OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

delivered on 15 May 1992 (*1)

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1.In the present infringement proceedings, the Commission is claiming that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which it should have adopted in order to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by Council Directive 89/360/EEC of 30 May 1989 (*1) and Commission Directive 89/321/EEC of 27 April 1989 (*2) or by failing to adopt the necessary measures to comply with those directives by the prescribed dates, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty.

2.Directive 89/360/EEC of 30 May 1989 amended Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 (*3) in order to take account of the possibility of not subjecting certain types of swine to serological testing, having regard, in particular, to the regression of brucellosis and changing production patterns.

3.Article 2 of Directive 89/360 requires Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive no later than 1 October 1989 and to inform the Commission thereof.

4.Directive 89/321/EEC of 27 April 1989 had as its object the insertion into Annex 1 to Directive 77/96/EEC of 21 December 1976 (*4) of new methods for detecting Trichinae.

5.Article 2 of Directive 89/321 requires Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive not later than 1 September 1989 and to inform the Commission thereof.

6.By a letter of formal notice dated 26 June 1990 the Commission drew the Italian Government's attention to the absence of any transposition measures in respect of the two directives.

7.A reasoned opinion dated 18 March 1991 reiterating the same complaints was sent to the Italian Republic which replied neither to the letter of formal notice nor to the reasoned opinion.

8.In its defence the Italian Government admits that the directives have not yet been fully implemented in its national legal system and that decrees are in the process of being adopted.

9.The infringement is established beyond doubt for, as the Court has consistently held, it is irrelevant what special difficulties are alleged by the Member State to explain the reasons for failing to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down. (*5)

10.Furthermore, the transposition into domestic law of Community directives must effectively guarantee their full application, (*6) which is not the case if there has been only partial transposition.

11.I therefore conclude that the Court should hold that, by failing to adopt within the requisite time-limits the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Commission Directive 89/321/EEC of 27 April 1989 and Council Directive 89/360/EEC of 30 May 1989, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty.

12.I also propose that the defendant Member State should be ordered to pay all the costs pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

(*1) Original language: French.

(*1) Amending Directive 64/432/EEC as regards administrative areas and a cessation of serological testing for brucellosis in certain types of swine (OJ 1989 L 153, p. 29).

(*2) Amending for the second time the Annexes to Council Directive 77/96/EEC on the examination for Trichinae (Trinchinelle spiralis) upon importation from third countries of fresh meat derived from domestic swine (OJ 1989 L 133, p. 33).

(*3) On animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (OJ English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 164).

(*4) On the examination for Trichinae (Trinchinelle spiralis) upon importation from third countries of fresh meat derived from domestic swine (OJ 1989 L 26, p. 67).

(*5) For example, the judgments in Case 42/80 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 3635, paragraph 4, in Case 43/80 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 3643, paragraph 4, and in Case 326/87 Commission v Italy [1988] ECR 4009, paragraph 6.

(*6) For example, the judgment in Case 322/86 Commission v Italy [1988] ECR 3995, paragraph 6.