Case C-41/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air conditioning, consumer information, energy consumption, household electrical appliance, labelling

C 60/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-22/06)

(2006/C 60/57)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

to

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
comply with
administrative
provisions necessary
Commission Directive 2004/105/EC of 15 October 2004
determining the models of official phytosanitary certificates
or phytosanitary certificates for re-export accompanying
plants, plant products or other objects from third countries
and listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC (1) or,
in any
event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2004/105 expired on
31 December 2004.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by not taking all the measures necessary to
recover the aid granted, the Federal Republic of Germany
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision in the State
aid procedure C-62/00 (ex NN 142/99) of 30 October
2002,
in the form of the corrected decision of 13 May
2003 (2003/643/EC) (1) on the State aid implemented by
Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen
Porzellan GmbH;

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the European Commission, the Federal Govern-
ment failed to sufficiently implement the Commission's deci-
sion in the State aid procedure C-62/00 (ex NN 142/99) of 30
October 2002 in the form of the corrected decision of 13 May
2003 (2003/643/EC).

By means of the decision, a number of items of State aid
granted by Germany to Kahla Porzellan GmbH in the years
from 1991 to 1993 and to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH
in the years from 1993 to 1999 were declared to be incompa-
tible with the common market. At the same time the decision
ordered that they be recovered, including interest.

The fact that Decision 2003/643/EC is being contested in Case
T-20/03 is irrelevant as regards the obligation to execute the
decision, as the bringing of the action has no suspensory effect.

As the Federal Republic has not yet fully implemented Decision
2003/643/EC, despite repeated written demands on the part of
the Commission, the Commission has brought an action under
the second paragraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ 2004 L 319, p. 9

(1) OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12.

Action brought on 24 January 2006 by Commission of the
European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-39/06)

(2006/C 60/58)

(Case C-41/06)

(2006/C 60/59)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 24 January 2006 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Stromsky and B. Schima,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/31

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative
comply with
provisions necessary
Commission Directive 2002/31/EC of 22 March 2002
implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to
energy labelling of household air-conditioners (1) or, in any
event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that dircetive;

to

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2002/31 expired on
31 December 2002.

(1) OJ L 86 of 03.04.2002, p. 26

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/9/EC
expired on 6 February 2005.

(1) OJ L 31 of 06.02.2003, p. 18.

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-48/06)

(2006/C 60/61)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-47/06)

(2006/C 60/60)

(Language of the case: French)

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the
facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, (1)
and,
in any event, by not informing the Commission of
their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down
minimum standards for asylum seekers, (1) or, in any event,
by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

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

The period prescribed for implementing Directive 2002/90/EC
expired on 4 December 2004.

(1) OJ L 328 of 5.12.2002, p. 17.