## Facts

- The European Commission brought an infringement action alleging Luxembourg unlawfully required Luxembourg nationality for access to public-sector employment.
- The challenged nationality bars applied across several state-run sectors: research, education, health, inland transport, posts and telecommunications, and water/gas/electricity distribution.
- Luxembourg’s rules broadly treated “employment in the public service” in those sectors as reserved to Luxembourg nationals, without limiting the restriction to specific posts tied to public authority or core state interests.
- During the pre-litigation phase, the Commission issued formal notices (March 1991) and reasoned opinions (July 1992) concerning the sectors and gave Luxembourg four months to comply.
- Luxembourg did not amend its legislation within the period and argued the four-month compliance period was unreasonable given the scope of administrative changes required.
- Luxembourg also relied on preservation of national identity to justify reserving the sectors’ posts to nationals.

## Issues

1. Whether the four-month period given in the reasoned opinions was a reasonable compliance time-limit in the infringement procedure.
2. Whether Luxembourg violated free-movement rules by reserving posts in the identified public sectors to nationals beyond the limited “public service” derogation for posts involving public authority and safeguarding general state interests.
3. Whether preservation of national identity could justify broad nationality restrictions in those sectors.

## Decision

- The court rejected Luxembourg’s procedural objection, holding a four-month compliance period was not unreasonable given Luxembourg had long been aware of the Commission’s position and the period exceeded the Commission’s usual practice.
- The court held Luxembourg failed to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty free-movement provisions and Regulation 1612/68 by not restricting nationality requirements to posts involving direct or indirect participation in the exercise of public-law powers and duties aimed at safeguarding the general interests of the state or other public authorities.
- The court rejected preservation of national identity as a justification for broad nationality bars in the sectors at issue.

## Legal Principles

- In an infringement action, the pre-litigation stage must allow the member state a reasonable period to comply and to present a defense; reasonableness depends on all circumstances.
- The “employment in the public service” derogation from worker free movement is construed narrowly and applies only to posts involving direct or indirect participation in public authority and duties safeguarding the general interests of the state or other public authorities.
- A member state may not reserve entire public sectors to nationals merely because the sectors are state-run; eligibility restrictions must be limited to qualifying posts on a post-specific basis.
- Preservation of national identity does not operate as a general ground to expand permissible nationality restrictions beyond the narrow public-service derogation.

## Conclusion

The court found Luxembourg in breach of EU worker free-movement rules because it imposed sector-wide nationality requirements in multiple public sectors instead of limiting restrictions to the small category of posts involving public authority and protection of core public interests, and it upheld the Commission’s four-month compliance period as reasonable.


Comm’n of the Eur. Communities v. Grand Duchy of Lux., Case C-473/93, 1996 E.C.R. I-3207 (E.C.J. 1996)