JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

28 April 1999 (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive89/594/EEC)

In Case C-250/98,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro,Principal Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting asAgents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómezde la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Head of theSubdirectorate for International Economic Law and Community Law in the LegalAffairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Anne de Bourgoing,Chargé de Mission in the same directorate, acting as Agents, with an address forservice in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulationsand administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC,

78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition ofdiplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as doctors, nursesresponsible for general care, dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives,together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning thecoordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative actionrelating to the activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (OJ 1989L 341, p. 19), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive89/594,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur)and L. Sevón, 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 23 February1999,

gives the following

Judgment

1.

    By application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 July 1998, the Commission of theEuropean Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty fora declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrativeprovisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of 30 October1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and otherevidence of formal qualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for general care,dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives, together with Directives75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination ofprovisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to theactivities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (OJ 1989 L 341, p. 19,hereinafter 'the Directive‘), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligationsunder that directive.

2.

    Article 18 of the Directive amended Article 4 of Council Directive 78/1026/EECof 18 December 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates

and other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine, includingmeasures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment andfreedom to provide services (OJ 1978 L 362, p. 1), and Article 19 of the Directiveinserted a paragraph into Article 1 of Council Directive 78/1027/EEC of 18December 1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of veterinary surgeons(OJ 1978 L 362, p. 7). Those two articles concern the conditions for mutualrecognition of the diplomas necessary to exercise the profession of veterinarysurgeon.

3.

    Pursuant to Article 28 of the Directive, Member States were to adopt the measuresnecessary to comply with the Directive by 8 May 1991 and to inform theCommission thereof forthwith.

4.

    Since it had not received any communication relating to the transposition intoFrench law of Articles 16 to 20 of the Directive, concerning the profession ofveterinary surgeon, and had no other information enabling it to conclude that theFrench Republic had complied with that obligation, the Commission gave formalnotice to that Member State by letter of 11 October 1993 to submit its observationswithin a period of two months.

5.

    On 28 April 1994 the French Government replied that the measures necessary tocomply with the Directive as regards the profession of veterinary surgeon had beenadopted and sent the Commission a copy of the text of the Decree of 26 February1991 amending the rules applicable to the exercise of that profession.

6.

    The Commission considered that it had not been informed of the provisionsadopted in order to comply with Articles 18 and 19 of the Directive and, by letterof 22 January 1996, sent a reasoned opinion to the French Republic, requesting itto adopt the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the Directivewithin two months of notification of that opinion.

7.

    By letter of 29 July 1996 the French Government replied that it would shortlysubmit to the Parliament a draft law, the content of which had been approved bythe Commission, amending Law No 82-899 of 20 October 1982 concerning theexercise of the activities of veterinary surgeons, in order to transpose Articles 18and 19 of the Directive.

8.

    On 21 April 1997 the legislative process was interrupted by the dissolution of theFrench Parliament.

9.

    Since it received no further communication from the French Republic, theCommission initiated the present proceedings.

10.

    The French Government does not dispute that Articles 18 and 19 of the Directivewere not transposed within the period prescribed. It states, however, that a newdraft law transposing those provisions is due to be submitted to the Parliament inthe near future.

11.

    Since the transposition of Articles 18 and 19 of the Directive has not been achievedwithin the prescribed period, the action brought by the Commission must be heldto be well founded.

12.

    It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations andadministrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, the FrenchRepublic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Costs

13.

    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 French Republic hasbeen unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

hereby:

1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations andadministrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC,77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to themutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formalqualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dentalpractitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives, together with Directives75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination ofprovisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating tothe activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives, the FrenchRepublic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

JannEdward Sevón

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 April 1999.

R. Grass

P. Jann

Registrar

President of the First Chamber

1: Language of the case: French.