61975J0052

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - DIRECTIVES - BINDING EFFECT - TIME-LIMITS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH MEASURES

( EEC TREATY , ARTICLE 189 )

2 . MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - PERFORMANCE - DELAYS BY OTHER MEMBER STATES - JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM OBLIGATIONS - INADMISSIBILITY

3 . COMMUNITY LAW - CHARACTER AS NEW LAW

4 . MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - FAILURE - LIABILITY - EXTENT

( EEC TREATY , ARTICLE 169 )

1 . ALTHOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE ARE NO LESS BINDING ON THE MEMBER STATES TO WHICH THEY ARE ADDRESSED THAN THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW , SUCH AN EFFECT ATTACHES A FORTIORI TO THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PERIODS ALLOWED FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED , IN PARTICULAR SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE RULES APPLIED IN THE MEMBER STATES AFTER THESE PERIODS HAVE EXPIRED MIGHT RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION .

2 . ANY DELAYS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE PART OF OTHER MEMBER STATES IN PERFORMING OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY A DIRECTIVE MAY NOT BE INVOKED BY A MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS OWN , EVEN TEMPORARY , FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS .

3 . THE TREATY DID NOT MERELY CREATE RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS SUBJECTS TO WHOM IT APPLIES , BUT ESTABLISHED A NEW LEGAL ORDER WHICH GOVERNS THE POWERS , RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE SAID SUBJECTS , AS WELL AS THE PROCEDURES NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF HAVING ANY INFRINGEMENT DECLARED AND PUNISHED .

4 . UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY , THE MEMBER STATES ARE LIABLE NO MATTER WHICH ORGAN OF THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE .

A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT PLEAD PROVISIONS , PRACTICES OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN ITS INTERNAL LEGAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATIONS AND TIME-LIMITS UNDER COMMUNITY DIRECTIVES

IN CASE 52/75

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , CESARE MAESTRIPIERI , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER , MARIO CERVINO , BATIMENT CFL , PLACE DE LA GARE ,

APPLICANT ,

V ITALIAN REPUBLIC , REPRESENTED BY ITS AMBASSADOR , ADOLFO MARESCA , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY IVO MARIA BRAGUGLIA , DEPUTY STATE ADVOCATE , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE ITALIAN EMBASSY ,

DEFENDANT ,

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED IN ITS OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 43 OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 70/458/EEC OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1970 ON THE MARKETING OF VEGETABLE SEED ,

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 10 JUNE 1975 , THE COMMISSION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT , UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY , AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT BY FAILING TO BRING INTO FORCE WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 43 OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 70/458 OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1970 ON THE MARKETING OF VEGETABLE SEED ( OJ ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION , 1970 ( III ) P . 674 ; CODIFIED TEXT , TAKING ACCOUNT OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS , OJ C 66 , 1974 , P . 62 ), ALL THE LAWS , REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID DIRECTIVE , THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED IN ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY .

2/3 AS THE COUNCIL WAS AWARE THAT THE DIFFERENCE EXISTING BETWEEN NATIONAL RULES ON THE USE MADE OF VEGETABLE SEED CONSTITUTED A BARRIER TO TRADE BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES IT SOUGHT , BY MEANS OF THE DIRECTIVE OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1970 , TO INTRODUCE COMMON RULES COMPRISING COMMON REQUIREMENTS AS REGARDS THE MARKETING OF SUCH SEED , BOTH BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND ON THE NATIONAL MARKETS . THIS DIRECTIVE FIXED A PERIOD EXPIRING ON 1 JULY 1972 FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL MEASURES .

4 THE COMMISSION MAINTAINS THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS NOT YET ADOPTED THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE CONCERNING :

( A ) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL CATALOGUE OF VARIETIES OF VEGETABLE SPECIES AND THE FIXING OF CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIETIES FOR INCLUSION IN THESE CATALOGUES ( ARTICLES 3 TO 15 OF THE DIRECTIVE );

( B ) THE CLASSIFICATION OF SEED ( ARTICLES 2 AND 20 OF THE DIRECTIVE );

( C ) THE CONDITIONS OF MARKETING OF ' STANDARD ' SEED ( ARTICLES 24 TO 26 OF THE DIRECTIVE );

( D ) THE ABOLITION OF MARKETING RESTRICTIONS ON SEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE ( ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ) AND ARTICLE 30 );

5/6 THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC OBSERVES THAT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN DIRECTIVE NO 70/458 WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE ITALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM BY LAW NO 1096 OF 25 NOVEMBER 1971 , LAYING DOWN RULES FOR THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF SEED , AND BY ITS IMPLEMENTING REGULATION , WHICH WAS APPROVED BY DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC NO 1065 OF 8 OCTOBER 1973 , AND THAT , IN ADDITION , THE REGISTER OF VARIETIES OF CERTAIN HORTICULTURAL SPECIES HAS BEEN SET UP BY DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF 26 APRIL 1973 . ALTHOUGH IT ACCEPTS THAT IT FAILED TO OBSERVE THE TIME-LIMIT FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE REFERRED TO BY THE COMMISSION IN THE APPLICATION , THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC MAINTAINS THAT THIS DELAY IS JUSTIFIED .

