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 61994CC0132

Lenz főtanácsnok indítványa, az ismertetés napja: 1995. november 16.
Az Európai Közösségek Bizottsága kontra Írország.
Kötelezettségszegés - 90/675/EGK irányelv - Állatorvosi ellenőrzések - Az átültetés elmaradása.
C-132/94. sz. ügy.

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1995:386

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

LENZ

delivered on 16 November 1995 ( *1 )

1. 

In this action against Ireland for failure to fulfil obligations, the Commission asks the Court to:

(1)

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply -with Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, ( 1 )and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof forthwith, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 32 thereof, and under the Treaty establishing the European Community;

(2)

order Ireland to pay the costs.

2. 

Article 32 of Directive 90/675 prescribes that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 31 December 1991 at the latest, and are to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

3. 

Since the Commission was not informed of any transposition by the Member State, it initiated the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations by a letter of formal notice dated 14 October 1992. There was no reply to the letter. The Commission thereupon delivered a reasoned opinion on 11 May 1993. By a letter of 15 July 1993 from the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the European Communities, the Irish Government informed the Commission that a transposition procedure was in progress. Since the Commission was not informed of the completion of the procedure, it brought an action before the Court on 14 April 1994. The Irish Government observed in its defence that by Statutory Instrument No 255 of 1994, signed by the Irish Minister for Agriculture on 26 July 1994, Ireland had transposed the directive, with the exception of provisions relating to fish and fishery products.

4. 

It is certain that the directive was not completely transposed into the law of the Member State within the time-limit set by the Commission. The directive does not provide for any exceptions to the time-limit.

5. 

The Commission's application with reference to failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period must therefore be upheld.

6. 

In accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party must be ordered to pay the costs.

Conclusion

7.

In conclusion, I suggest that the Court rule as follows:

(1)

By failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof forthwith, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 32 thereof, and under the Treaty establishing the European Community.

(2)

Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

( *1 ) Original language: German.

( 1 ) OJ 1990 L 373, p. 1.

Top