This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62001CC0372
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 7 March 2002. # Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/8/EC. # Case C-372/01.
Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca - Jacobs - 7. marca 2002.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg.
Neizpolnitev obveznosti države.
Zadeva C-372/01.
Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca - Jacobs - 7. marca 2002.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg.
Neizpolnitev obveznosti države.
Zadeva C-372/01.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2002:159
62001C0372
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 7 March 2002. - Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/8/EC. - Case C-372/01.
European Court reports 2002 Page I-04553
Opinion of the Advocate-General
1. In this case the Commission seeks a declaration, pursuant to Article 226 EC, that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2. The Directive lays down provisions governing:
(a) the authorisation and the placing on the market for use of biocidal products within the Member States;
(b) the mutual recognition of authorisations within the Community; and
(c) the establishment at Community level of a positive list of active substances which may be used in biocidal products.
3. Pursuant to Article 34 of the Directive, Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 13 May 2000, and to communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions which they adopt.
4. Having received no communication from the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on implementing measures, the Commission introduced the present application.
5. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg states in its defence that a draft law transposing the essential provisions of the Directive has been brought before the Luxembourg Parliament and submitted to the Conseil d'État for an opinion. A draft Grand-Ducal regulation will complete the transposition on points of detail.
6. It follows that the Commission is entitled to the declaration which it seeks.
Conclusion
7. The Court should therefore in my opinion:
(1) declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.