1 BY AN APPLICATION OF 25 JUNE 1979 THE COMMISSION BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM HAD FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY BY FAILING TO TAKE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIODS THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH COUNCIL DIRECTIVES NOS 70/221 , 70/387 , 74/60 AND 74/483 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 192 ; 1970 ( II ), P . 564 ; 1974 L 38 , P . 2 ; AND L 266 , P . 4 RESPECTIVELY ) AND WITH COUNCIL DIRECTIVES NOS 74/150 , 74/151 , 74/152 , 74/346 , 74/347 , 75/321 , 75/322 AND 75/323 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY TRACTORS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1974 L 84 , PP . 10 , 25 AND 33 ; L 191 , PP . 1 AND 5 ; 1975 L 147 , PP . 24 , 28 AND 38 , RESPECTIVELY ).
2 ALL THE DIRECTIVES REFERRED TO WERE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 100 OF THE EEC TREATY RELATING TO THE HARMONIZATION OF THE LAWS , REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS OF MEMBER STATES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE ESTABLISHMENT OR FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET . THE FIRST SET OF DIRECTIVES REFERRED TO WAS ADOPTED UNDER COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 70/156 OF 6 FEBRUARY 1970 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF MOTOR VEHICLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 96 ); THE SECOND SET OF DIRECTIVES WAS ADOPTED UNDER COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 74/150 OF 4 MARCH 1974 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS WHICH IS ALSO ALLEGED NOT TO HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED .
3 THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION LAY DOWN PERIODS FOR THEIR IMPLEMENTATION , USUALLY 18 MONTHS , WHICH EXPIRE AT VARIOUS DATES FROM 24 SEPTEMBER 1971 TO 22 NOVEMBER 1976 . IT IS NOT CONTESTED THAT DURING THOSE PERIODS BELGIUM HAS NOT TAKEN ANY MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVES . HOWEVER THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS NEVERTHELESS NOT FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY . IT ADVANCES TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS .
4 FIRST , THE DEFENDENT GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE DIRECTIVES , NAMELY THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN BARRIERS TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE , HAS BEEN FULLY ACHIEVED IN BELGIUM BY VIRTUE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE ; SINCE BELGIAN REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FIELD ARE LESS STRICT THAN THE COMMUNITY RULES THERE IS NO OBSTACLE TO THE IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES AND TRACTORS WHICH COMPLY WITH THOSE RULES .
5 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT THINKS THAT THIS WAY OF VIEWING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVES IS FULLY IN ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 189 , THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF WHICH CONFERS ON MEMBER STATES ' ' THE CHOICE OF FORM AND METHODS ' ' IN REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVES . THE LEGAL PROCEDURES BY WHICH DIRECTIVES ARE PUT INTO FORCE THEREFORE VARY FROM CASE TO CASE AND MAY CONSIST OF ' ' ANYTHING FROM A STATUTE DOWN TO A SIMPLE DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ' ' .
6 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION UNDOUBTEDLY FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF PROVISIONS REGARDED AS ' ' DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ' ' : THE RULES LAID DOWN BY THE COUNCIL ARE PLAIN AND PRECISE AND NO MARGIN OF DISCRETION IN REGARD TO THE TECHNICAL METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING THEM IS LEFT TO MEMBER STATES . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , IT WAS REALLY ONLY BECAUSE THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT WAS ANXIOUS TO PROVIDE LEGAL CERTAINTY THAT , UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE COMMISSION , IT SUBSEQUENTLY COMMENCED LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION BUT THEY ARE STILL NOT FINISHED .
7 THESE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT CALL FOR A RESTATEMENT OF , ON THE ONE HAND , THE SCOPE OF THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON THE MEMBER STATES BY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 AND , ON THE OTHER , OF THE USE OF THE FREEDOM GIVEN TO THEM IN REGARD TO THE CHOICE OF FORM AND METHODS , BEARING IN MIND THE OBJECTIVE OF THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION .
