Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.
Jurisdiction | European Union |
Date | 16 December 2004 |
Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
Case C-358/03
Commission of the European Communities
v
Republic of Austria
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Workers’ protection – Health and safety of workers – Manual handling of loads where there is a risk of injury to workers)
Summary of the Judgment
Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible
(Art. 226 EC)
A Member State may not plead situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. In that regard, a Federal State cannot argue that its constitutional law precludes it from adopting measures transposing a directive in the place of a federated State and that only censure by the Court confers the power on the Federal State to undertake the transposition.
Though each Member State may freely allocate areas of internal legal competence as it sees fit, the fact remains that it alone is responsible to the Community under Article 226 EC for compliance with obligations arising under Community law.
(see paras 12-13)
- 1 By its application, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court to make a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions...
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
16 December 2004(1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Workers’ protection – Health and safety of workers – Manual handling of loads where there is a risk of injury to workers)
In Case C-358/03,ACTION for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 19 August 2003, Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and H. Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,applicant,
v
Republic of Austria, represented by E. Riedl, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,defendant,
THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),,
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: A. Tizzano,
Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conclusiones del Abogado General Sr. M. Bobek, presentadas el 6 de febrero de 2019.
...justifier le non‑respect des obligations en vertu du droit de l’Union. Voir, par exemple, arrêt du 16 décembre 2004, Commission/Autriche (C‑358/03, EU:C:2004:824, point 59 Voir, pour une analyse approfondie, les conclusions de l’avocat général Cruz Villalón dans l’affaire Prunus et Polonium......
-
European Commission v Hellenic Republic.
...arrêts Commission/Espagne (C‑147/94, EU:C:1995:111, point 5); Commission/Allemagne (C‑298/95, EU:C:1996:501, point 18); Commission/Autriche (C‑358/03, EU:C:2004:824, point 13), et Commission/Italie (C‑119/04, EU:C:2006:489, point 25) pour ajouter que la République hellénique ne saurait invo......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
...notamment, arrêts du 10 avril 2003, Commission/France, C-114/02, Rec. p. I‑3783, point 11, et du 16 décembre 2004, Commission/Autriche, C-358/03, Rec. p. I-12055, point 13). 32 Enfin, le recours en manquement ayant un caractère objectif (voir, notamment, arrêt du 17 novembre 1993, Commissio......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
...l’inobservation des obligations et des délais prescrits par une directive (voir, notamment, arrêts du 16 décembre 2004, Commission/Autriche, C‑358/03, Rec. p. I‑12055, point 13, et du 13 décembre 2007, Commission/Belgique, C‑528/06, point 8). 12 Dans ces conditions, il convient de considére......
-
Conclusiones del Abogado General Sr. M. Bobek, presentadas el 6 de febrero de 2019.
...le non‑respect des obligations en vertu du droit de l’Union. Voir, par exemple, arrêt du 16 décembre 2004, Commission/Autriche (C‑358/03, EU:C:2004:824, point 59 Voir, pour une analyse approfondie, les conclusions de l’avocat général Cruz Villalón dans l’affaire Prunus et Polonium (C‑384/09......
-
European Commission v Hellenic Republic.
...arrêts Commission/Espagne (C‑147/94, EU:C:1995:111, point 5); Commission/Allemagne (C‑298/95, EU:C:1996:501, point 18); Commission/Autriche (C‑358/03, EU:C:2004:824, point 13), et Commission/Italie (C‑119/04, EU:C:2006:489, point 25) pour ajouter que la République hellénique ne saurait invo......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
...l’inobservation des obligations et des délais prescrits par une directive (voir, notamment, arrêts du 16 décembre 2004, Commission/Autriche, C‑358/03, Rec. p. I‑12055, point 13, et du 13 décembre 2007, Commission/Belgique, C‑528/06, point 8). 12 Dans ces conditions, il convient de considére......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
...notamment, arrêts du 10 avril 2003, Commission/France, C-114/02, Rec. p. I‑3783, point 11, et du 16 décembre 2004, Commission/Autriche, C-358/03, Rec. p. I-12055, point 13). 32 Enfin, le recours en manquement ayant un caractère objectif (voir, notamment, arrêt du 17 novembre 1993, Commissio......