JUDGMENT OF 2. 2. 1982 — CASE 70/81 COMMISSION v BELGIUM

In Case 70/81

THE COURT composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, G. Bosco, A. Touftait and O. Due (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, A. Chloros and F. Grevisse, Judges, Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and written procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and written procedure

1. Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (Official Journal L 194, p. 23), is one of various Community measures which are based on Articles ICO and 235 of the Treaty and fall within the Community policy on the protection of the environment.

2. Since the Commission was not informed of the adoption of the provisions needed to adapt Belgian law, it considered that the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. By a letter dated 3 July 1979 it invited the Belgian Government, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, to submit its observations within a period of two months.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Declare that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV —. Oral procedure

1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 April 1981 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (Official Journal L 194, p. 23), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty.

2. By virtue of Article 17 of the directive Member States were to implement the measures needed to comply with the directive within twenty-four months of its notification and that period expired in this case on 18 June 1977.

3. The Belgian Government has stated that the directive has already been the subject of certain measures which implement it in pan. Nevertheless, it does not deny that the Kingdom of Belgium has not fulfilled its obligations to implement the directive fully within the period provided.

4. Essentially, the Belgian Government justifies its failure by the fact that important institutional reforms concerning the redistribution of powers and responsibilities between the national and regional institutions are in progress, especially in the area covered by the directive in question. So long as the new institutions are not yet in a position to exercise their powers it will not be possible to implement the directive fully.

5. Although those circumstances may explain the difficulty in applying the directive they do not expunge the failure of the Kingdom of Belgium to fulfil its obligations. According to established case-law of the Court a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal system to justify failure to comply with obligations under Community directives.

6. It should also be pointed out that, in order that the exceptional situation referred to by his Government should be taken into account, the Belgian Minister for Public Health and the Environment, in answer to the reasoned opinion provided for in the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, requested the Commission on 14 November 1979 to grant to the Kingdom of Belgium an additional period of one year to adopt the measures of national law needed to implement the directive. Those measures ought to have entered into force in June 1977, and in fact it was only on 3 April 1981 that the Commission brought the matter before the Court under the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty.

7. It must therefore be held that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

8. Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for. Since the defendant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, THE COURT hereby:

1 Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (Official Journal L 194, p. 23), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;

2 Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.