Report of the Judge-Rapporteur in Case C-384/92
I — Background to the dispute and pre-litigation procedure
A — Community rules
1. Council Directive 88/661/EEC of 19 December 1988 on the zootechnical standards applicable to breeding animals of the porcine species (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 36) is intended partially to harmonize zootechnical standards with a view to liberalizing gradually intra-Community trade in such animals. It concerns both purebred and hybrid breeding pigs.
2. Council Directive 89/361/EEC of 30 May 1989 concerning purebred breeding sheep and goats (OJ 1989 L 153, p. 30) is intended to overcome zootechnical problems which may arise in intra-Community trade in such breeding animals by pursuing the harmonization of provisions applicable in that field also.
3. Council Directive 90/118/EEC of 5 March 1990 on the acceptance of purebred breeding pigs for breeding (OJ 1990 L 71, p. 34) is intended to provide for harmonization additional to that provided for in Directive 88/661. It provides in particular that, without prejudice to animal health rules, there is no prohibition or restriction of or obstacle to:
4. Council Directive 90/119/EEC of 5 March 1990 on hybrid breeding pigs for breeding (OJ 1990 L 71, p. 36) is also intended to provide additional harmonization to that provided for in Directive 88/661. It provides in particular that, without prejudice to animal health rules, there is to be no prohibition or restriction of or obstacle to:
B — Pre-litigation procedure
Since it had not been informed of measures adopted by Ireland to comply with those four directives, the Commission, pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty, sent the Irish Government on 25 April 1991 a letter formally requesting it to submit its observations on the matter.
The Irish authorities replied on 12 July 1991 that they were in the process of preparing the measures necessary to comply with the directives and that, in the meantime, practical effect was being given to the terms of those directives.
Having received no further information, the Commission addressed to Ireland on 20 November 1991 a reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty, declaring that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations and requesting that it take the necessary measures within two months.
Ireland replied on 6 February 1992 that the appropriate legislative provisions would be adopted on the basis of those which were in the process of being adopted in order to amend the regulations concerning trade in bovine semen. In that letter the Irish Government again assured the Commission that the directives were already being observed in practice.
II — Written procedure and forms of order sought by the parties
The application of the Commission was received at the Court Registry on 21 October 1992.
Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court, pursuant to Article 44(a) of the Rules of Procedure, decided, with the express consent of the parties, that the procedure would not include an oral part.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
Ireland requests the Court to defer the taking of further steps in the present proceedings for a period of six months during which the necessary provisions will have been adopted.
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties
A — Complaints of the Commission
The Commission observes that, according to Article 189 of the Treaty, directives are to be binding as to the result to be achieved upon each Member State to which they are addressed and according to Article 5 the Member States are to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of their obligations. Ireland has so far not adopted the necessary measures to conform with directives 88/661, 89/361, 90/118 and 90/119, thus failing to fulfil its obligations.
B — The arguments of the Irish Government
Ireland points out that, as regards Directive 89/361 concerning purebred breeding sheep and goats, the competent Department has prepared the necessary measures and the appropriate legislation is expected to have been adopted in advance of the time at which the present case would normally have reached its conclusion.
As regards the other three directives, concerning breeding animals of the porcine species, the correspondence between the Irish authorities and the Commission in October and November 1992 has not enabled all the problems relating to the implementation of those directives to be resolved. However, pending the outcome of further initiatives, the authorities have taken measures, such as the issue of letters inviting applications for herd-book and register approval from interested parties, in accordance with those directives.
Ireland therefore requests the Court to stay proceedings for a period of six months.
C — The replies of the Commission to those arguments
The Commission recalls that the Court has consistently held that mere administrative practices, which by their nature may be altered at will by the authorities and are not given appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting proper fulfilment by a Member State of its obligations under Community law. Ireland acknowledges, moreover, that legislative measures must be adopted in order to implement the directives at issue.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Irish authorities, which have never given any firm undertaking to adopt the necessary measures, merely affirm that the problems raised will probably have been resolved within the six-month time-limit requested of the Court. In view of the failure to offer guarantees in this matter, the Commission sees no advantage in the Court granting any stay in these proceedings and adheres to the claims presented in its application.
1 Language of the case: English.