JUDGMENT OF 9. 6. 1982 — CASE 58/81 COMMISSION v LUXEMBOURG

In Case 58/81

THE COURT composed of: J. Menens de Wilmars, President, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and O. Due (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, A. Chloros and F. Grévisse, Judges, Advocate General : P. VerLoren van Themaat Registrar: P. Heim

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and written procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and written procedure

(a). a male married civil servant and also a female married civil servant whose husband is subject to an infirmity or serious illness rendering him incapable of providing for the household expenses or whose husband receives an income lower than the minimum social wage;

(b). a widowed civil servant of either sex;

(c). a civil servant of either sex who is legally separated or divorced;

(d). an unmarried civil servant of either sex:

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV —. Oral procedure

1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 March 1981, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action, pursuant to Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, for a declaration that by failing to adopt within the period prescribed in Article 8 (1) of Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (Official Journal 1975, L 45, p. 19) the measures necessary in order to eliminate discrimination in the conditions for the grant of head of household allowances to civil servants, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

2. Pursuant to Article 8 of the directive, Member States were to put into force the measures necessary in order to comply with its requirements within one year of its notification, a period which expired on 12 February 1976.

3. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not disputed the failure to fulfil its obligations with which it is charged but has confined itself to stating that the delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the directive in question resulted on the one hand from the need to enact legislation and, on the other hand, from the fact that implementation of the directive necessitated an assessment of the budgetary consequences. Moreover, it is necessary to make changes to the conditions applicable to part-time working, which involves discussions with the civil service representatives.

4. According to the well-established case-law of the Court, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations resulting from Community directives.

5. It must therefore be declared that by not adopting within the period prescribed in Article 8 (1) of Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 the measures necessary in order to eliminate discrimination in the conditions for the grant of head of household allowances to civil servants, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

6. Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs.

7. Since the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, THE COURT hereby:

1 Declares that by not adopting within the period prescribed in Article 8 (1) of Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975, the measures necessary to eliminate discrimination in the conditions for the grant of head of household allowances to civil servants, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

2 Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.