C-47/99

1. Article 17(1) of Council Directive 94/33/ EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work 1 (hereinafter 'the Directive') provides that Member States are to bring into force the provisions necessary 3. The facts preceding the commencement to comply with the its obligations under the of that action are as follows. On 16 Jan- Directive 'not later than 22 June 1996 or uary 1997, having received no communica- ensure, by that date at the latest, that the tion from the Luxembourg authorities two sides of industry introduce the requisite concerning national measures to implement provisions by means of collective agree- the Directive, and having no information ments', and 'forthwith inform the Commis- from other sources regarding the adoption sion thereof'. of such measures, the Commission sent the Luxembourg authorities a letter of formal notice calling upon them to submit their observations within two months. The authorities replied by letter of 25 February 1997 stating that legislation to transpose the Directive was being prepared. The Commission received no further informa- tion and, by letter of 20 January 1998, sent 2. By document lodged at the Court Reg- the Luxembourg Government a reasoned istry on 16 February 1999, the Commis- opinion in which it set out the observations sion brought an action under Article 169 of already made in its letter of formal notice, the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC) against complained that the Directive had not been the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, seeking implemented, and laid down a period of from the Court a declaration that, by two months in which it must adopt the failing to adopt, within the prescribed necessary measures. By letter of 10 March period, the laws, regulations and adminis- 1998, the Luxembourg authorities sent the trative provisions necessary to implement Commission the text of a draft law designed to transpose the Directive into domestic law, and asked for an extension of * Original language: Italian. time in which to complete the drafting of 1 — OJ 1994 L 216, p. 12. the national provisions in question. The

4. On that basis the Commission took the 6. In its defence, lodged on 16 April 1999, view that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg the Luxembourg Government stated that had failed to transpose the provisions of the the draft law transposing the Directive had Directive into its domestic law and had been adopted on 19 March 1999 and sent thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the on 13 April 1999 to the Council of State Directive and the relevant provisions of the for its opinion, as is required by the rules of Treaty. It therefore brought the present legislative procedure. It also stated that the action against the Grand Duchy of Luxem- draft would be laid before Parliament by bourg for failure to fulfil obligations. April 1999 and would be adopted before the end of 1999. In order to justify its delay, the Luxembourg Government pointed out that the preparatory work for the imple- menting legislation had proved to be extre- mely complex, making it necessary to create an interministerial group to examine all aspects of the Directive. It also observed that the current legislation, and in particu- The failure to fulfil obligations lar the Law of 28 October 1969 on the protection of minors and young workers, and the Law of 17 June 1994 on the protection of the health of workers, already fulfilled, in large part, the requirements of 5. Under the third paragraph of Article 189 the Directive, and that the draft law of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), containing the implementing measures directives are binding, as to the result to be therefore dealt essentially with 'tasks of a achieved, upon each Member State to technical nature' and adaptation of the which they are addressed. Under the first prior legislation. It therefore asked that the paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty proceedings be suspended or, in the alter- (now Article 10 EC), Member States are to native, that the action be dismissed. take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. As far as the transposition of the Directive into domestic law is concerned, the relevant 7. The request for suspension of the pro- obligation is set out explicitly in Article 17 ceedings cannot be granted as it would not thereof, which fixes 22 June 1996 as the remove the liability of the Grand Duchy of

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement 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) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

I - 9002