Important legal notice

62000C0383

European Court reports 2002 Page I-04219

Opinion of the Advocate-General

4. The defendant Member State has admitted, both in the administrative procedure and before the Court, that specific measures to implement Article 11 of the Directive in national law were not adopted within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion as regards the Länder of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein.

5. The German Government's acceptance of the facts of the case means that there is no dispute as to the alleged failure to fulfil obligations, so that it is irrelevant that the procedures for drawing up the provisions necessary for transposition have now reached an advanced stage, since the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

7. The complexity of the measures required for transposition of the Directive at both the federal level and the level of the Länder and the fact that the German Government on numerous occasions reminded the regional authorities of the urgency of the task are irrelevant.

10. Thus, the special features of the case cited by the defendant Government cannot justify an application of Article 10 EC and of the principle of genuine cooperation that underlies it to the extent claimed in the defence to the application. The Commission and the Member States must work together in good faith whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions and secondary legislation, which prohibit individual derogations to the advantage of a Member State from the obligations that apply to all. The Court has applied that principle when dealing with the implementation of specific decisions of the Commission with a single addressee, but to my knowledge it has never done so for the benefit of one of several persons subject to the same act or provision.

11. From the preceding observations, it can be seen that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations as alleged and that the application should therefore be upheld.

12. In accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the defendant Member State should be ordered to pay the costs.

Conclusion

13. I propose that the Court should uphold the application and:

(1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances by failing to bring into force within the period prescribed in Article 24 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement it in national law;

(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.