CELEX: 61993CJ0336
Language: en
Date: 1994-02-23 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 23 February 1994. # Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. # Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose a directive - Road transport. # Case C-336/93.

Avis juridique important

|

61993J0336

Judgment of the Court of 23 February 1994.  -  Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.  -  Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose a directive - Road transport.  -  Case C-336/93.  

European Court reports 1994 Page I-00533

PartiesGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

++++Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not disputed  (EEC Treaty, Art. 169)  

Parties

In Case C-336/93,  Commission of the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,  applicant,  v  Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, Director of Administration in the Legal Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,  defendant,  APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport (Official Journal 1988 L 325, p. 55) and/or by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the said directive and Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty,  THE COURT,  composed of: G.F. Mancini, President of Chambers, acting as President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg and J.L. Murray, Judges,  Advocate General: C.O. Lenz,  Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,  having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,  after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 December 1993,  gives the following  Judgment  

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 June 1993, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 85/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport (Official Journal 1988 L 325, p. 55) and/or by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the said directive and Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty.  2 The first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the directive states that "Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive on 1 January 1989 at the latest". Article 7(2) states that "Member States shall communicate to the Commission their laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning the application of [the] directive".  3 The Commission contends that the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 7 of the directive in conjunction with Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, by failing to bring into force the necessary measures for transposition of the directive in its national legal system.  4 The Belgian Government does not dispute that the directive was not transposed within the prescribed period. It points out, however, that a Royal Decree is about to be adopted in order to implement the directive.  5 Since the directive was not transposed within the prescribed period, it must be held that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.  6 On the other hand, as the Advocate General pointed out, and contrary to the Commission' s contentions, the Court need not take account of the failure to communicate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which should have been adopted in order to comply with the directive, since, precisely, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to adopt those measures.  7 Consequently, it must be held that by not bringing into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 88/599/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.  

Decision on costs

Costs  8 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of Belgium has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.  

Operative part

On those grounds,  THE COURT  hereby:  1. Declares that, by not bringing into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;  2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.