Action brought on 19 April 2024 – European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-275/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, I. Zaloguin, M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by transposing incorrectly:

Article 5(2) and (4) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1),

and Article 5(2) and (4) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 10(3) thereof, concerning European arrest warrant proceedings,

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action alleges incorrect transposition by Luxembourg of Article 5(2) and (4) of Directive 2013/48, considered separately and in conjunction with Article 10(3) thereof. That directive lays down minimum rules concerning the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and of persons subject to proceedings pursuant to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant to have access to a lawyer, to have a third party informed of the deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty.

After examining the conformity of the national implementing measures communicated by Luxembourg by way of transposition of Directive 2013/48 into the national legal system, the Commission considered that the text of the loi du 10 août 1992 relative à la protection de la jeunesse (Law of 10 August 1992 on youth protection), as notified by Luxembourg by way of transposition of the directive, which governs the application of measures taken with respect to minors in legal proceedings in Luxembourg, does not reflect the obligations set out in Article 5(2) and (4) of that directive (in conjunction with Article 10(3) of the directive as regards European arrest warrant proceedings).

The Commission initiated the infringement procedure against Luxembourg in November 2021 and sent it a reasoned opinion in June 2023. Since it was not satisfied with the responses provided, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.

____________