EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 9 November 1993. # Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. # Failure to fulfil obligations - Article 48 of the EEC Treaty - Regulation (EEC) Nº 1612/68 of the Council. # Case C-37/93.

ECLI:EU:C:1993:869

61993CC0037

November 9, 1993
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ

delivered on 9 November 1993 (*1)

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In these Treaty infringement proceedings the Commission claims that the Court should:

declare that, by retaining in its legislation provisions under which certain seamen's jobs, other than those of master and first mate, are reserved to Belgian nationals, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968;

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

2. The Belgian Government does not dispute that the provisions of Belgian law objected to by the Commission are incompatible with Community law. It merely states that draft legislation has been prepared amending those provisions in line with Community law. It adds that the drafts have been sent to the Commission and will be placed before the appropriate legislative bodies as soon as the Commission has approved them.

3. In its reasoned opinion of 23 April 1991 the Commission called on Belgium to remedy the failure to fulfil obligations within two months from receipt of the reasoned opinion. It is clear that this was not done before the end of the written procedure (and presumably still has not been done), even though Belgium informed the Commission in its reply of 13 June 1991 to the reasoned opinion that it had decided to amend Belgian law in the manner desired by the Commission. Belgium has put forward no reasons to justify the delay.

4. I accordingly propose that the Court should uphold the Commission's claims.

(*1) Original language: German.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia