Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2004-09-09
16. In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied (Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [1992] ECR I-2353, paragraph 8).
17. It is also apparent from the case-law of the Court that the Commission’s reasoned opinion and its action must be based on identical grounds for complaint. That requirement cannot, however, go so far as to make it necessary that in every event the national provisions mentioned in the reasoned opinion and in the application should be completely identical. Where a change in the legislation occurred between those two phases in the procedure, it is sufficient that the system established by the legislation contested in the pre-litigation procedure has as a whole been maintained by the new measures which were adopted by the Member State after the issue of the reasoned opinion and have been challenged in the application (Case C-105/91 Commission  v Greece  [1992] ECR I-5871, paragraph 13).
20. The periods usually required for the updating of the annexes to Decree No 107/1993 to which the Greek Government refers cannot justify the barriers hindering the taking up of the profession of architect in Greece. According to the case-law of the Court, internal difficulties relating to the circumstances in which laws and regulations are drawn up cannot exempt Member States from their Community obligations (see, inter alia, Case C-374/98 Commission  v France  [2000] ECR I-10799, paragraph 13).
22. Regarding the Greek Government’s adoption of legislation removing the obligation on holders to submit the certificate from the competent authorities of his Member State of origin or of the State from which he comes, it is settled case-law that the question whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be taken into account by the Court (see, inter alia, Case C-384/97 Commission  v Greece  [2000] ECR I-3823, paragraph 35).
28. In its reply of 21 January 2004, the Greek Government stated that 41 applications for registration had been lodged as at that date. An examination of these shows that:
– 9 architects had been registered;
– 2 architects had withdrawn their registration;
– 14 architects, having submitted an application between 1988 and 2002 and completed their files, had been registered by decision of  8 January 2004;
– 12 files relating to applications made between 1992 and 2002, were still incomplete;
– 4 applications not supported by documentary evidence had been made in 2003.
Findings of the Court
29. In view of the information provided by the Greek Government in its reply of 21 January 2004, the Court finds that, at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the registration procedure of 8 of the abovementioned 14 architects, which had been completed on 8 January 2004, had taken more than three months, since the corresponding applications were made in 1989, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.