Obligation of Loyalty23/11/04 / cata_european-union-news

By this judgement, the Court of Justice confirmed its case law concerning Article 10 of EC Treaty, in particular its judgement in Case 192/84, Commission v Greece, and Case C-478/01, Commission v Luxembourg. Article 10 EC requires Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of their obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by Community institutions. According to the Court, Article 10 EC creates an obligation for Member States to cooperate in good faith with the enquiries of the Commission pursuant to Article 226 EC, and provide it with all the information requested for that purpose.

In 2000, the Commission received a complaint regarding the application of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment within the Italian legal system. The plaintiff submitted that certain of the Community safety requirements were not complied with in one waste water treatment plant.

The Commission wrote to the Italian authorities in August 2000 requesting information regarding the matters raised in the complaint, in order to examine the situation in greater detail. The Italian authorities did not reply to that request, nor to a subsequent one of March 2001.

Considering that the silence of the Italian authorities constituted an absence of genuine cooperation on their part, for the purposes of Article 10 EC, the Commission instituted a procedure under Article 226 EC. After putting the Italian Republic on notice to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion in July 2002 in which it called on the Italian authorities to adopt the measures necessary for compliance within two months of its notification. As the Italian authorities failed to respond, the Commission brought the present action against the Italian Republic before the Court in February 2003.

The Italian Republic claimed that the lack of information on the name and location of the plant created an objective difficulty for the Italian authorities to identify the supervisory bodies responsible to conduct targeted inspections and provide the requested information. The Court decided that the place, which was the subject of the complaint, was sufficiently clearly identified in the letters of the Commission sent before the pre-litigation procedure, and, therefore, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC.