1. By its application, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 11, ‘the directive’) or, at least, 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 that directive.
2. The first paragraph of Article 16 of the directive provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 1 March 2007 and forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
3. Since it was not informed of the provisions taken to transpose the directive into the national legal system within the period prescribed, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 EC. After sending a letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom asking it to submit its observations, the Commission, on 28 November 2007, issued a reasoned opinion calling on that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply therewith within a period of two months of its receipt.
4. As the United Kingdom Government’s reply to that reasoned opinion showed that the provisions necessary to transpose the directive had not yet been adopted, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
5. In its defence, the United Kingdom Government accepts that, on 1 April 2007, the directive had still to be transposed both in the United Kingdom and in the territory of Gibraltar and the legislative process to ensure such transposition was still in progress at that date. In addition, it explains that the delay is, inter alia, due to difficulties in incorporating the provisions transposing that directive into the existing legislation and, in the case of Gibraltar, to the lack of a legal framework enabling the directive to be transposed.
6. It must be recalled in that connection that, 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, Case C-23/05 Commission v Luxembourg [2005] ECR I-9535, paragraph 9, and Case C-152/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-39, paragraph 15).
7. In the present case, it is common ground that, on the expiry of the time-limit imposed in the reasoned opinion, the measures intended to transpose the directive into the United Kingdom’s legal system had not been adopted.
8. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive (see, inter alia, Case C-423/00 Commission v Belgium [2002] ECR I-593, paragraph 16, and Case C-235/04 Commission v Spain [2007] ECR I-5415, paragraph 55).
9. It follows that the action brought by the Commission must be considered to be well founded.
10. Consequently, it must be declared that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Costs
11. 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. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the United Kingdom has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.