Commission v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

E.C.J. Case C-473/93, E.C.R. 1996 I-3207 (1996)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Commission v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

European Court of Justice
E.C.J. Case C-473/93, E.C.R. 1996 I-3207 (1996)

Facts

In 1988, the Commission of the European Communities (the commission) (plaintiff) published Communication 88/C 72/02, a reminder to member states to allow other member states’ workers free movement and access to employment. Employment in various state-run sectors in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (defendant) was restricted to Luxembourg nationals by statute. The commission asserted that this restriction violated European Union treaty provisions on the free movement of workers. In January 1988, the commission sent Luxembourg a letter indicating that Luxembourg needed to eliminate its statutory nationality provisions. Luxembourg responded in October 1990 that it would not take the measures requested by the commission. In March 1991, the commission sent six formal letters to Luxembourg regarding the alleged violation and asked Luxembourg to respond within six months. Luxembourg responded in May 1992 and indicated its intent to keep its previous position. In July 1992, the commission issued six reasoned opinions regarding the areas of violation and gave Luxembourg four months to comply. This four-month period was longer than the one to two months typically allowed by the commission for compliance with reasoned opinions, and Luxembourg never sought an extension of the period. Luxembourg ultimately failed to comply, and the commission brought enforcement proceedings against Luxembourg in the European Court of Justice. Luxembourg challenged the commission’s actions because the commission had only given Luxembourg four months to comply with the commission before bringing suit, which Luxembourg argued was not realistically enough time to overhaul its entire administrative system. The commission responded that four months was far longer than the usual notice it provided and further contended that Luxembourg had constructive notice of the commission’s position in 1988 when the commission published Communication 88/C 72/02.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 824,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership