1 BY AN APPLICATION FILED AT THE REGISTRY ON 8 DECEMBER 1972, THE COMMISSION, BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AN ACTION SEEKING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY BY NOT BRINGING INTO FORCE THE LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 66/404/EEC OF 14 JUNE 1966 ON THE MARKETING OF FOREST REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL ( OJ 125, P . 2326 ) WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 18 OF THAT DIRECTIVE, AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 69/64/EEC OF 18 FEBRUARY 1969 ( OJ 1969, L 48, 12 ).
2 HAVING FOUND THAT THE DISCREPANCIES EXISTING BETWEEN NATIONAL REGULATIONS AIMING TO PROMOTE THE UTILISATION OF SUPERIOR FOREST REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL CONSTITUTED AN OBSTACLE TO TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, THE COUNCIL, BY A DIRECTIVE OF 14 JUNE 1966, SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH COMMON RULES IMPOSING COMMON STANDARDS IN RELATION TO MARKETING BOTH IN OTHER MEMBER STATES AND ON DOMESTIC MARKETS .
THIS DIRECTIVE HAD PRESCRIBED A TIME LIMIT FOR THE IMPLEMENTING OF MEASURES APPLYING TO DOMESTIC MARKETS AND EXPIRING RESPECTIVELY ON 1 JULY 1967, 1 JULY 1969 AND 1 JULY 1971 FOR SEEDS AND PARTS OF PLANTS OF DIFFERENT GENERA OF TREES AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 18 .
BY A DIRECTIVE OF 18 FEBRUARY 1969, THE EXPIRY OF THE FIRST TIME LIMIT WAS POSTPONED TO 1 JULY 1969 .
3 THE DEFENDANT ADMITS THE FAILURE TO OBSERVE THESE TIME LIMITS .
HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT EXPLAINS THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE STATE OF ITALIAN LEGISLATION APPLYING TO THE SEED AND FOREST PLANTATION TRADE A LAW WAS NECESSARY TO ADAPT SUCH LEGISLATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE .
IN PURSUANCE OF THIS OBJECTIVE, A FIRST DRAFT LAW HAD BEEN LAID BEFORE PARLIAMENT, BUT THE PREMATURE DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT PERMIT ITS ADOPTION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME .
ANOTHER DRAFT LAW WAS INTRODUCED IN SEPTEMBER 1972, BUT IT PROVED POSSIBLE TO ENACT IT ONLY DURING MAY 1973 .
THUS THE DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING THE OBLIGATIONS IN ISSUE IS PRIMARILY DUE TO UNFORESEEABLE POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRING AT THE END OF 1971 AND THE BEGINNING OF 1972 .
4 FROM THE TIME DIRECTIVE 66/404/EEC WAS PASSED, ALL THE MEMBER STATES KNEW THAT, FOR THE FIRST GROUP OF SEEDS AND PARTS OF PLANTS, THEY WERE BOUND TO BRING INTO EFFECT THE NECESSARY MEASURES AT THE LATEST BY 1 JULY 1967 .
CERTAIN MEMBER STATES NOT HAVING SUCCEEDED IN COMPLYING BY 1 JULY 1967 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DIRECTIVE, DIRECTIVE 69/64/EEC GRANTED THEM A FURTHER TIME LIMIT, THUS REMINDING THE DEFAULTING MEMBER STATES OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO INSTITUTE THE MEASURES PROVIDED .
ACCORDINGLY, HAVING FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY DIRECTIVE 66/404/EEC BEFORE 1 JULY 1969, THE DEFENDANT HAS SINCE THAT DATE FAILED IN THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THAT DIRECTIVE .
5 THE DEFENDANT CANNOT INVOKE, TO JUSTIFY ITS CONDUCT, OBSTACLES OR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AROSE AT A TIME LARGELY SUBSEQUENT TO THAT OF THE OBLIGATION WHICH IT IS ACCUSED OF NOT HAVING FULFILLED .
THE POLITICAL SITUATION INVOKED THUS CANNOT, IN ANY CASE, BE ACCEPTED AS JUSTIFYING THIS DELAY .
MOREOVER, IF THIS DRAFT LAW IS PASSED IN A SHORT TIME, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE WILL CEASE, THE REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS NECESSARY FOR ITS APPLICATION HAVING STILL NOT BEEN BROUGHT INTO FORCE .
6 AT THE HEARING, THE DEFENDANT AGAIN CLAIMED THAT IN ANY EVENT IT IS A QUESTION OF THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF A DIRECTIVE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE CANNOT BE ACCORDED THE SAME BINDING FORCE AS THOSE OF A REGULATION .
7 BY ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY, A DIRECTIVE " SHALL BE BINDING " AS TO THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED UPON EACH MEMBER STATE TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, BUT LEAVES TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES THE CHOICE OF FORM AND METHODS .
THE PRCISE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVES IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT AS IMPLEMENTATION IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF MEMBER STATES AND SUCH ACTS WOULD LOSE ALL EFFECTIVENESS IF THE OBJECTIVES IN VIEW WERE NOT ATTAINED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITS .
IF, IN RESPECT OF MEMBER STATES TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE HAVE NO LESS BINDING AN EFFECT THAN THAT OF ANY OTHER RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW, SUCH AN EFFECT APPLIES ALL THE MORE TO PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MEASURES PROVIDED FOR .
8 IT FOLLOWS THAT BY FAILING TO ADOPT THE PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 66/404 ON THE MARKETING OF FOREST REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTIVE 69/64, THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY .
9 BY ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS PLEAS .
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, BY FAILING TO ADOPT THE PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 66/404 ON THE MARKETING OF FOREST REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTIVE 69/64, HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY;
2 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO PAY THE COSTS .
