Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0489

Case C-489/16: Action brought on 9 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

OJ C 410, 7.11.2016, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.11.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/9


Action brought on 9 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-489/16)

(2016/C 410/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by not adopting, by 16 June 2015 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ L 343 of 14.12.2012, p. 32) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 64(1) of that directive;

impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 710 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2012/34/EU;

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive expired on 16 June 2015.

It is apparent from the various replies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in particular from the reply to the reasoned opinion, that more than one year after the expiry of the transposition period set by the directive the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not yet adopted the required measures.

The determination of the penalty under Article 260(3) TFEU is based on the three criteria applied under Article 260(2) TFEU, namely the seriousness of the infringement, its duration, and the need to ensure that the penalty has a deterrent effect in order to avoid further infringements.


Top