Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 134/86

I — Facts and procedure

1. Legal framework

Council Directive 73/404/EEC of 22 November 1973 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to detergents (Official Journal 1973, L 347, p. 51) is intended to approximate Member State legislation on the use and marketing of certain detergents. In order to reduce pollution of the natural environment it seeks to prohibit detergents containing surfactants whose biodegradability is less than a level fixed in the directive. The purpose of approximation of legislation is to prevent Member States from relying on Article 36 of the EEC Treaty in order to prohibit the marketing and use of detergents with an adequate level of biodegradability. In Directive 73/405/EEC of the same date, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to methods of testing the biodegradability of anionic surfactants (Official Journal 1973, L 347, p. 53), the Council set out the methods to be used for measuring biodegradability.

In 1982 the Council adopted a number of amendments to both directives, in particular the two amending directives which are the subject of the present case, Directives 82/242/EEC and 82/243/EEC of 31 March 1982. Those two directives provide, in Article 6 and Article 2 respectively, that the Member States must bring into force the provisions necessary for compliance by 8 October 1983 at the latest, and must forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

2. Background to the dispute

The two directives at issue were notified to the Kingdom of Belgium on 8 April 1982. The Commission was not infored by the Belgian Government of any measures adopted to implement them. Since the Commission had no other information indicating that the Kingdom of Belgium had complied with the obligation to bring the necessary provisions into force, on 12 November 1984 it sent the Belgian Government a letter calling upon it pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty to submit its observations within two months.

As the letter failed to elicit a reply, on 23 September 1985 the Commission issued a reasoned opinion under Article 169 of the Treaty requiring the Belgian Government to comply with it within two months. The Belgian Government did not respond, and the Commission therefore brought the present action.

3. Procedure

The Commission's application was lodged at the Court Registry on 3 June 1986.

The written procedure followed the normal course.

Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

II — Conclusions of the parties

The Commission, the applicant, claims that the Court should:

1) Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directives 82/242/EEC and 82/243/EEC of 31 March 1982, and by failing to provide the Commission with the information required under Articles 6 and 2, respectively, of those directives, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;

2) Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

The Belgian Government, the defendant, made no claim before the Court.

III — Contentions and arguments of the parties

In its statement of defence the Belgian Government explained that a draft royal decree for the implementation of the directives in question had recently been approved by the Belgian Cabinet. In its rejoinder, however, the Belgian Government stated that the Conseil d'Etat (State Council) had issued a negative opinion on the draft royal decree on the ground that the Walloon region had issued a decree on the matter. The government had therefore decided to refer the matter to the cour d'arbitrage (Court of Arbitration) in order to resolve the conflict of powers. The Commission observed in its reply that the defence of the Belgian Government proved that it was in breach of its obligations.

T. Koopmans

Judge-Rapporteur

1 Language of the Case: French.