7/9 IN THIS RESPECT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC MAINTAINS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 43 OF THE DIRECTIVE WAS TOO SHORT . THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC AND PRECISE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE PROVED TO BE A VERY COMPLEX MATTER , WITH THE RESULT THAT THE HARMONIZATION OF THE NATIONAL RULES WITH THESE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE REQUIRED EXTENSIVE RESEARCH , NUMEROUS CONSULTATIONS WITH THE RELEVANT AGRICULTURAL SECTORS AND A LARGE NUMBER OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEETINGS . THE INADEQUACY OF THE TIME-LIMIT WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT NO MEMBER STATE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE BY 1 JULY 1972 , THE DATE FIXED FOR THIS PURPOSE , AND THAT IN CERTAIN STATES IT WAS ONLY IMPLEMENTED IN JUNE AND OCTOBER 1974 . IN ANY EVENT , A DRAFT LAW WHICH WAS INTENDED TO INTRODUCE THE DIRECTIVE AS A WHOLE INTO THE ITALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM WAS APPROVED ON 3 DECEMBER 1975 BY THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES , ITS APPROVAL APPEARED ON THE AGENDA OF THE SITTING OF THE SENATE OF 15 JANUARY 1976 AND ONLY THE GOVERNMENTAL CRISIS HAD PREVENTED ITS ADOPTION AT THAT DATE .

10 THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF A DIRECTIVE IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT SINCE THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ARE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE MEMBER STATES AND WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE IF THE DESIRED AIMS ARE NOT ACHIEVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMITS . ALTHOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE ARE NO LESS BINDING ON THE MEMBER STATES TO WHICH THEY ARE ADDRESSED THAN THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW , SUCH AN EFFECT ATTACHES A FORTIORI TO THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PERIODS ALLOWED FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED , IN PARTICULAR SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE RULES APPLIED IN THE MEMBER STATES AFTER THESE PERIODS HAVE EXPIRED MIGHT RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION .

11 FURTHERMORE , ANY DELAYS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE PART OF OTHER MEMBER STATES IN PERFORMING OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY A DIRECTIVE MAY NOT BE INVOKED BY A MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS OWN , EVEN TEMPORARY , FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS . THE TREATY DID NOT MERELY CREATE RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS SUBJECTS TO WHOM IT APPLIES , BUT ESTABLISHED A NEW LEGAL ORDER WHICH GOVERNS THE POWERS , RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE SAID SUBJECTS , AS WELL AS THE PROCEDURES NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF HAVING ANY INFRINGEMENT DECLARED AND PUNISHED .

12/13 IF THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIRECTIVES PROVES TO BE TOO SHORT THE ONLY MEANS OF ACTION COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED CONSISTS IN TAKING THE APPROPRIATE INITIATIVES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD BY THE COMPETENT COMMUNITY INSTITUTION . IN THIS RESPECT IT MAY BE NOTED THAT , IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY DECIDED TO EXTEND THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE , IN PARTICULAR BY MEANS OF DIRECTIVE NO 72/418 OF 6 DECEMBER 1972 ( OJ L 287 , 1972 , P . 22 ) AND DIRECTIVE NO 73/438 OF 11 DECEMBER 1973 ( OJ L 356 , 1973 , P . 79 ).

14 FINALLY , IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY THE MEMBER STATES ARE LIABLE NO MATTER WHICH ORGAN OF THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE , AND THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT PLEAD PROVISIONS , PRACTICES OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN ITS INTERNAL LEGAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATIONS AND TIME-LIMITS UNDER COMMUNITY DIRECTIVES .

15 IT FOLLOWS THAT BY NOT ADOPTING WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED ALL THE PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 70/458 ON THE MARKETING OF VEGETABLE SEED THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED IN ONE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY .

COSTS

16 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT

HEREBY :

1 . RULES THAT BY NOT ADOPTING WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED ALL THE LAWS , REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 70/458 OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1970 ON THE MARKETING OF VEGETABLE SEED , THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED IN ONE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY ;

2 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO BEAR THE COSTS .