Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62006CA0319

Case C-319/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Posting of workers — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Public policy provisions — Weekly rest days — Obligation to produce documents relating to a posting on demand by the national authorities — Obligation to designate an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg to retain all the documents necessary for monitoring purposes)

OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 4–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-319/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Posting of workers - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Public policy provisions - Weekly rest days - Obligation to produce documents relating to a posting on demand by the national authorities - Obligation to designate an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg to retain all the documents necessary for monitoring purposes)

(2008/C 209/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

Defendant(s): Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Obligation to have an ad hoc agent resident in Luxembourg to keep all the documents necessary for the purposes of controls — Application of national provisions on working and employment conditions both going beyond and falling short of the requirements of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)

Declares that

—

by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and the monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;

—

by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;

—

by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December 2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and

—

by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an ad hoc agent resident there,

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.

2)

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

Top