CELEX: C2000/211/02
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-348/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/9/EC — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 211/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                         costs.
                         of 13 April 2000                                    (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
in Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Com-
                munities v Antonio Giannini (1)
(Appeal — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of
               First Instance — Abuse of power)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2000/C 211/01)                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                                      of 13 April 2000
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             in Case C-348/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                         ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Directive 96/9/EC — Non-transposition within the pre-
                                                                                                        scribed period)
In Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — appeal against the                                         (2000/C 211/02)
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of
25 February 1999 in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98
Giannini v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-33 and II-151,                                           (Language of the case: French)
seeking to have that judgment set aside in so far as it contains
an error of law regarding the abuse of power and the
infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
EC) which the Commission was alleged to have committed,                                         in the European Court Reports)
the other party to the proceedings being Antonio Giannini, an
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                      In Case C-348/99, Commission of the European Communities
residing in Brussels, represented by M. Dallemagne and C. Loc-               (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Desantes Real) v Grand Duchy
chi, of the Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal, B-1050                     of Luxembourg (Agent: M.P. Steinmetz), for a declaration that,
Brussels — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moit-                by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
inho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                        measures necessary in order to comply with Directive 96/9/EC
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges;             of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              1996 on the legal protection of databases, (OJ 1996 L77,
judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:                                      p. 20), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22.7.2000
obligations under that directive; the Court (First Chamber),              other, by the Member States of the EEC and the Community,
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,            and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General: M.P. Léger;            Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December
Registrar: M.R. Grass, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000,             1963 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1) and of Article 41 of the Additional
in which it:                                                              Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and con-
                                                                          cluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and           by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with            1972 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 17), — the Court, composed of:
     Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
     Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases,       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its               G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges, A. La Pergola,
     obligations under that directive;                                    Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 11 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                          — Article 13 of the Agreement establishing an Association between
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                                   the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at
                                                                              Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of
                                                                              the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the
                                                                              Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and
                                                                              confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
                                                                              64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 and Article 41(2) of the
                                                                              Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970
                                                                              and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
                                                                              Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       19 December 1972 do not constitute rules of Community law
                                                                              that are directly applicable in the internal legal order of Member
                                                                              States.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 11 May 2000                                  — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol has direct effect in
                                                                              Member States.
in Case C-37/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of
England & Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the                  — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol is not in itself capable
       Home Department ex parte Abdulnasir Savas (1)                          of conferring upon a Turkish national a right of establishment
                                                                              and, as a corollary, a right of residence in the Member State in
                                                                              whose territory he has remained and carried on business activities
(EEC-Turkey Association — Restrictions on freedom of                          as a self-employed person in breach of the domestic immigration
establishment and right of residence — Article 13 of the                      law.
Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional
Protocol — Direct effect — Scope — Turkish national
         unlawfully present in the host Member State)
                                                                          — However, Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol prohibits the
                                                                              introduction of new national restrictions on the freedom of
                         (2000/C 211/03)                                      establishment and right of residence of Turkish nationals as from
                                                                              the date on which that protocol entered into force in the host
                                                                              Member State. It is for the national court to interpret domestic
                    (Language of the case: English)                           law for the purposes of determining whether the rules applied to
                                                                              the applicant in the main proceedings are less favourable than
                                                                              those which were applicable at the time when the Additional
                                                                              Protocol entered into force.
In Case C-37/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Queen’s Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales                (1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between The Queen and Secretary
of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
Savas on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Agreement
establishing an Association between the European Economic
Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September
1963, on the one hand, by the Republic of Turkey and, on the