- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 7 June 2001. # Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its Treaty obligations - Non-incorporation of Directive 95/46/EC. # Case C-450/00.
ECLI:EU:C:2001:322
62000CC0450
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Important legal notice
62000C0450
European Court reports 2001 Page I-07069
Opinion of the Advocate-General
3. By application of 5 December 2000, entered in the Court Register on 7 December 2000, the Commission initiated proceedings for failing to transpose Directive 95/46 within the prescribed period.
(1) declare that, in failing within the prescribed period to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions containing possible sanctions, necessary to comply with Article 32 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear the costs of the proceedings.
- dismiss the application;
in the alternative
- discontinue the proceedings.
8. Again, according to the settled case-law of the Court, practices and circumstances under the legal systems of the Member State do not justify failure to fulfil the obligations and observe the time-limits arising from Community directives, including delay in implementing a directive. Consequently, at the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, Directive 95/46 must be regarded as not having been implemented in the law of the Member State and I therefore propose that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg be found at fault pursuant to the application.
Conclusion
10. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that, in failing to introduce within the prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative provisions containing possible sanctions necessary to comply with Article 32 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, 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 of the proceedings.