Luxembourg suffers defeat at hands of local ECJ

Only French-speakers will know how embarrassed les Luxembourgeoises must be, since the European Court of Justice, in Case C-328/07, Commission des Communautés européennes v Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, ruled that the tiny Duchy had failed to implement the provisions of Directive 2004/48, the IP Enforcement Directive. The key bits are in paragraphs 8 to 12:
"8 Devant la Cour, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg admet que la directive n’a pas été transposée dans son ordre juridique interne, tout en réitérant que la loi de transposition luxembourgeoise, qui devrait intervenir à bref délai, ne peut être élaborée sans tenir compte des lois belge et française correspondantes, eu égard à l’influence, dans le domaine concerné, de la jurisprudence de ces deux États membres sur la jurisprudence des juridictions luxembourgeoises.

9 Il convient de souligner que, selon une jurisprudence constante, l’existence d’un manquement doit être appréciée en fonction de la situation de l’État membre telle qu’elle se présentait au terme du délai fixé dans l’avis motivé (arrêts du 14 juillet 2005, Commission/Espagne, C‑135/03, Rec. p. I‑6909, point 31, et du 6 décembre 2007, Commission/France, C‑106/07, non encore publié au Recueil, point 16).

10 En l’espèce, il est constant que, à l’expiration dudit délai, les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la transposition de la directive dans l’ordre juridique national n’avaient pas été adoptées.

11 Par ailleurs, il y a lieu de rappeler qu’un État membre ne saurait exciper, notamment, de pratiques propres à son ordre juridique interne pour justifier l’inobservation des obligations et des délais prescrits par une directive (voir en ce sens, notamment, arrêts du 9 septembre 2004, Commission/Espagne, C‑195/02, Rec. p. I‑7857, point 82, et du 27 septembre 2007, Commission/France, C‑9/07, non publié au Recueil, point 9).

12 Dans ces conditions, il y a lieu de considérer le recours introduit par la Commission comme fondé".
Says the IPKat, as usual I'd appreciate some guidance. Can a kind, French-speaking reader post a brief summary below? Merpel adds, Luxembourg losing before the ECJ is a bit like a football team losing at home, isn't it?
Luxembourg suffers defeat at hands of local ECJ Luxembourg suffers defeat at hands of local ECJ Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, February 21, 2008 Rating: 5

4 comments:

  1. Presumably the ECJ will now proceed to condemn Germany for the same offence - case C-395/07. Not introducing national legislation to implement a Directive within a period of nearly two years after the required date does appear to be pushing the boundaries of what could be considered fair play.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Morning, Feline Friend,

    As usual, quick and dirty translation. Here goes-

    "8 Devant la Cour, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg admet que la directive n'a pas été transposée dans son ordre juridique interne, tout en réitérant que la loi de transposition luxembourgeoise, qui devrait intervenir à bref délai, ne peut être élaborée sans tenir compte des lois belge et française correspondantes, eu égard à l'influence, dans le domaine concerné, de la jurisprudence de ces deux États membres sur la jurisprudence des juridictions luxembourgeoises."

    Before the Court, the Great Duchy of Luxembourg admits that the Directive has not been transposed into its national legislation, reiterating at the same time that the Luxembourg transposing law, which had to come into force in short order, cannot be devised outside the context of the corresponding Belgian and French Laws, with reference to the influence of the Case Law of these 2 Member States upon the case law of the Luxembourg jurisdiction.

    "9 Il convient de souligner que, selon une jurisprudence constante, l'existence d'un manquement doit être appréciée en fonction de la situation de l'État membre telle qu'elle se présentait au terme du délai fixé dans l'avis motivé (arrêts du 14 juillet 2005, Commission/Espagne, C-135/03, Rec. p. I-6909, point 31, et du 6 décembre 2007, Commission/France, C-106/07, non encore publié au Recueil, point 16)."

    It should be noted that, under constant Case Law (NDT - ?), the occurence of a failure must be appreciated on the basis of the situation of the Member State, such as that situation was at the expiry of the period fixed in the Notice ((NDT - Decisions or Rules) of 14 July 2005, Commission/Spain, C-135/03, Rec. p. I-6909, point 31, and of 6 December 2007, Commission/France, C-106/07, not yet published, point 16)

    "10 En l'espèce, il est constant que, à l'expiration dudit délai, les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la transposition de la directive dans l'ordre juridique national n'avaient pas été adoptées."

    Accordingly, the fact remains that, as of the expiry of the period, the measures required for ensuring the transposition of the Directive in the national legislation had not been adopted.

    "11 Par ailleurs, il y a lieu de rappeler qu'un État membre ne saurait exciper, notamment, de pratiques propres à son ordre juridique interne pour justifier l'inobservation des obligations et des délais prescrits par une directive (voir en ce sens, notamment, arrêts du 9 septembre 2004, Commission/Espagne, C-195/02, Rec. p. I-7857, point 82, et du 27 septembre 2007, Commission/France, C-9/07, non publié au Recueil, point 9)."

    Moreover, it should be reminded that a Member State may not invoke practices which are specific to its internal legislation, for justifying ignorance of the obligations and time periods prescribed in a Directive (in this context refer notably to (NDT - Decisions or Rules) of 9 September 2004, Commission/Spain, C-195/02, Rec. p. I-7857, point 82, and of 27 September 2007, Commission/France, C-9/07, not yet published, point 9).

    "12 Dans ces conditions, il y a lieu de considérer le recours introduit par la Commission comme fondé".

    In these conditions, the Request introduced by the Commission must be considered as receivable.

    Regards,
    S Ambrosini

    ReplyDelete
  3. This from Richard Milchior (Granrut): "There is nothing special except for one new type of defence raised by Luxembourg.
    Luxembourg recognized that it did not implement the directive on time (what's new? the ECJ has dozens of case like that). However they explained that the law from Luxembourg could not be written without seeing first the Belgian and French law due to the influence of the case law of those two countries upon the court of Luxembourg.

    The ECJ did not bite that and found Luxembourg liable since the law had not been implemented at the end of the period fixed by the reasoned opinion".

    ReplyDelete
  4. ... and this from Jonathan Turner: "Luxembourg said that it had not passed the implementing legislation by the required date because it needed to take into account corresponding French and Belgian legislation in view of the influence of their case-law in the Luxemburg courts. The ECJ said that is no excuse, recalling its previous case-law that a member state cannot invoke practices in its own legal system to excuse non-compliance with a Directive".

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.