Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany
European Court of Justice
Case C-191/95 (1998)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
In March 1968, the European Council (council) issued its First Directive, which required European Economic Community (EEC) member states to adopt legislation mandating the disclosure of certain corporate financial information and to impose periodic penalties on companies that failed to do so. In July 1978, the council issued its Fourth Directive, which required EEC member states to adopt legislation governing the disclosure of annual accounts. The Federal Republic of Germany (Germany) (defendant) adopted legislation to implement the First and Fourth Directives. In June 1990, the Commission of the European Communities (commission) (plaintiff) issued a formal notice to Germany that the commission believed that most German companies were not complying with the disclosure obligations specified in Article 3 of the First Directive and Article 47 of the Fourth Directive. In June 1992, the commission responded to Germany’s denial of these allegations by issuing a reasoned opinion. The commission’s members (commissioners) did not review a draft of the reasoned opinion before deciding to issue it. In August 1993, Germany stated that it was ready to adopt new legislation if the commission agreed not to bring proceedings against Germany in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) but stated that it could not ensure immediate compliance. In March 1994, the relevant individual commissioner responded that the new legislation’s penalties had to be applicable immediately but that he was willing to allow Germany to promptly introduce legislation providing for immediate penalties. Germany rejected this proposal in May. In June 1995, the commission sued Germany in the ECJ, seeking a declaration that Germany did not comply with Articles 2(1)(f), 3, and 6 of the First Directive. Germany countered that the commission (1) breached the principle of collegiality regarding the issuance of the reasoned opinion and the commencement of the ECJ proceeding and (2) improperly changed the dispute’s subject matters because the commission’s ECJ application cited different legal provisions than the reasoned opinion. The commission responded that it acted collegially with full knowledge of the facts when it issued the reasoned opinion and decided to sue and that it did not change the dispute’s subject matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (1)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.