Important legal notice

61999C0348

European Court reports 2000 Page I-02917

Opinion of the Advocate-General

5. It points out that to date it has received no further news from the Luxembourg Government nor any information such as to suggest that the measures necessary to transpose the Directive have been adopted.

7. In its defence, the Luxembourg Government does not dispute that it is under a duty to adopt the necessary measures to comply with the Directive. However, it argues that a draft law on copyright, neighbouring rights and databases, intended to transpose the Directive, was submitted to the Chambre des Députés (Parliament) on 17 April 1998, but that there have been delays in the legislative process. Since the purpose of the draft law goes beyond the protection of databases, covering the area of copyright, and completely reworking the law of copyright, it was necessary to form a working group, to undertake a major consultation exercise with the interested parties and to organise a seminar on copyright law.

Conclusion

11. I would therefore propose that the Court rule as follows:

(1) By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that Directive.

(2) The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.