- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 22 November 1994. # Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands. # Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directive 90/667/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. # Case C-93/94.
ECLI:EU:C:1994:392
61994CC0093
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
Important legal notice
61994C0093
European Court reports 1995 Page I-00077
Opinion of the Advocate-General
++++
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
5. However, with respect to the claim that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty, I would remind the Court that, according to the relevant case-law, (3) the fact that a Member State has failed to fulfil specific obligations incumbent upon it under a directive makes it unnecessary to examine whether it has thereby also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty. (4) Consequently, it is sufficient to declare that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive itself and, specifically, under Article 21.
° declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/667/EEC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
° order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(*) Original language: Italian.
(1) ° OJ 1990 L 363, p. 51.
(2) ° See the judgment in Case C-243/89 Commission v Denmark [1993] ECR I-3353, paragraph 13.
(3) ° See, most recently, the judgment in Case C-65/94 Commission v Belgium [1994] ECR I-0000, paragraph 5.
(4) ° In that connection I ought to point out that the same logic applies in respect of the alleged infringement of Articles 7a and 5 of the Treaty, provided of course that in such cases reference to that legal basis has already been made during the pre-litigation procedure and is not confined, as in the present case, to the application initiating the proceedings.