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 62001CC0484

    Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 16 January 2003.
    Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
    Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 97/43/Euratom - Health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure - Incomplete implementation.
    Case C-484/01.

    European Court Reports 2003 I-04975

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2003:36

    Date of document:
    16/01/2003
    Date lodged:
    13/12/2001
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Country or organisation from which the request originates:
    France
    Form:
    Opinion of the Advocate General
    Authentic language:
    Italian
    Type of procedure:
    Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
    Defendant:
    France
    Judge-Rapporteur:
    Timmermans
    Advocate General:
    Tizzano
    Treaty:
    Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community
    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-484/01



    Commission of the European Communities
    v
    French Republic


    ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 97/43/Euratom – Ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure – 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 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (OJ 1997 L 180, p. 22, hereinafter the directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

    2. Under Article 14(1) 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 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, 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