Case C-209/08: Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2008-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, foreign national, illegal migration, national implementing measure, residence permit, trafficking in human beings

C 171/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

6. Does

the prohibition in Article 24 of Regulation
No 2201/2003 of review of the jurisdiction of the court of
the Member State of origin mean that, if it has received an
application for recognition or non-recognition of a decision
of a foreign court and is unable to establish the jurisdiction
of the court of the Member State of origin and unable to
identify any other grounds set out in Article 23 of Regu-
lation No 2201/2003 as a basis for non-recognition of deci-
sions, the national court is obliged to recognise the decision
of the court of the Member State of origin ordering the
child's return in the case where the court of the Member
State of origin failed to observe the procedures laid down in
the child's
the regulation when deciding on the issue of
return?

instructor qualifications, snowboarding can be taught in France
only by ski instructors.

The applicant considers that the refusal to permit access to the
profession of snowboard instructor alone cannot be justified
having regard to the fundamental principles of free movement
of persons, freedom to provide services and the right of estab-
lishment. The Commission considers, in addition, that the four
cumulative derogating conditions established by the Court's
case-law to justify any restriction on those principles — that
measures must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they
must be justified by overriding reasons based on the general
interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the
objective which they pursue; and they must respect the principle
of proportionality — are not satisfied.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003
concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsi-
bility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338,
p. 1).

(1) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
system for the recognition of professional education and training to
supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209, p. 25).

Action brought on 15 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-200/08)

(2008/C 171/43)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-209/08)

(2008/C 171/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Bordes and H. Støvlbæk, agents)

Parties

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that by refusing to permit German and British
snowboard instructors to teach that sport alone in France
and by not referring in the amended decree of 4 May 1995
to snowboard instructor qualifications acquired in other
Member States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 39, 43 and 49 EC and under
Article 6 of Directive 92/51/EEC (1);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Maria Condou Durande, agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence
permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of
trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of
an action to facilitate illegal
immigration, who cooperate
with the competent authorities (1) or, in any event, by not
having informed the Commission of those provisions, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 17 of that directive;

While in several Member States ski-ing and snowboarding can
be taught by members of professions who have separate

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

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 23 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 5 August
2006. At the date of bringing this action, the defendant has not
yet taken the measures necessary to transpose the directive or,
in any event, has not informed the Commission of them.

(1) OJ L 261, p. 19.

(Case C-224/08)

(2008/C 171/46)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 23 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-223/08)

(2008/C 171/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Huvelin, agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting
certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of
persons, by reason of
the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania (1) and, in any event, by not having informed the
Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 2 of that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Huvelin)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC expired
on the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the
European Union, namely 1 January 2007. At
the date of
bringing this action, the defendant had not taken the measures
necessary to transpose completely the directive, in particular in
respect of the medical professions, lawyers and architects.

Form of order sought

— Declare that by not adopting the laws regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting
certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of
persons, by reason of
the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania (1) and, in any event, by not having informed the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC expired
on the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the
European Union, namely 1 January 2007. At
the date of
bringing this action, no transposing measure had been adopted
or notified to the Commission by the defendant.

(1) OJ L 363, p. 141.

Order of the President of the Court of 28 November 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Social no 3 Valladolid, Spain) — Vicente Pascual García v
Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

(Case C-87/06) (1)

(2008/C 171/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ L 363, p. 141.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.