22.2.

2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/15

Action brought on 20 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-461/02)

23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. B. Rasmussen and D. Martin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should: (2003/C 44/28) — An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should: — — declare that, by not reporting to the Commission every two years on the results of the measures taken to implement the programmes provided for in Council Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency (SAVE) (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive; order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. Declare that, in so far as, under its legislation and administrative practice, it allows employees who work in another EU Member State and are resident in Denmark to use for commercial and/or private purposes a motor vehicle, in particular a company car, which is registered in another Member State in which the undertaking of their employer has its principal office or seat, only subject to the conditions (i) that the work in the foreign undertaking is the main activity engaged in by the person concerned and (ii) that duty is paid on that vehicle, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 39 EC and 10 EC; Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the present proceedings. Declare that, in so far as it does not, under its legislation and administrative practice, allow employees who work outside Denmark and are resident in Denmark to use for commercial or private purposes a company car registered in a neighbouring country where the undertaking of their employer has its principal office, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 39 EC and 10 EC;

Pleas in law and main arguments — In view of the period prescribed for transposing the directive, a first report on the results of the measures taken to implement the programmes provided for in the directive should have been submitted to the Commission on 31 December 1996 and a second report on 31 December 1998. The Luxembourg authorities’ lack of resources cannot be used to justify breach of an obligation under a directive.
( 1) OJ L 237 of 22.9.1993, p. 28.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark (Case C-464/02) (2003/C 44/29)

An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on

The Danish rules which form the basis of the present action were amended during the course of the administrative procedure. According to the ‘previous scheme’ (see Notice No 18 of the Ministry of Justice of 10 January 1992, which subsequently became Notice No 592 of the Ministry of Transport of 24 June 1996), Danish residents who used a motor vehicle that had been registered by an employer/ undertaking outside Denmark could, as a main rule, do so only if the vehicle was registered in Denmark or if authorisation was granted. In the event of registration being required, registration duty was also payable under the terms of the Danish Law on registration duty. Under this legislation it was Danish administrative practice to refuse to issue authorisations requested for the purpose of ‘commercial trips within Denmark, including visits to clients’. Authorisation could, however, be granted for vehicle use for the purpose of driving directly between the Danish-German border and the place of residence of the person concerned, but only with regard to weekends or holidays. Under no circumstances was it permitted to use company cars for private purposes, for example, outside of working time.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful