Commission v Belgium (Approximation of laws) [1998] EUECJ C-79/98 (06 October 1998)
Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 94/69/EC by not adopting the necessary transposing measures within the prescribed period.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] EUECJ C-79/98
- Parties
- Applicant: Commission of the European Communities; Respondent: Kingdom of Belgium
- Jurisdiction
- European Union
- Procedural Posture
- Infringement Proceedings Under Article 169 EC Treaty / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted. Declaration of failure to fulfil obligations. Costs awarded against Belgium.
- Legal Topics
- Failure to Transpose Directive, Obligations of Member States, Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commission of the European Communities
Applicant
Kingdom of Belgium
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Infringement Proceedings Under Article 169 EC Treaty / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Belgium failed to adopt necessary measures to transpose Commission Directive 94/69/EC within the prescribed period
Ratio Decidendi
Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 94/69/EC by not adopting the necessary transposing measures within the prescribed period.
Court Disposition
Application granted. Declaration of failure to fulfil obligations. Costs awarded against Belgium.
Orders
- Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 94/69/EC.
- Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 March 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1994 L 381, p. 1, 'the Directive'), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The first paragraph of Article 2 of the Directive provides that the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith by 1 September 1996 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. On the expiry of that period, since it had not received any communication relating to the transposition of the Directive into Belgian law and had no other information enabling it to conclude that the Kingdom of Belgium had complied with that obligation, the Commission, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty, gave notice to the Belgian Government on 16 January 1997 to submit its observations on the matter within two months. Since it received no reply to that letter, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Belgian Government on 3 September 1997 calling upon it to adopt the measures required in order to comply with its terms within two months of receipt of its notification. By letter of 3 October 1997 the Belgian Government replied to the Commission that the Directive would be transposed into Belgian law by a royal decree, the text of which was appended to its letter, that the decree had been laid before the Ministers for Public Health and for the Environment for their signature and that it would be signed by the Head of State and published as soon as possible. On 20 March 1998, since it had not been informed of any official and definitive transposition of the Directive, the Commission decided to bring the present application. In its defence the Kingdom of Belgium does not dispute that the Directive in question has not been transposed with the prescribed period. It merely points out that the measures required for that purpose are in the course of being prepared, that a draft royal decree implementing the Community provisions in question will very soon be submitted to the King for signature and that the Court of Justice will be informed as soon as the royal decree enters into force. Since the Directive in question has not been transposed within the period laid down therein, the action brought by the Commission must be held to be well founded. It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with the Directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2 thereof. Costs 10. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of Belgium has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE COURT (Third Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2 thereof; 2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. Gulmann Moitinho de Almeida Puissochet Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 October 1998. R. Grass C. Gulmann Registrar President of the Third Chamber 1: Language of the case: French. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII