- 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 Jacobs delivered on 14 November 2002. # Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom to supply services - Patent agents - Choice of domicile with an approved agent - Article 10 EC - Member States' duty of cooperation. # Case C-478/01.
ECLI:EU:C:2002:668
62001CC0478
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
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
delivered on 14 November 2002 (1)
Commission des Communautés européennes
Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
3. The second complaint concerns Luxembourg's failure to supply information on the exact conditions for the application of certain provisions of its legislation, namely Article 85, paragraph 2, of the Law on patents of 20 July 1992 and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1988 governing access to certain occupations. That failure, the Commission contends, infringes Article 10 EC.
5. Luxembourg has effectively conceded that the Commission is entitled to that declaration. Luxembourg states in its defence that in the relevant part of the amendment the requirement of an actual address in the Grand Duchy was retained (avec domicile réel au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg), and states that that error will be corrected in two draft laws which are in preparation.
6. Accordingly the Court should grant the declaration sought by the Commission on the first claim, as amended in the Commission's reply.
9. Accordingly the Commission is entitled to succeed on the second claim also.
Conclusion
1) declare that, by maintaining the obligation for patent agents to have an address with an approved representative in Luxembourg when providing services, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;
2) declare that, by not supplying information on the exact conditions for the application of the provisions of Article 85, paragraph 2, of the Law of 20 July 1992 and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1988, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;
3) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
1 – Original language: English.
2 – See for example Case 192/84 Commission v Greece [1985] ECR 3967, paragraph 19 of the judgment.