CELEX: 61999CJ0047
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 1999. # Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/33/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. # Case C-47/99.

Avis juridique important

|

61999J0047

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 1999.  -  Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.  -  Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/33/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period.  -  Case C-47/99.  

European Court reports 1999 Page I-08999

PartiesGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC)) 

Parties

In Case C-47/99, Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, applicant, v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by P. Steinmetz, Head of Legal and Cultural Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, 5 Rue Notre-Dame, Luxembourg, defendant, "APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, or by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (OJ 1994 L 216, p. 12), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under the said directive, THE COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General: A. Saggio, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 October 1999, gives the following Judgment 

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 February 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC) for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, or by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (OJ 1994 L 216, p. 12, hereinafter `the Directive'), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and the said directive. 2 Under Article 17(1) of the Directive, the Member States were required to bring into force not later than 22 June 1996 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive or to ensure by that date at the latest that the two sides of industry (management and labour) introduce the requisite provisions by means of collective agreements, and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. 3 Having received no notification from the Luxembourg Government concerning the transposition of the Directive, the Commission formally requested that Government, by letter of 16 January 1997, to submit its observations on the matter. 4 The Luxembourg Government replied by letter of 25 February 1997 mentioning certain preparatory measures for the transposition of the Directive. 5 On 20 January 1998, having received no further information concerning the measures adopted to transpose the Directive into Luxembourg law, the Commission sent the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg a reasoned opinion setting out the observations contained in its letter of formal notice and calling on it to comply therewith within two months of notification of the opinion. 6 By letter of 10 March 1998, the Luxembourg authorities sent the Commission a preliminary draft of a law transposing the Directive and asked for an extension of time in which to complete the transposition process, which the Commission granted. 7 In the absence of any further communication from the Luxembourg Government concerning its adoption of the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the Directive, the Commission brought the present action. 8 In its application, the Commission submits that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg did not transpose the Directive within the prescribed period and that it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and the Directive. 9 The Luxembourg Government does not dispute that the Directive has not been transposed within the period allowed. It maintains that the amount of preparatory work actually required for the law transposing the Directive greatly exceeded estimates and, in particular, given that the draft law was of concern to several ministries, made it necessary to create an ad hoc interministerial group which considered the content of the draft on a number of occasions. 10 The Luxembourg Government adds that, on 19 March 1999, the draft implementing law was adopted by the Government in council and that, on 13 April 1999, it was sent to the Council of State, the legislative organ, and to professional bodies, in order to obtain their views, as is required by the Luxembourg legislative process. It said that the draft was to be laid before Parliament before the end of April 1999 and that the law would therefore be adopted before the end of the year. 11 That being so, the Luxembourg Government asks the Court to order the suspension of the present proceedings for a period to be determined, or, alternatively, to dismiss the application and order the Commission to pay the costs. 12 It should be observed at the outset that there are no grounds for the Court to suspend the proceedings. 13 As to the substance, since the directive was not transposed within the period allowed, the Commission's action for failure to fulfil obligations is well founded. 14 It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. 

Decision on costs

Costs 15 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the latter has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs. 

Operative part

On those grounds, THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; 2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.