Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium

Case 301/81, [1983] ECR 467 (1983)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium

European Court of Justice
Case 301/81, [1983] ECR 467 (1983)

Facts

On December 12, 1977, the European Community Council (ECC) issued a directive requiring all member states to coordinate their laws regarding credit institutions by December 15, 1979. The Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium) (defendant) participated in the adoption of the directive but did not meet this deadline. Approximately two years after the deadline, the Commission of the European Communities (commission) (plaintiff) sent Belgium a reasoned opinion requesting that Belgium comply with the directive within two months. When Belgium failed to do so, on November 30, 1981, the commission sued Belgium in the European Court of Justice, seeking a declaration that Belgium failed to comply with the directive as required by the European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty (also known as the Treaty of Rome). Belgium responded that (1) local legal and political conditions prevented it from timely compliance, (2) the reasoned opinion’s two-month deadline was unreasonable, (3) the directive’s initial 24-month deadline period was inadequate, and (4) it did not fully understand the directive. Additionally, Belgium argued that certain existing legislation brought it into compliance. However, this legislation did not embody some requirements imposed by the directive, such as a requirement that (1) Belgian authorities collaborate with authorities in other member states and (2) credit-institution branches be allowed to use the same names in Belgium that they used in their home offices in other member states. Also, Belgium cited only existing legislation during the litigation. Finally, Belgium did not formally notify the commission that such legislation purportedly brought Belgium into compliance with the directive.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership