ECJ In the case of an action under the second paragraph of article 169 of the EEC Treaty, it is for the court to say whether the failure has occurred, without having to examine whether, subsequent to the bringing of the action, the state in question took the measures necessary to bring the infringement to an end.
The opinion referred to in article 169 of the eec treaty must be considered to contain a sufficient statement of reasons to satisfy the law when it contains a coherent exposition of the reasons which led the commission to the conviction that the state concerned failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaty.
The ‘standstill’ obligation laid down in article 31 of the EEC Treaty is absolute; it comprises no exceptions, not even partial or temporary ones.
The protective measures referred to in article 226 may only be authorized within the framework of the special procedure prescribed by that article, that is to say, on unequivocal, formal application by the government concerned, since the measures constitute exceptions to the rules of the treaty, liable to disturb the functioning of the common market.
Member states may not rely on either the urgency or the seriousness of a situation to evade the procedure of article 226. By the very fact that it was provided as an emergency procedure, this procedure excludes any unilateral action by member states.
As distinct from article 226 of the eec treaty, article 36 of the treaty is directed to eventualities of a non-economic kind which are not liable to prejudice the principles laid down by articles 30 to 34. In particular, that article does not establish a generic protective clause additional to that provided by article 226 and allowing member states to derogate by unilateral action from the procedure and the guarantees laid down by that provision.
Citations:
C-7/61, [1961] EUECJ C-7/61
Links:
Statutes:
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131640
