CELEX: C2003/044/28
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-461/02: Action brought on 20 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

22.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/15
Action brought on 20 December 2002 by the Commission                      23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                       Communities, represented by N. B. Rasmussen and D. Martin,
                          of Luxembourg                                   acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-461/02)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2003/C 44/28)
                                                                          —     Declare that, in so far as it does not, under its legislation
                                                                                and administrative practice, allow employees who work
                                                                                outside Denmark and are resident in Denmark to use for
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             commercial or private purposes a company car registered
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    in a neighbouring country where the undertaking of
ties on 20 December 2002 by the Commission of the European                      their employer has its principal office, the Kingdom of
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and F. Simonetti,                       Denmark has failed, within the terms of Article 226 EC,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of
                                                                                Articles 39 EC and 10 EC;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Declare that, in so far as, under its legislation and
—     declare that, by not reporting to the Commission every                    administrative practice, it allows employees who work in
      two years on the results of the measures taken to                         another EU Member State and are resident in Denmark
      implement the programmes provided for in Council                          to use for commercial and/or private purposes a motor
      Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit                         vehicle, in particular a company car, which is registered
      carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency                   in another Member State in which the undertaking of
      (SAVE) (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to                   their employer has its principal office or seat, only subject
      fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;                 to the conditions (i) that the work in the foreign
                                                                                undertaking is the main activity engaged in by the person
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     concerned and (ii) that duty is paid on that vehicle, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of
                                                                                Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under the com-
                                                                                bined provisions of Articles 39 EC and 10 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
In view of the period prescribed for transposing the directive,                 present proceedings.
a first report on the results of the measures taken to implement
the programmes provided for in the directive should have
been submitted to the Commission on 31 December 1996
and a second report on 31 December 1998. The Luxembourg
authorities’ lack of resources cannot be used to justify breach           Pleas in law and main arguments
of an obligation under a directive.
( 1) OJ L 237 of 22.9.1993, p. 28.                                        The Danish rules which form the basis of the present
                                                                          action were amended during the course of the administrative
                                                                          procedure. According to the ‘previous scheme’ (see Notice
                                                                          No 18 of the Ministry of Justice of 10 January 1992, which
                                                                          subsequently became Notice No 592 of the Ministry of
                                                                          Transport of 24 June 1996), Danish residents who used a
                                                                          motor vehicle that had been registered by an employer/
                                                                          undertaking outside Denmark could, as a main rule, do so
Action brought on 23 December 2002 by the Commission                      only if the vehicle was registered in Denmark or if authorisation
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        was granted. In the event of registration being required,
                              Denmark                                     registration duty was also payable under the terms of the
                                                                          Danish Law on registration duty. Under this legislation it was
                                                                          Danish administrative practice to refuse to issue authorisations
                          (Case C-464/02)
                                                                          requested for the purpose of ‘commercial trips within Den-
                                                                          mark, including visits to clients’. Authorisation could, however,
                           (2003/C 44/29)                                 be granted for vehicle use for the purpose of driving directly
                                                                          between the Danish-German border and the place of residence
                                                                          of the person concerned, but only with regard to weekends or
                                                                          holidays. Under no circumstances was it permitted to use
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought                      company cars for private purposes, for example, outside of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                working time.