Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet
Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet
Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
61997J0319 European Court reports 1999 Page I-03143 6<br />
Questions 2 <strong>and</strong> 3<br />
24 By its second <strong>and</strong> third questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the national court<br />
essentially asks whether the direct effect of a directive, where the deadline for its transposition into<br />
national law has expired, is affected by the notification made by a Member State pursuant to Article<br />
100a(4) of the Treaty, seeking confirmation of provisions of national law derogating from the directive.<br />
25 It should be noted at the outset that where, after the expiry of the deadline for transposition into<br />
national law or after the entry into force of a harmonisation measure under Article 100a(1) of the Treaty,<br />
Member States intend to continue to apply provisions of national law derogating from that measure, they<br />
must notify those provisions to the Commission.<br />
26 Also, the Commission must make sure that all the conditions for a Member State to rely on the<br />
exception provided for in Article 100a(4) are satisfied. This means that it must verify that the provisions<br />
at issue are justified by major needs, as referred to in Article 100a(4), first paragraph, <strong>and</strong> are not a means<br />
of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.<br />
27 The aim of the procedure under that provision is to ensure that no Member State applies national rules<br />
derogating from the harmonised legislation without obtaining due confirmation from the Commission.<br />
28 As the Court has consistently held (Case C-41/93 France v Commission [1994] ECR I-1829, paragraphs<br />
29 <strong>and</strong> 30), measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or<br />
administrative action in Member States which are such as to hinder intra-Community trade would be<br />
rendered ineffective if Member States retained the right unilaterally to apply national rules derogating from<br />
those measures <strong>and</strong> a Member State is not, therefore, authorised to apply the national provisions notified<br />
by it under Article 100a(4) until after it has obtained a decision from the Commission confirming them.<br />
29 The national court asks whether an exception to that principle arises where the Commission does not<br />
respond to the notification of measures by a Member State.<br />
30 On that point, the Swedish, Danish, French, Netherl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Austrian Governments maintain that the<br />
principle laid down by the Court in Case C-41/93, cited above, cannot apply when the Commission's reply<br />
is not given as quickly as possible or within a reasonable period of time. Since the Kingdom of Sweden<br />
notified the Commission in 1995 <strong>and</strong> to this day has received no reply, the principles of legal certainty<br />
<strong>and</strong> protection of legitimate expectations require that, where so much time has elapsed, confirmation of the<br />
national measures by the Commission should be deemed to have been acquired.<br />
31 According to the Swedish <strong>and</strong> Austrian Governments, the two-month period which the Court considered<br />
to be reasonable in relation to the procedure under Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC)<br />
concerning State aid (see Case 84/82 Germany v Commission [1984] ECR 1451, paragraph 11) could<br />
provide guidance as to the length of time which should properly be available to the Commission in the<br />
present context. The French Government, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, suggests that, as in the implementation of<br />
Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member<br />
States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (OJ<br />
1989 L 40, p. 27), the Commission must respond without delay.<br />
32 The Dutch Government proposes a six-month time-limit, as provided for in Article 95(6) EC. Under<br />
this provision, which amends <strong>and</strong> replaces Article 100a(4) of the Treaty, if the Commission has not<br />
expressed a view within six months of notification of provisions of national law, those provisions shall be<br />
deemed to have been approved.<br />
© An extract from a JUSTIS database<br />
287