CELEX: C2000/233/40
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-236/00: Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

12.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/21
      communication of a document would ‘be generally                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
      prejudicial to secrets protected by law’. That concept is          Office) of 1 June 2000, which was received at the Court
      not amongst the exhaustive list of exceptions set out in           Registry on 13 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
      Article 3(2) of Directive 90/313/EEC. It is not the same           of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against CSC
      thing as, and is no less extensive in the area it covers           Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum (Europe) Ltd), on
      than, the concept in the directive of ‘confidentiality of          the following questions:
      data’. Even though national authorities are required to
      interpret provisions of domestic law in such a way as to           How is the exemption provided by article 13B(d)(5) (1) in
      ensure compliance with Community law, the wording of               respect of ‘transactions in securities’ to be interpreted? In
      Law No 78-753 is not sufficient objectively to exclude             particular,
      the possibility of a refusal that is not justified under the
      directive, and, contrary to the obligations which follow           (1) does the term ‘transaction in securities’ apply only to a
      from Community law, the legal appearance creates a legal                 transaction in which the parties’ legal rights or obligations
      uncertainty which cannot be allowed.                                     in respect of the security are altered?
—     Failure to transpose the final paragraph of Article 3(2)           (2) does the term ‘transactions, including negotiation, in
      (partial communication of information): A doctrine set                   securities’ apply to a service of providing information to
      out by the (French) ‘Commission on Access to Admi-                       potential investors and receiving and processing applica-
      nistrative Documents’ is no substitute for the correct                   tions from investors for the issue of a security (but not
      transposition of a directive conferring rights on indivi-                including preparing and dispatching the document of
      duals.                                                                   title to the security), where that service is provided to a
                                                                               person who has legal rights or obligations under the
                                                                               security by a person who does not have any legal right or
—     Failure to transpose Article 3(3) (possibility of refusing a
                                                                               obligation under the security?
      manifestly unreasonable request, or one requiring the
      communication of unfinished or internal documents):
      Whilst it is true that Article 3(3) of the directive states        (1) Of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
      merely a possibility that is open to Member States and                 the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      not an obligation, it appears that that possibility of                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      rejecting requests is in fact used by the French administra-           basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
      tion when faced with certain requests for information,
      and that individuals are not in a position to discover with
      the required clarity what the limits of their right of access
      to information are, since the assessment of the exceptions
      is carried out only on a case by case basis by the
      administrative courts.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3(4) (Possibility of no
                                                                                                     Luxembourg
      reasons being given for implied rejection decisions).
                                                                                                   (Case C-236/00)
( 1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 233/40)
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 13 June 2000 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Kirchberg.
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 1 June 2000, in                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                      the Court should:
against CSC Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum
                           (Europe) Ltd)                                 —     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-
                                                                               nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with:
                         (Case C-235/00)
                                                                               —      Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998
                         (2000/C 233/39)                                              laying down certain measures for implementing
                                                                                      Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the condi-
                                                                                      tions and arrangements for approving and registe-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                ring certain establishments and intermediaries ope-
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                                 rating in the animal feed sector (1), and
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September               Pleas in law and main arguments
            1998 amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/
            EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
            and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (2),                     advanced in Case C-236/00 (2); the period for transposition
                                                                       expired on 30 June 1998.
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply
      with its obligations under Article 10 of Directive
      98/51/EC and Article 7 of Directive 98/67/EC;                    (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 25.
                                                                       (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC obliges        the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of
the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in order             First Instance of the European Communities (single judge)
to transpose directives into their national legal order within         in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European
the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in                                           Parliament
question expired on 31 December 1998 but the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures.                                          (Case C-238/00 P)
                                                                                                (2000/C 233/42)
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1998, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000
                                                                       by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the
                                                                       European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Peter
                                                                       Reichert, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                       Eicklöhken 19, D-45549 Sprockhövel (Germany), with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by the Commission of                    Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box 335, L-2013 Luxembourg.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the
                        (Case C-237/00)                                      Court of First Instance in Case T-18/98;
                        (2000/C 233/41)                                —     itself determine the appellant’s application for the grant
                                                                             of the expatriation allowance, or alternatively refer the
                                                                             case back to the Court of First Instance for re-examination
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          and a fresh decision;
brought before the Court of Justice on 14 June 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 —     order the European Parliament, as respondent, to pay the
Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an               costs of the entire proceedings.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     The appellant’s employment as a correspondent in the
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Brussels press office of the VWD, which was taken into
the Court should:                                                            consideration in the contested judgment as a ground for
                                                                             the refusal of the expatriation allowance, lasted only
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or notify within the                 20 months and thus does not in any way constitute a
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and admi-                  substantial part of the 66-month period referred to in
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with                  Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
      Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on                      officials.
      marine equipment (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 20       —     The Court of First Instance failed to give any consideration
      of that directive and under the provisions of the EC                   to the professional position occupied by the appellant
      Treaty;                                                                during the remaining period (namely, that of Brussels
                                                                             correspondent for the publication ‘Wirtschaftswoche’, the
—     order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                      editorial headquarters of which is situated in Düsseldorf).