Case C-320/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, employment policy, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national implementing measure, racial discrimination, social policy

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/33

In its second plea, the European Parliament takes the view that
the Commission's decision on adequacy also infringes the
fundamental principles of Directive 95/46. In particular, the
purpose of the processing referred to in the decision is incom-
patible with the purpose of the initial processing; there is no
legal processing obligation; the principles of the basic directive
are infringed as regards the processing of sensitive data, the
right of access and related rights; the right to judicial protection
is not guaranteed and the authorisation to transfer to other US
authorities and other countries is incompatible with Directive
95/46.

Thirdly, the European Parliament maintains that the Commis-
sion's decision on adequacy infringes fundamental rights,
in
particular the right to private life and the right to protection of
personal data laid down in Article 8 of the European Conven-
tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, as applied by the Court of Justice and the European
Court of Human Rights.

the decision on
The Parliament's fourth plea alleges that
adequacy also infringes the principle of proportionality, in par-
ticular on account of the fact that an excessive amount of PNR
data can be transferred and those data can be kept by the US
authorities for too long.

(1) Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 on the
adequate protection of personal data contained in the Passenger
Name Record of air passengers transferred to the United States
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (OJ 2004 L 235, p. 11).

Action brought on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-319/04)

(2004/C 228/68)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

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

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the
Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers
concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Asso-

ciation (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers'
Unions in the European Union (FST) - Annex: European
Agreement on the organisation of working time of
seafarers (1), or,
in any event, by failing to notify the
Commission of those provisions, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that direc-
tive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 30
June 2002.

(1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.

Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the
the Grand Duchy of
European Communities against

Luxembourg

(Case C-320/04)

(2004/C 228/69)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the
principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
racial or ethnic origin (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 19
July 2003.

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.