8 THE PARTICULAR DIRECTIVES WHICH THE BELGIAN STATE IS ACCUSED OF NOT IMPLEMENTING WERE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF TWO FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES , DIRECTIVES NOS 70/156 AND 74/150 CITED ABOVE , ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES IN THE FIELD UNDER CONSIDERATION , WHILST THE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE ON TRACTORS IS ITSELF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ACTION . THE PREAMBLE TO BOTH THESE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES POINTS OUT THAT THE DIFFERENT TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS APPLIED IN THIS FIELD BY THE MEMBER STATES HAVE THE EFFECT OF HINDERING TRADE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ( FIRST RECITAL ). IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING THESE HINDRANCES THAT THE DIRECTIVES MAKE PROVISION FOR A SYSTEM OF ' ' EEC TYPE-APPROVAL ' ' IN REGARD TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF VEHICLES WHICH IS PUT INTO EFFECT BY ISSUING ' ' CERTIFICATES OF CONFORMITY ' ' FOR EACH VEHICLE . THESE VEHICLES MUST THEN BE TREATED BY ALL THE MEMBER STATES AS COMPLYING WITH THEIR OWN LEGISLATION ( SIXTH AND SEVENTH RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE RESPECTIVELY ). ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) OF BOTH DIRECTIVES , NO MEMBER STATE MAY ' ' REFUSE TO REGISTER OR PROHIBIT THE SALE , ENTRY INTO SERVICE OR USE OF ANY NEW VEHICLE ON GROUNDS RELATING TO ITS CONSTRUCTION OR FUNCTIONING , WHERE THAT VEHICLE IS ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY ' ' . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 14 , WHICH IS STILL THE SAME IN BOTH DIRECTIVES , ALL DECISIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIVE , REFUSING OR WITHDRAWING TYPE-APPROVAL , OR REFUSING REGISTRATION OR PROHIBITING SALE OR USE , ' ' SHALL STATE IN DETAIL THE REASONS ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED ' ' ; A DECISION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE PARTY CONCERNED , WHO SHALL AT THE SAME TIME BE INFORMED OF THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THE LAWS IN FORCE IN THE MEMBER STATES . FINALLY , UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF BOTH DIRECTIVES , THE MEMBER STATES ' ' SHALL PUT INTO FORCE PROVISIONS CONTAINING THE REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLY ' ' WITH THE DIRECTIVE AND SHALL COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMISSION ' ' THE TEXTS OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW ' ' WHICH THEY ADOPT IN THE FIELD COVERED BY THE DIRECTIVE .
9 THE 11 SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES WHICH BELGIUM IS ACCUSED OF NOT IMPLEMENTING WERE ADOPTED UNDER THE TWO GENERAL DIRECTIVES JUST EXAMINED . THEIR OBJECT IS TO ENABLE THE ' ' EEC TYPE-APPROVAL PROCEDURE ' ' LAID DOWN BY THE TWO FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES TO BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH PARTIAL AND SPECIFIC MEASURES AND THEY THEREFORE FORM PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM SET UP BY THOSE TWO DIRECTIVES . LIKE THE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES , EACH SEPARATE DIRECTIVE HAS A PROVISION IN THE FINAL ARTICLE REQUIRING MEMBER STATES TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES UNDER THEIR NATIONAL LAW .
10 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE WHOLE OF THESE PROVISIONS AND FROM THE NATURE OF THE MEASURES WHICH THEY PRESCRIBE THAT THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION ARE MEANT TO BE TURNED INTO PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW WHICH HAVE THE SAME LEGAL FORCE AS THOSE WHICH APPLY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN REGARD TO THE CHECKING AND TYPE-APPROVAL OF MOTOR VEHICLES OR TRACTORS . CONSEQUENTLY A MEMBER STATE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON IT BY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY IF , FOR THE PURPOSE OF FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION , IT SIMPLY RELIES ON EXISTING PRACTICES OR EVEN JUST THE TOLERANCE WHICH IS EXERCISED BY THE ADMINISTRATION .
11 THE ARGUMENT OF THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE ' ' OPTIONAL ' ' NATURE OF THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION HAS NO RELEVANCE SINCE THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE DIRECTIVE FROM WHICH MEMBER STATES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DEROGATE IS MEANT TO ABOLISH ALL OBSTACLES TO THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT LIKELY TO ARISE IN REGARD TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES AS A RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL RULES WHICH ARE DIFFERENT FROM COMMUNITY RULES . IT IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL IN THIS REGARD THAT EACH MEMBER STATE SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION IN A WAY WHICH FULLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLARITY AND CERTAINTY IN LEGAL SITUATIONS WHICH DIRECTIVES SEEK FOR THE BENEFIT OF MANUFACTURERS ESTABLISHED IN OTHER MEMBER STATES . MERE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES , WHICH BY THEIR NATURE CAN BE CHANGED AS AND WHEN THE AUTHORITIES PLEASE AND WHICH ARE NOT PUBLICIZED WIDELY ENOUGH CANNOT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS A PROPER FULFILMENT OF THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 189 ON MEMBER STATES TO WHICH THE DIRECTIVES ARE ADDRESSED .
