Case C-526/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2008-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Community, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, chemical fertiliser, organic fertiliser, regulation of agricultural production

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/31

which are formally higher-ranking (Article 103(8) of
the
Constitution) as prohibiting absolutely the conversion of
fixed-term contracts into contracts of
indefinite duration,
even where it is apparent that in reality those contracts have
been entered into by way of an abuse on the legal basis of
provisions designed to cover needs that are exceptional and
temporary generally, because the contracts covered fixed and
permanent needs of a public-sector employer (to this effect,
Judgments No 19/2007 and No 20/2007 of the Arios Pagos
(Full Court)), when a possible interpretation is also that that
prohibition must be limited solely to fixed-term employment
contracts which have in fact been entered into to cover
temporary, unforeseen, urgent or exceptional needs and not
also cover cases where they have in reality been entered into
to cover fixed and permanent needs (to this effect, Judgment
No 18/2006 of the Arios Pagos (Full Court))?

8. Is it consistent with Community law for disputes relating to
fixed-term work and clause 5 of the framework agreement to
fall, after
the entry into force of Presidential Decree
No 164/2004, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the admin-
istrative courts, when that renders access of a claimant fixed-
term worker to justice more difficult, given that, before the
adoption of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, all disputes
relating to fixed-term work fell within the jurisdiction of the
civil courts under
labour disputes procedure
the special
formal
which is more lenient as regards observance of
requirements, simpler, less costly for the claimant fixed-term
worker and, as a rule, quicker?

Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-526/08)

(2009/C 44/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt

the laws,

regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and
properly with Articles 4 and 5,
in conjunction with
Annex II A(1) and Annex III 1(1), Annex II A(5) and
Annex III 1(2), and Annex II A(2) and Annex II A(6), of
Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused
by nitrates from agricultural sources (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 Commission raises four complaints in support of its action.

By its first complaint, the Commission criticises the defendant
for not complying with the procedures and periods for land
application, as laid down in the directive. Although the prohibi-
tion on land application during certain periods should cover
both organic and artificial fertilisers, the Luxembourg legislation
refers solely to organic fertilisers. In addition, the prohibition on
the land application of fertilisers during certain periods should
including prairies, which are
relate to all agricultural
implementing measures. The
omitted from the national
Commission also claims that the national
legislation should
define, with greater precision, those circumstances which may
give rise to a derogation from the land application prohibition,
as this was not envisaged in the directive.

land,

the Commission claims that

the
By its second complaint,
national legislation does not lay down any requirement for a
minimum manure storage capacity for all
installations, but
refers only to new installations or those being modernised. Such
an implementing measure does not comply with the Directive
in so far as the existing installations also present pollution risks.
The national legislation should, therefore, impose a minimum
storage capacity for all installations.

By its third complainant, the Commission claims that,
in the
context of the prohibition of land application on steeply sloping
ground, the national legislation should include all fertilisers, and
not only organic fertilisers.

By its fourth and final complaint, it is alleged that the defendant
did not adopt sufficient measures concerning land application
techniques, in particular, to ensure a uniform and efficient appli-
cation of fertilisers.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and N. von Lingen, Agents)

(1) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg