Important legal notice

61999C0319

European Court reports 2000 Page I-10439

Opinion of the Advocate-General

The relevant Community legislation

The infringement procedure and submissions of the parties

6. The French authorities responded to the reasoned opinion initially by letter of 15 December 1998. In that letter, they acknowledged the delay in transposing the directive; by way of justification, however, they pointed out that there had been a change of government in France, which had slowed down the normal legislative process and asked the Commission to grant them a further period of two months so that they could draw up a precise timetable for transposition. The French authorities also requested a meeting with the competent departments of the Commission, in order to show them the draft implementing legislation. As shown by the statements submitted by both the Commission and France, this meeting took place on 22 January 1999.

On 8 June 1999, the French authorities sent the Commission a second letter; in this, among other things, they reported that the procedure for transposing the directive was in hand and that, in order to complete this rapidly, the Government had secured the presentation of an amendment - as part of the first-reading debate on the draft law on broadcasting - specifically regarding implementation of the directive. They added that this draft law would be examined by the Senate in the autumn of 1999.

8. In its defence, the French Government did not dispute the failure to adopt the national provisions necessary for implementation. It merely repeated that the transposition procedures were in hand and these would culminate in final adoption of the legislation described in the letter of 8 June 1999 replying to the reasoned opinion and of a series of regulatory instruments. However, the French Government gave an assurance that all possible efforts were being made to complete implementation by June 2000.

The French Government also observed in its defence that the period of nine months prescribed in Article 8 of the directive for its implementation by the Member States was particularly short, especially since, as provided for in Article 7, the directive repeals and replaces the directive of 1992. This gives rise to a situation which, in terms of legal certainty, is not of the simplest, making transposition of the directive into national law particularly complex. The French Government explicitly acknowledges, however, that the fact that Member States have been allowed only a limited period of time to implement the directive is not an acceptable justification for its own delay in adopting the national implementing measures necessary.

Whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations

10. It is worth adding that France's failure to fulfil obligations cannot be justified either on the basis of the alleged brevity of the period allowed in Article 8 of the directive for transposition by the Member States. On that point, too, the case-law clearly states that ... the governments of the Member States participate in the preparatory work for directives and must therefore be in a position to prepare within the period prescribed the legislative provisions necessary for their implementation ....

Costs

11. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if this has been requested. As the Commission has applied for costs, I propose that the French Republic - which, in my view, has been unsuccessful - be ordered to pay the costs.

Conclusion

12. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should rule as follows:

(1) By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(2) The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.