12 THE JUSTIFICATION BASED ON THE ' ' DIRECT APPLICABILITY ' ' OF THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EITHER . THE EFFECT OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 IS THAT COMMUNITY DIRECTIVES MUST BE IMPLEMENTED BY APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES CARRIED OUT BY THE MEMBER STATES . ONLY IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES , IN PARTICULAR WHERE A MEMBER STATE HAS FAILED TO TAKE THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES REQUIRED OR HAS ADOPTED MEASURES WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO A DIRECTIVE , HAS THE COURT OF JUSTICE RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF PERSONS AFFECTED THEREBY TO RELY IN LAW ON A DIRECTIVE AS AGAINST A DEFAULTING MEMBER STATE ( CF . ON THIS SUBJECT , THE JUDGMENT OF 5 APRIL 1979 , RATTI , CASE 148/78 ECR 1629 ). THIS MINIMUM GUARANTEE ARISING FROM THE BINDING NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON THE MEMBER STATES BY THE EFFECT OF THE DIRECTIVES UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 CANNOT JUSTIFY A MEMBER STATE ' S ABSOLVING ITSELF FROM TAKING IN DUE TIME IMPLEMENTING MEASURES SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE PURPOSE OF EACH DIRECTIVE . AS STATED ABOVE , THESE MEASURES MUST CONSIST IN THIS CASE IN PROVISIONS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE WHICH ARE APPLIED UNDER THE NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING OBSERVANCE OF REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS ' ' MANDATORY ' ' IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE TWO FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES ( CF . THE FIRST RECITAL ).
13 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT MUST BE DISMISSED .
14 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT SECONDLY ARGUES THAT , BEING ANXIOUS TO ENSURE LEGAL CLARITY , IT HAS IN THE MEANTIME COMMENCED THE PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO INCORPORATE THE DIRECTIVES INTO NATIONAL RULES BUT THE COMPLETION OF THESE PROCEDURES HAS BEEN DELAYED OWING TO LEGAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY PROCEDURE APPLICABLE AND , FURTHERMORE , BY INTERNAL POLITICAL PROBLEMS .
15 IT NEED ONLY BE OBSERVED , AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY STATED , FOR EXAMPLE IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 11 APRIL 1978 ( COMMISSION V ITALIAN REPUBLIC , CASE 100/77 ECR 879 ), THAT A MEMBER STATE CANNOT RELY UPON DOMESTIC DIFFICULTIES OR PROVISIONS OF ITS NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM , EVEN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM , FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFYING A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OBLIGATIONS AND TIME-LIMITS CONTAINED IN COMMUNITY DIRECTIVES .
16 ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR JUDGING THE CASE IN THIS MANNER IS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 15 OF BOTH GENERAL DIRECTIVES , NOS 70/156 OF 6 FEBRUARY 1970 AND 74/150 OF 4 MARCH 1974 WHICH PROVIDE IN IDENTICAL TERMS THAT ' ' MEMBER STATES SHALL PUT INTO FORCE PROVISIONS CONTAINING THE REQUIREMENTS ' NECESSARY ' IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THIS DIRECTIVE WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF ITS NOTIFICATION AND SHALL FORTHWITH INFORM THE COMMISSION THEREOF ' ' . SINCE BOTH DIRECTIVES ARE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES THIS PROVISION MAY BE READ AS MEANING THAT MEMBER STATES TO WHICH THEY ARE ADDRESSED HAVE A DUTY TO ANTICIPATE THE STEPS NEEDED UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS IN ORDER TO PUT INTO FORCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME-LIMITS THE SEPARATE DIRECTIVES WHOSE SUBJECT-MATTER IS PLAINLY IDENTIFIED IN THE ANNEX TO EACH OF THE SAID DIRECTIVES .
17 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT CONCERNING THE PROBLEMS WHICH IT ENCOUNTERED WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVES IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED .
18 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE COURT MUST DECLARE THAT THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM HAS FAILED IN ITS OBLIGATIONS .