Case C-450/00: Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cross-frontier data flow, disclosure of information, protection of privacy

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/11

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33

of the Statute of the Court of Justice:

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).

— error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
contested judgment, inasmuch as the Court of First
Instance declared inadmissible the head of claim
alleging infringement of the third and fourth para-
graphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

— inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
ment and error of lax, inasmuch as the contested
judgment does not accept that the Commission
committed a manifest error of assessment;

— inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
ment and error of law, inasmuch as the Court of
First
the appellant had not
established any manifest error of assessment in the
context of the comparison of his merits with those
of other officials, more particularly Mr G;

Instance held that

— error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
contested judgement, inasmuch as the Court of First
Instance decided that there had been no breach of
the principles of equal treatment and fairness in the
present case.

Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-449/00)

(2001/C 45/21)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, of
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

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

(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
measures, including provisions imposing penalties, which
are necessary in order to comply with Directive 95/46/EC
the Council of
of
24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data (1), the French Republic has failed
to comply with its obligations under Article 32 of that
directive;

the European Parliament and of

(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-450/00)

(2001/C 45/22)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Xavier Lewis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Go´ mez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.

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

(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative measures, including provisions imposing penalties,
which are necessary in order to comply with Directive
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data (1), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations
under Article 32 of that directive;

(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).

(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.