Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62001CC0483

    Stanovisko generálního advokáta - Tizzano - 16 ledna 2003.
    Komise Evropských společenství proti Francouzské republice.
    Nesplnění povinnosti státem - Směrnice 96/29/Euratom.
    Věc C-483/01.

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2003:35

    Date of document:
    16/01/2003
    Date lodged:
    13/12/2001
    Author:
    Soudní dvůr
    Country or organisation from which the request originates:
    Francie
    Form:
    Stanovisko generálního advokáta
    Authentic language:
    italština
    Type of procedure:
    Žaloba pro nesplnění smluvní povinnosti - úspěšné
    Defendant:
    Francie
    Judge-Rapporteur:
    Timmermans
    Advocate General:
    Tizzano
    Treaty:
    Smlouva o založení Evropského společenství pro atomovou energii
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Conclusions

    OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
    TIZZANO
    delivered on 16 January 2003 (1)



    Case C-483/01



    Commission of the European Communities
    v
    French Republic


    ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Protection of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period))






    1. In the present proceedings under Article 141(2) EA brought on 13 December 2001, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration that, by not adopting, or in the alternative, by not communicating to the Commission, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1, hereinafter the directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

    2. Under Article 55 of the directive the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive before 13 May 2000 and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

    3. By letter of 17 April 2000, the French Republic communicated draft provisions for the transposition of the directive into national law, in accordance with Article 33 EA. However, the French authorities did not subsequently provide the Commission with any further information regarding the adoption of the measures necessary to comply with the directive.

    4. The Commission therefore served notice on the French Republic by letter of 28 July 2000. In reply, France stated that, whilst it was doing its utmost, it had not yet adopted measures to transpose the directive. Therefore, on 17 January 2001, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion laying down a period of two months within which France had to comply with its obligations under the directive. Following that opinion, the French Republic communicated to the Commission certain measures transposing the directive. However, since the directive was still not fully transposed into French law within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the Commission brought the present action.

    5. Without denying the Commission's allegations, the French Government merely admitted in its defence that, upon the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the provisions necessary for the transposition of the directive had still not all been adopted because the adoption procedure had taken longer than anticipated.

    6. I consider, therefore, that the action must succeed and the French Republic must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the order sought by the Commission.

    Conclusion

    7. I propose that the Court should:

    (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

    (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.

    1 –
    Original language: Italian.
    Top