## Facts

- A Council directive on credit institutions required Member States to adopt implementing measures by December 15, 1979.
- Belgium did not adopt all laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary for full implementation by the deadline.
- In July 1981, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion and requested compliance within two months.
- Belgium argued that its existing banking legislation substantially complied and that remaining gaps were minor; it also cited internal legal and political obstacles.
- Belgium further contended that the directive’s implementation period was too short and that directly effective provisions could be relied on by individuals.
- After the reasoned-opinion period expired without complete implementation, the Commission brought infringement proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s reasoned opinion was sufficiently reasoned and the action admissible despite Belgium’s objections to the two-month compliance period.
2. Whether Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations by not adopting and bringing into force all implementing measures within the prescribed period.
3. Whether internal legal/political difficulties, the alleged inadequacy of the directive’s implementation period, or the directive’s direct effect could justify non-implementation.

## Decision

- The Court declared that Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with the directive.
- The Court rejected Belgium’s admissibility challenge, holding the reasoned opinion adequately explained the grounds for infringement and that a short additional period was permissible once the directive deadline had already passed.
- The Court held internal obstacles could not excuse non-implementation and that Belgium’s dissatisfaction with the directive’s timeframe did not permit ignoring the deadline.
- The Court ruled that the directive’s potential direct effect was only a minimum guarantee for individuals and did not relieve Belgium of its duty to implement.
- Belgium was ordered to pay costs.

## Legal Principles

- A Member State may not invoke its internal legal order, practices, or circumstances to justify failure to comply with obligations arising from a directive.
- In infringement actions, the inquiry is objective: whether the Member State complied by the deadline, not whether it acted in good faith or faced practical resistance.
- If a Member State considers an implementation period too short, the lawful course is to seek an extension through the competent Community institutions, not to miss the deadline.
- Direct effect of a directive (where available) does not substitute for timely and complete national implementing measures and cannot be used as a defence to non-transposition.
- Sufficient implementation requires adoption of the necessary measures and communication in a manner showing full transposition.

## Conclusion

The Court held Belgium in breach for failing to implement the credit-institutions directive on time, confirming that domestic difficulties, complaints about deadlines, and reliance on direct effect cannot excuse a Member State’s duty to adopt complete implementing measures within the prescribed period.


Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys. v. Belg., Case 301/81, 1983 E.C.R. 467 (Ct. J. 1983)