1. By its application, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14), or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2005/14.
2. Directive 2005/14 makes a number of amendments to earlier Community directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/14 provides that Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 11 June 2007 at the latest, and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. Pre-litigation procedure
3. Since the Commission was not informed of the measures adopted by the United Kingdom to transpose Directive 2005/14 into national law within the period prescribed by that directive, it initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC, and gave that Member State formal notice, by letter of 2 August 2007, to submit its observations.
4. In their response of 27 September 2007, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Commission that the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2005/14 had been adopted in relation to Great Britain, and stated that in Northern Ireland the necessary regulations would probably be operational by autumn 2007. As regards Gibraltar, they stated that the drafting of legislation would ‘shortly commence’ and that the intention was to complete all legislative stages by June 2008.
5. Since the Commission received formal communication of the implementing measures for Northern Ireland on 4 February 2008, but no information concerning the situation in Gibraltar, on 4 April 2008 it issued a reasoned opinion calling on the Member State to adopt the measures necessary to comply with that reasoned opinion within two months of its receipt.
6. By letter of 4 June 2008, the Government of the United Kingdom accepted that it had failed to transpose Directive 2005/14 in Gibraltar in sufficient time, while confirming that the Government of Gibraltar expected to have adopted the necessary measures by the end of July 2008.
7. Since the Commission did not receive any further information to show that the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2005/14 in Gibraltar had finally been adopted by the Member State concerned, it brought the present action. The action
8. In its defence, the United Kingdom acknowledges that Directive 2005/14 was not transposed in Gibraltar before the expiry of the period laid down in Article 6(1) thereof. However, in that connection, it contends, first, that the directive has a wide-ranging effect on a substantial amount of existing legislation in Gibraltar, and that transposition was therefore delayed largely due to the fact that it was necessary to conduct an extensive review of existing Gibraltar legislation in order to assess the directive’s impact. Second, it contends that the measures to transpose the directive in Gibraltar will be adopted and enter into force shortly, outlining a timetable for this.
9. In that regard, it is sufficient to recall, first, that a Member State may not rely on provisions, practices or circumstances prevailing in its domestic legal system to justify the failure to observe obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, inter alia, Case C-114/02 Commission v France [2003] ECR I‑3783, paragraph 11, and judgment of 11 December 2008 in Case C-330/08 Commission v France , paragraph 16).
10. Second, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, judgment of 27 September 2007 in Case C-9/07 Commission v France , paragraph 8, and Case C‑152/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I‑39, paragraph 15).
11. In the present case, it is common ground that, at the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the United Kingdom had not adopted the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2005/14 in Gibraltar.
12. In those circumstances, the action brought by the Commission must be considered to be well founded.
13. Accordingly, it must be declared that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Costs
14. Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the United Kingdom has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.