The Commission brought action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfill its obligations under EC Treaty. The particulars were that Luxembourg had not adopted (or notified the Commission) within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/33/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment. The Luxembourg Government did not dispute the allegation but claimed that all measures had been taken to enable it to carry out the transposition at the earliest possible opportunity, so that the Commission should withdraw its action. The court held that It had to be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, first, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfill its obligations had to be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion and, second, a Member State could not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. Therefore, since the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg did not dispute that it failed to adopt, within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the necessary transposition measures to comply with Directive 97/11, the action for failure to fulfill obligations had to be considered well founded. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 3 (1) of Directive 85/33/EC and under the EC Treaty by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with the said Directive.