JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

25 February 1999 (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 94/47/EC — Non-transposition)

In Case C-319/98,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, ofits Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at theoffice of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Anni Snoecx, Assistant Adviser in theDirectorate General for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Tradeand Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting as Agent, with an address forservice in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribedperiod, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with

Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contractsrelating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timesharebasis (OJ 1994 L 280, p. 83), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil itsobligations under that directive,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeidaand C. Gulmann, 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 17 December1998,

gives the following

Judgment

1.

    By application lodged at the Court Registry on 18 August 1998, the Commissionof the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the ECTreaty in which it sought a declaration that, by failing to adopt within theprescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary tocomply with Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects ofcontracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on atimeshare basis (OJ 1994 L 280, p. 83) (hereinafter 'the Directive‘), the Kingdomof Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2.

    Under Article 12 of the Directive, Member States were required to bring into forcethe laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with theDirective by no later than 30 months after its publication in the Official Journal ofthe European Communities, that is by 30 April 1997, and immediately to inform theCommission thereof.

3.

    Since it had not received any communication relating to the transposition of theDirective into Belgian law and had no other information to show that the Kingdomof Belgium had fulfilled that obligation, the Commission gave formal notice to that

State by letter of 9 September 1997, calling on it to submit its observations withina period of two months.

4.

    In the absence of any reply from the Belgian authorities, on 19 February 1998 theCommission sent a reasoned opinion to the Kingdom of Belgium, calling on it totake the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the Directivewithin two months of notification of the opinion.

5.

    In response, the Belgian Government informed the Commission, by letter of 20April 1998, that its Council of Ministers had adopted a draft law, but that theprocess of transposition had been somewhat delayed. The Belgian lawimplementing the Directive would be sent to the Commission as soon as it wasfinally adopted.

6.

    In the absence of any further communication from the Belgian authorities, theCommission brought the present action.

7.

    In its defence, the Belgian Government does not deny that the measures necessaryto implement the Directive were not taken within the prescribed period; it statesthat a draft implementing law was officially filed on 18 August 1998 at the Houseof Representatives with a view to its adoption at the earliest opportunity and thatthe Court would be informed as soon as the law entered into force.

8.

    Since the Directive was not transposed within the period prescribed, theCommission's action must be considered well founded.

9.

    Accordingly, it must be held that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed periodthe laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with theDirective, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under theDirective.

Costs

10.

    Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to beordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party'spleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Kingdom of Belgiumhas been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber)

hereby:

1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply withDirective 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspectsof contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovableproperties on a timeshare basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfilits obligations under that directive;

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

PuissochetMoitinho de Almeida Gulmann

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 February 1999.

R. Grass

J.-P. Puissochet

Registrar

President of the Third Chamber

1: Language of the case: French.