Important legal notice

62001C0286

European Court reports 2002 Page I-05463

Opinion of the Advocate-General

4. It claims that the defendant has failed to take these measures.

5. The Commission is specifically alleging failure to transpose Article 6(3) and (4) and Articles 10, 21 and 26 of the directive.

7. The defendant adds that Articles 10(1) and 21 of the directive have been transposed following the adoption of Decree No 2002-36 of 8 January 2002 relating to certain standard clauses in contract documents attached to authorisations issued under Article L 33-1 of the Post and Telecommunications Code, which was notified to the Commission on 31 January 2002.

9. The transposition measures referred to by the French Government, which, I would repeat, were notified to the Commission in August and October 2001 and in January 2002, were therefore taken after the period laid down in the reasoned opinion had expired, so that they do not have any bearing on the existence of the failure to comply with obligations which is alleged by the Commission.

10. As regards the other provisions at issue, namely Articles 6(4) and 26 of the directive, the defendant does not deny that the necessary transposition measures are still in the course of adoption.

11. It follows that it has failed to comply with its obligations, as alleged by the Commission.

Conclusion

12. For the above reasons I propose that the Court should:

- declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force within the prescribed period the whole of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment, and in particular Article 6(3) and (4) and Articles 10, 21 and 26, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that directive;

- order the French Republic to pay the costs.