# C_2005115EN.01001601.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/16

---

Action brought on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-136/05)

(2005/C 115/29)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Denis Martin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by having failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 6 March 2003 in Case C-478/01 concerning the obligation for patent agents, when supplying services, to opt for domicile with an approved agent, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its duties under Articles 49 EC and 10 EC, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by having failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 6 March 2003 in Case C-478/01 concerning the obligation for patent agents, when supplying services, to opt for domicile with an approved agent, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its duties under Articles 49 EC and 10 EC,

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

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its judgment delivered on 6 March 2003 in Case C-478/01, the Court ruled that:

‘[H]aving regard to the requirement that patent agents, when supplying services, should elect domicile with an approved agent, and having regard to the fact that the Luxembourg Government did not supply information concerning the precise conditions for the application of Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 amending the rules on patents and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1998 governing access to craft trades, business and industry, and to certain liberal professions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 10 EC respectively.’

In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 228 EC, by letter of 19 December 2003 the Commission reminded the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg that it was required to comply with its obligations under the judgment delivered in Case C-478/01 and invited it to submit observations within a period of two months.

That letter having gone unanswered, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Luxembourg authorities by letter on 9 July 2004.

No reply was given to the reasoned opinion either.

The Luxembourg authorities having answered neither the letter of formal notice nor the reasoned opinion, it is unarguable that they have not, to date, taken the measures necessary to comply with the judgment delivered in Case C-478/01.

In accordance with the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 228(2), the Commission has specified in its application the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned that it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

In this instance, the Commission takes the view that a penalty payment of EUR 9 100 a day fits the seriousness and duration of the infringement and takes into consideration the need to give this penalty payment the required deterrent effect.

---