62003CJ0375_EN
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
In Case C-375/03,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by S. Schreiner, acting as Agent,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community (OJ 2000 L 203, p. 1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of:
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
N. Colneric and K. Schiemann, Judges,
Advocate General:
J. Kokott,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds
1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 September 2003, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community (OJ 2000 L 203, p. 1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
2. Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/30 provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this Directive no later than 10 August 2002 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
3. Since it had not been informed by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of any provisions adopted by it to transpose Directive 2000/30 into its national law within the period prescribed by that Directive, the Commission initiated the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in Article 226 EC. After sending that Member State a letter of formal notice to submit observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 19 December 2002, requesting the State to take the measures necessary to comply with it within two months of notification thereof.
In its reply of 11 March 2003, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg informed the Commission that the statement of reasons concerning the draft Law amending the Law of 14 February 1955 on the regulation of traffic on all public roads and that concerning the draft Grand Ducal Regulation introducing technical roadside inspections of roadworthiness were in the process of being drafted.
Since it subsequently received no further information, the Commission brought the present action.
4. The Commission claims that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Directive 2000/30, or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the relevant provisions of that Directive.
5. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not dispute its failure to implement that Directive.
It does, however, point out that, on 3 November 2003, the Council of Government approved a draft Law and a draft Grand Ducal Regulation transposing the Directive.
Those two drafts were passed to the Council of State and to the Chamber of Agriculture, the Chamber of Commerce and the Trades Chamber for their opinion. The draft Law was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 2 December 2003.
6. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not dispute that the measures necessary to implement Directive 2000/30 were not taken before the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired; in that regard, it merely sets out the stage reached in the procedure for implementing the Directive.
7. According to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-211/02 Commission
v Luxembourg
[2003] ECR I-2429, paragraph 6).
8. In the present case, it is clear that no measures for the transposition of Directive 2000/30 into Luxembourg law had been adopted before the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired.
9. Accordingly, the action brought by the Commission is well founded.
10. It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/30, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
Decision on costs
Costs
11. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
As the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and as the latter has been unsuccessful, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg must be ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
hereby:
1.	Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
2.	Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.