CELEX: C2002/131/21
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-129/02: Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

1.6.2002                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 131/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                      Belgium
(a)   declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
      comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of                                         (Case C-122/02)
      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                               (2002/C 131/20)
      EC Treaty;
(b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
      Commission a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros per day for           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
      each day that it fails to comply with the aforementioned           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      obligations, running from the date of notification of the          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
      judgment, that being the date of commencement of its               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      non-compliance with its obligations in the present case;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
(c)   order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     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
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                               directive;
                                                                         —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
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               Pleas in law and main arguments
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          The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
should have been adopted and brought into force long ago; at             2000 but the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the
the time when the Commission issued its reasoned opinion,                measures required.
over a year had already elapsed since delivery of the judgment
of the Court.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
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             Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of
the Court by using the calculation method defined in its                  the European Communities against the French Republic
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                                    (Case C-129/02)
thereof.
                                                                                                 (2002/C 131/21)
(1) Case C-138/99, OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.                                          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.
 ---pagebreak--- C 131/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
—     declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      mission any information concerning the quality of bath-                  Commission Directive 2000/24/EC (1) of 28 April 2000
      ing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, the                    amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the
      Article 13 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 Decem-                   fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
      ber 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1);                    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
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         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           In view of the binding nature of the provisions of the third
omission. Although, according to a general principle common              paragraph of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of
to the laws of the Member States, force majeure is deemed to             Article 10 EC, the Member States to which a directive is
arise in the event of an occurrence possessing, simultaneously,          addressed are obliged to transpose it into national law in such
the characteristics of being beyond the control of the State,            a way that it becomes fully effective on expiry of the period
being unforeseeable and being irresistible in its effects, the           for transposition. The period prescribed in Article 5(2) of the
social conflict in issue here does not fulfil those criteria. The        directive expired on 31 December 2000 without the Republic
fact that checks continued to be carried out on the ground, in           of Austria having adopted the necessary provisions.
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-                (1) OJ L 107, 2000, p. 28.
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.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 31 of 5.2.1976, p. 1.                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                       Belgium
                                                                                                   (Case C-132/02)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 131/23)
Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                               Austria                                   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
                         (Case C-131/02)                                 service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 131/22)                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                   and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April                    with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
represented by Gerald Braun, of the Legal Service of the                       of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Commission of the European Communities, with an address                        Member State other than that in which the qualification
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar                        was obtained (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                fulfil its obligations under that directive;