Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61991J0137

	Název: Title:		ECJ Judgment of 24 June 1992 Case C-137/91 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic Proceeding concerning failure by Member States [1992] ECR I-4023

	Publikace: Publication:

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Under Greek law it was required for undertakings to purchase exclusively electronic cash registers during the manufacture of which at least 35% of the value was added in the Hellenic Republic.
On 7 December 1988 and 23 February 1989 the Commission, on a complaint issued by the authorities of a Member State relating to that rule, sent two telexes to the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Communities in which it requested information and explanations about the mentioned law. However, the Hellenic Republic never replied to those telexes. Even after the Commission had issued a reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 226 (ex Art. 169) of the Treaty, the Greek authorities did not provide the requested information until September 1990, which in any case was after the period set in the reasoned opinion had expired.
On 24 May 1991 the Commission, following the procedural rules of Article 226 (ex Art. 169) of the Treaty, brought an action before the Court for a declaration that, by failing to provide the Commission with the requested information and by the regulation concerning the purchase of electronic cash registers, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligation under Articles 10 and 28 (ex Articles 5 and 30) of the EEC Treaty.
However, in January 1991 (and prior to the application of the Commission to the Court), the Hellenic Republic sent to the Commission the text of the by then changed law, which had put an end to the infringement of the Treaty. Therefore, Greece claimed that the infringement had already been ended and that the Commission had no longer any interest in applying to the Court for a declaration that Article 10 (ex Art. 5) had been violated.

Názor soudu a komentář:
In its decision the Court addresses two questions mainly related to the problem whether an application to the Court under Article 226 (ex Art. 169) of the EEC Treaty is admissible even after the claimed infringement has been ended.
The Court clearly shows its intention to accept and decide on an application which relates to infringements of the obligation to cooperate under Article 10 (ex Art. 5) of the Treaty even though it has been lodged after that infringement had already been ended. By expressly pointing out the fact that ”the defendant did not provide the information in question until almost two years after it had been requested, and in any case after the period provided for in the reasoned opinion had expired”, the Court highlights the importance of the obligation to cooperate as required in Article 10 (ex Art. 5) and emphasises its determination to watch carefully over the compliance of Member States with that obligation - which also includes the duty to facilitate the Commission to carry out its task.
Turning to the second question, the Court declares an infringement of Article 28 (ex Art. 30) of the Treaty by the abovementioned Greek law. The claim of the Hellenic Republic, that the law has already been changed and, therefore, does not constitute any further infringement, is rejected by pointing to the fact that ”it was only after the period allowed by the reasoned opinion had expired that a law was introduced to put an end to the failure to fulfil obligations”. Thereby, the Court, as it has consistently done, demonstrates, that an action, following Article 226 (ex Art. 169) of the EEC Treaty, can still be brought before the Court if an infringement of a Member State’s obligations has only been ended after the period, set in the reasoned opinion, had already expired.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):