC provides that Member States
(1) Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council     are to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,
    of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
    provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for      with this Directive by 31 December 1997 and forthwith
    telecommunications in a competitive environment (OJ 1998             inform the Commission thereof.
    L 101, p. 24).
                                                                         There is no question but that the French authorities must adopt
                                                                         the provisions necessary to comply with first subparagraph of
                                                                         the second indent in Article 4 and Articles 6(1) and (3)(a) and
                                                                         10(4) of Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the
                                                                         application of open network provision to leased lines (2), as
Action brought on 19 July 2001 by the Commission of                      amended by Directive 97/51/EC.
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         The Commission has not yet been informed of any measures
                         (Case C-287/01)                                 adopted to that effect by the French authorities.
                        (2001/C 245/33)                                  (1) Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives 90/387/EEC and
                                                                             92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to a competitive
An action against French Republic was brought before the                     environment in telecommunications (OJ 1997 L 295, p. 23).
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 July                  (2) OJ L 165, 19.6.1992, p. 27.