[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Commission v Royaume-Uni (Industrial policy) [2004] EUECJ C-277/03 (13 July 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C27703.html Cite as: [2004] EUECJ C-277/3, [2004] EUECJ C-277/03

[New search] [Help]

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
13 July 2004 (1)

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

having regard to the decision taken, after hearing the views of the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 June 2003, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, particularly Article 10(1) thereof, and the EC Treaty.
2. Under the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the directive Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it by 21 April 2002, and are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.
3. Since it had not been informed of the provisions enacted to ensure transposition into national law of the directive, the Commission initiated the procedure under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil a Treaty obligation. After putting the United Kingdom on formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission on 23 October 2002 issued a reasoned opinion requesting that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply with it within a period of two months of its notification.
4. After the United Kingdom authorities replied that transposition of the directive into national law had not been completed, the Commission brought the present proceedings.
5. The Commission states that it follows from the third paragraph of Article 249 EC that the Member States are obliged to take the measures necessary to transpose directives into the internal legal order within the period laid down therein and are forthwith to communicate those measures to the Commission. In the present case, although the United Kingdom authorities ought, under the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) thereof, to have brought into force measures transposing the directive at the latest by 21 April 2002, it has still not adopted those measures and, in any event, has not communicated them to the Commission.
6. In that regard it must be pointed out 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 prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-83/02 Commission v Hellenic Republic [2003] ECR I-5639, paragraph 10) .
7. In the present case it is undisputed that no measure intended to ensure transposition of the directive into the legal order of the United Kingdom had been adopted by expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. The United Kingdom Government accounts for that delay, in part, by the need to consult the relevant professional circles in the automobile industry.
8. None the less, likewise according to settled case-law, a Member State may not seek to rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal order in order to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-114/02 Commission v France [2002] ECR I-3783, paragraph 11).
9. Accordingly, the action brought by the Commission must be regarded as well founded.
10. Consequently, it must be held that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under it.

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 asked for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the United Kingdom has been unsuccessful and the Commission sought an order for costs against it, it must be ordered to pay the costs.



On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Puissochet	Macken	von Bahr

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 July 2004.

R. Grass

J.-P. Puissochet

Registrar

President of the Sixth Chamber

---

1 - Language of the case: English.