Brussels, 11/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - On 6 March, the Court of Justice confirmed the ruling against Luxemburg for failing to transpose directive 2002/73/EC on equal treatment for men and women in employment. The transposition was only delayed, and this for “purely technical” reasons, Luxemburg insisted. An amended law being currently on the desk of Luxemburg legislators, the Commission is unlikely to demand more than this reprimand to the Grand Duchy.
The European Commission found against Luxemburg for failing to transpose the directive within the set timescale i.e. before 5 October 2005. To the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission on 28 June 2006, Luxemburg replied that the transposition in question had still not been fully completed. The Court of Justice, to whom the matter had been referred, rejected Luxemburg's argument that the relevant legislation was being drawn up when the reasoned opinion was sent. It was not enough, the Court said, to be on the right track, results had to be demonstrated within the deadlines: the ruling, then, went against Luxemburg for failing to meet its obligations on transposition within two months of the reasoned opinion, i.e. before 28 August 2006. However, in the meantime, the procedure had forged ahead. “The Council of State, which has always to give an opinion on Bills, demanded some purely technical changes,” said a Luxemburg source. The amended Bill “is now ready to be presented and is likely to be voted on in April,” the same source said on Monday 10 March. This being so, apart from the cost of proceedings, there is no sanction against Luxemburg. The action of the Luxemburg authorities, then, responds to the wishes of Employment Commissioner Vladilmir Spidla, who, at the end of last week, called on Luxemburg rapidly to take the necessary measures to meet its obligations in this area to ensure equal treatment for men and women. If national law is brought into compliance with directive 2002/73/EC by April, it is unlikely the Commission will take matters further, even though the Grand Duchy's failure to meet its obligations has extended beyond August 2006 to April 2008 (case C-340/07) (C.D.)