## Facts

- Council Directive 87/328/EEC required EEC Member States to accept pure-bred bovine animals for breeding purposes under harmonized conditions.
- The Directive set a deadline of **1 January 1989** for Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions needed to comply.
- Ireland did not adopt specific national legislation or other binding implementing measures by the deadline.
- The European Commission brought infringement proceedings against Ireland under then **Article 169 EEC** (now Article 258 TFEU), seeking a declaration that Ireland failed to fulfill its obligations under the Directive and the Treaty rules governing directives (then Article 189(3) EEC, now Article 288 TFEU).
- Ireland accepted that it had not enacted implementing legislation but argued that, in practice, its administration was already applying rules consistent with the Directive, so the Directive was being followed in substance.
- The Commission replied that practical compliance was not enough: transposition required a clear, stable, and accessible national legal framework, not informal or internal administrative conduct.
- The Advocate General recommended a finding against Ireland, reasoning that purely administrative practice can be altered at any time, may not be adequately public, and therefore does not meet the EU requirement of legal certainty for implementing directives.

## Issues

1. Whether a Member State that has not adopted binding national measures by the directive’s deadline can satisfy its obligations by relying on administrative practice said to comply with the directive in fact.
2. Whether non-legislative, informal administrative conduct provides the legal certainty required for proper implementation of a directive under EU law.

## Decision

- The Court held that Ireland **failed to fulfill its obligations** under Directive 87/328/EEC by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the measures required to implement it.
- The Court rejected Ireland’s argument that administrative practice could substitute for implementation through binding national provisions.
- The Court found that such practice does not provide the required legal certainty because it can be changed by the authorities and is not necessarily set out in a manner that is sufficiently clear and accessible to those affected.
- The Court granted the Commission’s application for a declaration of breach and ordered Ireland to pay the costs.

## Legal Principles

- A directive binds Member States as to the result to be achieved; Member States must take the measures necessary to ensure the directive is fully effective within the period it sets.
- Proper implementation generally requires **binding** national measures that make the legal position clear, precise, and accessible for individuals and economic operators.
- Reliance on informal administrative practice is not enough to discharge a transposition obligation, because it may lack transparency and stability and may be altered without the safeguards associated with binding rules.
- In infringement proceedings, a Member State cannot avoid a finding of breach by arguing that the directive is followed “in practice” when it has not put in place the required national legal framework by the implementation deadline.

## Conclusion

The ECJ declared that Ireland breached Directive 87/328/EEC by failing to adopt timely, binding implementing measures; administrative practice said to comply with the Directive could not replace formal transposition because it did not provide the clear and reliable legal framework EU law requires.


Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland, [1993] 1 CMLR 320 (1992)