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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

18 May 2000 (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/33/EC)

In Case C-45/99,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

French Republic, represented by K. Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and C. Bergeot, Chargé de Mission in that directorate, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt, alternatively to communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (OJ 1994 L 216 p. 12), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Saggio,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 February 2000,

gives the following

Judgment

1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 February 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC) for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, alternatively to communicate to it, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (OJ 1994 L 216 p. 12, hereinafter 'the directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive.

2. Article 17 of the directive provides that the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith not later than 22 June 1996 or ensure, by that date at the latest, that the two sides of industry introduce the requisite provisions by means of collective agreements and that they forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

3. Having received from the French Government no notification concerning the measures taken to transpose the directive into French law, and in the absence of any otherinformation from which it could conclude that the French Republic had brought into force the necessary provisions, the Commission decided to initiate against that Member State the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty. By letter of 16 January 1997, the Commission, after reminding the French Republic of its obligations under the directive, gave it formal notice to submit its observations within a period of two months.

4. The French authorities replied, on 13 March 1997, that the French legislation in force already contained most of the legislative provisions of the directive but acknowledged that that legislation still had to be supplemented in order to ensure satisfactory implementation. They stated that a draft Law containing the necessary provisions was shortly due to be laid before the Parliament.

5. Having received no further information regarding implementation, the Commission, by letter of 12 January 1998, sent a reasoned opinion to the French Republic. In it, the Commission again set out the observations it had made in its letter of formal notice and called on the French Republic to comply with the opinion within two months from notification.

6. By letter of 13 March 1998, the French authorities, in reply to the reasoned opinion, stated that the transposition of the directive into French law was still under way. In those circumstances, the Commission decided to bring the present action.

7. The French Republic does not deny that its legislation needs to be amended in order to comply with the directive, but points out that most of the provisions of that directive were already incorporated in French legislation currently in force.

8. The Court finds, on those facts alone, that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

   Costs

9. 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 and the French Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter 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 measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

EdwardKapteyn Ragnemalm

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 May 2000.

R. Grass D.A.O. Edward

Registrar President of the Fourth Chamber

---

1: Language of the case: French.