1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 23 July 2003 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2. Directive 1999/44 provides in Article 11(1) that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive not later than 1 January 2002 and that they are forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
3. Since the Commission was not informed of the measures adopted to implement Directive 1999/44 in Luxembourg law within the period prescribed in that directive, it initiated the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations as provided for in Article 226 EC. After having given notice to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 19 December 2002 requesting that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply therewith within two months of receipt of the opinion. As the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg did not respond to the opinion, the Commission brought the present action.
4. The Commission submits that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the relevant provisions thereof.
5. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not deny its failure to implement the directive. However, it indicates that a draft law was adopted by the Government in council on 27 June 2003. That draft law was lodged at the Chamber of Deputies on 8 August 2003 and submitted to the Council of State for its opinion.
6. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not deny that, on expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the measures needed to implement Directive 1999/44 had not yet been adopted, and merely sets out the stage reached in the procedure for its implementation.
7. However, it is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-63/02 Commission v United Kingdom [2003] ECR I-821, paragraph 11).
8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that no measure intended to implement Directive 1999/44 in Luxembourg law had been adopted on expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion.
9. Accordingly, the Commission ' s action must be considered well founded.
10. Consequently, it should be held that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.