Case C-325/07: Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Community, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, asbestos, occupational safety, worker (EU)

C 211/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coditel Brabant

Defendants: 1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale
pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale

Questions referred

in the knowledge that

1) May a municipality, without calling for competition, join a
cooperative society grouping together exclusively other
municipalities and associations of municipalities (a so-called
pure inter-municipal cooperative) in order to transfer to that
its cable television
cooperative society the operation of
network,
the cooperative society
carries out the essential part of its activities for and with its
own members and that decisions regarding those activities
are taken by the board of directors and the sector boards
within the limits of the delegated powers granted to them by
the board of directors,
corporate bodies being
those
composed of representatives of the public authorities and
the decisions of
those corporate bodies being taken in
accordance with the vote expressed by the majority of those
representatives?

2) Can the control thus exercised over the decisions of the
cooperative society, via the corporate bodies, by all
the
in the case of
members of the cooperative society — or,
operational
those
members — be regarded as enabling them to exercise over
the cooperative society control similar to that exercised over
their own departments?

sub-sectors, by some of

sectors or

2003/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 March 2003 amending Council Directive 83/477/EEC
on the protection of workers from the risks related to expo-
sure to asbestos at work (1) or,
in any event, by not
communicating them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 2(1) of that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/18/EC expired on
14 April 2006.

(1) OJ 2003 L 97, p. 48.

Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-328/07)

(2007/C 211/53)

Language of the case: French

3) For that control to be regarded as similar, must it be exer-
cised individually by each member, or is it sufficient that it
be exercised by the majority of the members?

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

(Case C-325/07)

(2007/C 211/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
intellectual
of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of
property rights (1), or in any event by not communicating
them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive

The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/48/EC into
domestic law expired on 29 April 2006.

(1) OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16.