«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms)»

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC)

2.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for clear and precise transposition – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of general principles of law ensuring the full application of the directive (Art. 249, para. 3, EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for full transposition – Provision concerning only the relations between the Member States and the Commission – Provision not necessarily entailing specific transposing measures – Possibility for the Commission to demonstrate the need to adopt specific transposing measures

4.. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Requirements as to form – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 38(1))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 20 November 2003 (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms))

In Case C-296/01,

applicant,

v

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to transpose correctly and fully Articles 5(1) to (4), 6(2) and (5), 9(3), 11(1), (2), (3) and (6), 12(3) and (4) and 19(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for the second time Directive 90/220 (OJ 1997 L 169, p. 72), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and Article 249 EC,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mischo,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 May 2003,

gives the following

Community legislation

.

...

If on the basis of the results of any release notified under Part B of this Directive, or on substantive, reasoned scientific grounds, a notifier considers that the placing on the market and use of a product do not pose a risk to human health and the environment, he may propose not to comply with one or more of the requirements of Annex III B.

...

The format of this summary shall be established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.In particular where the competent authority has acceded to the request of the notifier, under the terms of the last subparagraph of Article 11(1), not to comply with some of the requirements of Annex III B, it shall at the same time inform the Commission thereof.

to in paragraph 1, shall give its consent in writing to the notification so that the product can be placed on the market and shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof....

National legislation

IV. ─ If the minister with responsibility for the environment considers that additional information, specific studies or consultation are necessary to enable him to determine the application, he may extend the period prescribed in paragraph II above by the corresponding length of time.He must in that case notify the applicant of the reasons for the extension, and of its duration, which is not taken into account when calculating the period that the minister is allowed for determining the application; where appropriate, the minister shall request the applicant to produce additional information.

...

For the purpose of applying the foregoing provisions, lists of the administrative documents which may not be supplied to the public because of their character or their subject-matter shall be established by ministerial orders adopted following an opinion from the Commission on Access to Administrative Documents.

The detailed rules for implementation of this article shall be laid down, so far as is necessary, by décret en Conseil d'État (decree adopted after being submitted to the Council of State).

Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 5(3) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 5(4) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 6(2) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Articles 6(5), 9(3) and 12(3) and (4) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

─ Article 6(5) of Directive 90/220

─ Article 9(3) of Directive 90/220

─ Article 12(3) and (4) of Directive 90/220

Findings of the Court

Article 11(1) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 11(6) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 13(2) and (4) of Directive 90/220

Article 19(2) and (3) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Article 19(4) of Directive 90/220

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Transposition of the directive with regard to GMO-based reagents

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:

Puissochet

Schintgen

Skouris

Colneric

Cunha Rodrigues

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 November 2003.

R. Grass

V. Skouris

Registrar

President