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 Sir Gordon Slynn delivered on 8 October 1981. # Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. # Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - Admission to the occupation of road passenger transport operator. # Case 29/81.

ECLI:EU:C:1981:225

61981CC0029

October 8, 1981
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 SIR GORDON SLYNN

My Lords,

Case 29/81 is an application by the Commission for a declaration that the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty in that it has not adopted the measures which are necessary for the implementation of Council Directive 74/562 of 12 November 1974 (OJ L 308 of 19. 11. 1974, p. 23), within the period fixed for doing so by Article 6.

The Republic of Italy has explained that it was necessary, in this case, to initiate consultations with interested parties and that process has inevitably delayed the matter being brought before the Italian legislature. Once again, it seems to me that the jurisprudence of the Court has made it clear consistently that a Member State is not entitled to rely on practices or circumstances existing in its own internal legal or administrative system to justify failing to comply with the obligations imposed on it by a directive.

In this case, too, a request has been made that the Court should delay the making of a declaration and should extend the time for the implementation of this directive. Whilst understanding the reasons which have been put forward by counsel for the Republic of Italy, it does not seem to me, for the reasons given in my opinion in Case 28/81, that it is open to the Court to extend the date, or that it would be right to defer making a decision in the case.

Accordingly, in my opinion, the declaration sought by the Commission should be granted in this case also and the Republic of Italy should be ordered to pay the costs of the action as asked by the Commission.

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