Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

29 October 1998 (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 92/29/EEC)

In Case C-410/97,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by Nicolas Schmit, Head of the International Economic Relations and Cooperation Directorate in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, 6 Rue de la Congrégation, Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 19), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 July 1998,

gives the following

Judgment

1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 5 December 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 19, hereinafter 'the Directive'), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Under the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith by 31 December 1994 and immediately inform the Commission thereof.

3. Since it had not received any notification concerning the transposition of the Directive into Luxembourg law, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty by sending the Luxembourg Government a letter of formal notice on 16 May 1995.

4. By letter of 12 September 1996 the Luxembourg Government informed the Commission that the measures necessary for transposing the Directive were being prepared.

5. Having received no communication of any definitive text adopted, the Commission on 16 December 1996 sent a reasoned opinion to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, calling upon it to adopt the necessary measures within two months of its notification.

6. By letter of 23 January 1997 the Luxembourg Government informed the Commission that a draft regulation was being adopted.

7. Having received no information to the effect that transposition had been completed, the Commission brought the present action.

8. In its defence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg admits not having fulfilled its obligation to transpose the Directive. It points out, however, that a draft law transposing the Directive is being prepared and is due to be submitted to the Government in Council before mid-March 1998.

9. Since the transposition of the Directive has not been achieved within the period prescribed therein, the action brought by the Commission in this connection must be held to be well founded.

10. It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.

    Costs

11. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

KapteynRagnemalm Ioannou

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 October 1998.

R. Grass P.J.G. Kapteyn

Registrar President of the Fourth Chamber

---

1: Language of the case: French.