# C_2006224EN.01002602.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/26 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-319/06)

(2006/C 224/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that,
(1)
by declaring that subparagraphs 1, 2, 8 and 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 constitute public policy provisions falling within ‘national public policy’; (2)
by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC( 1 ) in Article 1(1)(3) of that Law; (3)
by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law, conditions which are not sufficiently clear to guarantee legal certainty; (4)
by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for controls be kept in Luxembourg in the hands of an ad hoc agent resident there, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC; | (1) | by declaring that subparagraphs 1, 2, 8 and 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 constitute public policy provisions falling within ‘national public policy’; | (2) | by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC( 1 ) in Article 1(1)(3) of that Law; | (3) | by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law, conditions which are not sufficiently clear to guarantee legal certainty; | (4) | by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for controls be kept in Luxembourg in the hands of an ad hoc agent resident there, |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (1) | by declaring that subparagraphs 1, 2, 8 and 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 constitute public policy provisions falling within ‘national public policy’; | | | | | | | | |
| (2) | by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC( 1 ) in Article 1(1)(3) of that Law; | | | | | | | | |
| (3) | by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law, conditions which are not sufficiently clear to guarantee legal certainty; | | | | | | | | |
| (4) | by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for controls be kept in Luxembourg in the hands of an ad hoc agent resident there, | | | | | | | | |

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first ground for complaint, the Commission complains, essentially, that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg interprets too widely the term ‘public policy provisions’ in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC. That complaint regards, in particular: (1) the obligation imposed by the national legislature to employ only employees with whom undertakings posting workers to the Grand Duchy have concluded a written contract of employment or prepared a document deemed to be similar under Directive 91/533/EEC( 2 ); (2) the national limitation period in respect of the automatic adjustment of pay to changes in the cost of living; (3) the limitation period in respect of rules governing part-time and fixed-term employment, and (4) the limitation period in respect of collective labour agreements .

By its second complaint, the Commission complains that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC in as much as the national legislation restricts the concept of ‘minimum rest periods’ to weekly rest, excluding other rest periods such as daily rest or breaks.

By its third and fourth complaints, the Commission finally pleads infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC attributable to the obligation imposed on undertakings whose workers carry on permanent or temporary activity in Luxembourg (1) to make available to the Inspection du Travail et des Mines ‘before the start of the works’, ‘at the mere request’ and ‘as quickly as possible’ the particulars necessary for a control, and (2) to designate an ‘ad hoc’ agent resident in Luxembourg responsible for keeping the documents necessary for monitoring the obligations on those undertakings.

---

( 1 )  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997, p. 1).

( 2 )  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).

---