CELEX: C1998/397/20
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 1998 in Case C-410/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 92/29/EEC)

19.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/13
     by the latter State as driving without a licence and            and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine.             Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 29 October 1998, in which it:
2. A national of a non-member country who holds a
     valid Community model driving licence issued by one             1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the
     Member State, who has taken up normal residence in                   prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
     another Member State, but who has not exchanged his                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     driving licence within the one-year period prescribed                Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on
     by the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive               the minimum safety and health requirements for
     80/1263/EEC, is entitled to rely directly on                         improved medical treatment on board vessels, the
     Articles 1(2) and 8(1) of Council Directive 91/439/                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
     EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences in order to                  obligations thereunder.
     challenge the imposition, in the Member State in
     which he has established his new residence, of a term
     of imprisonment or a fine for driving without a                 2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     licence. Community law does not prevent a court of                   costs.
     such a Member State, by reason of the principle that
     forms part of national law in certain Member States of          (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
     the retroactive effect of more favourable provisions of
     criminal law, from applying the aforesaid provisions of
     Directive 91/439/EEC even where the offence took
     place before the date set for compliance with that
     directive.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                         of 10 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-360/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Gerechtshof te Arnhem): Gemeente Arnhem and
                                                                                 Gemeente Rheden v. BFI Holding BV (1)
                                                                     (Public service contracts Ð Meaning of contracting
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         authority Ð Body governed by public law)
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                      (98/C 397/21)
                      of 29 October 1998
in    Case C-410/97: Commission of the European                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
       Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          Failure to transpose Directive 92/29/EEC)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 397/20)
                                                                     In Case C-360/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: French)                      of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of
                                                                     Appeal), Arnhem (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden and BFI
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Holding BV Ð on the interpretation of Articles 1(b) and 6
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
                                                                     to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                     service contracts (OJ L 209, 1992, p. 1) Ð the Court,
In Case C-410/97: Commission of the European                         composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.
Communities (Agent: Marie Wolfcarius) v. Grand Duchy                 Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann (Rapporteur)
of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicholas Schmit) Ð application                 (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,                de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R.
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March                  Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
improved medical treatment on board vessels (OJ L 113,               10 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
30.4.1992, p. 19), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Ð the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,               1. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council
President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur)                       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the