CELEX: 62000CC0083
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-30
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 30 January 2001. # Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC - Components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles. # Case C-83/00.

Important legal notice

|

62000C0083

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 30 January 2001.  -  Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.  -  Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC - Components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles.  -  Case C-83/00.  

European Court reports 2001 Page I-02351

Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In the present Treaty-infringement proceedings, the Commission is seeking a declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to implement the provisions of Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty, together with an order requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.2. Under Article 8(1) of Directive 97/24, the Member States were required by no later than 18 December 1998 to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with that directive and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.3. It is undisputed that the requisite laws, regulations and administrative measures were not enacted by what was, according to settled case-law, the decisive date, namely the date of expiry of the two-month period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 10 August 1999. This had not even been done by the time that the proceedings were instituted on 7 March 2000.4. The Netherlands Government does not deny that it has failed to fulfil its obligations, but points out that a series of adverse circumstances have coincided to cause the delay in the transposition. Reference was made in the course of the written procedure to a draft of the implementing legislation which had been revised in the interim.5. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a Community directive. I therefore propose that an order should be made against the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the terms sought. An order for costs should be made in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.Conclusion6. I propose that the Court should:(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to implement the provisions of Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty; and(2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.