Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-165/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of persons — Workers — Spouses — Requirement of a work permit for spouses who are nationals of non-member countries)
Date: 2005-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, foreign national, free movement of workers, labour law, married person, work permit

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and
Duties Tribunals, London by Direction of that court of 19
September 2005 in 1) J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse
Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment
Trust Companies v Commissioners of HM Revenue and
Customs

in Case C-165/05: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free move-
ment of persons — Workers — Spouses — Requirement of a
work permit for spouses who are nationals of non-member
countries)

(2005/C 330/13)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-165/05 Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agent: G. Rozet) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure
to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 April 2005 — the Court
(Fourth Chamber),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, K.
Lenaerts and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005,
in
which it:

composed of

1. Declares that, by imposing in its legislation an obligation on
nationals of non-member countries married to migrant workers
from the European Union to obtain a work permit and by failing
to bring its legislation into line with Community law, the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 132 of 28.05.2005.

(Case C-363/05)

(2005/C 330/14)

(Language of the case: English)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by Direction of the VAT and Duties Tribu-
nals, London, of 19 September 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 26 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between 1)
J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse
Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment Trust
Companies and Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs,
on the following questions:

1. Are the words ‘special investment funds’ in Article 13B(d)(6)
of the Sixth Directive (1) capable of including closed-ended
investment funds, such as ITCs?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does
in Article

the phrase ‘as defined by Member States’
13B(d)(6):

a. allow Member States to select certain of

the ‘special
funds’ within their jurisdiction to benefit
the supply of management

investment
from the exemption of
services and exclude others from the exemption, or

b. does it mean that the Member States are to identify those
funds within their jurisdiction which fall within the defi-
nition of ‘special investment funds’ and that the benefit
of exemption should extend to all such funds?