1. By its application, the Commission of the European Communities requests the Court to declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ 2006 L 161, p. 12), or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2. Under Article 10 of Directive 2006/40, Member States were required to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 4 January 2008. They were also required, pursuant to that article, to communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by that directive.
3. As it had not received any information from the United Kingdom as to the measures adopted in compliance with Directive 2006/40, and not having any other information allowing it to conclude that the necessary provisions had been adopted, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure.
4. Having given the United Kingdom formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 27 November 2008 in which it called on that Member State to take the measures necessary for compliance with that opinion within two months of its receipt.
5. In its reply of 3 February 2009, the United Kingdom acknowledged that it had not fully transposed Directive 2006/40 and informed the Commission of the measures which it contemplated adopting with a view to transposing fully that directive.
6. However, as the Commission had no information from which it could conclude that all of the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2006/40 in full had been taken, it brought the present action.
7. The United Kingdom accepts that the action brought by the Commission is well founded. It submits, however, that Directive 2006/40 was partially transposed and that most of the difficulties encountered during the transposition of the remaining measures have been resolved. In that connection, it has provided the Commission with a schedule for implementation of Directive 2006/40.
8. It must, however, be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation obtaining 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, Case C‑111/00 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I‑7555, paragraph 13, and Case C‑135/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I‑3475, paragraph 36).
9. In the present case, it is common ground that the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2006/40 had not been adopted when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired.
10. In those circumstances, the action brought by the Commission is well founded.
11. In the light of the foregoing, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/40, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Costs
12. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the United Kingdom, and the latter has been unsuccessful, the United Kingdom must be ordered to pay the costs.