# C_2005171EN.01000701.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-181/05)

(2005/C 171/13)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by not correctly implementing the necessary provisions in German law, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4), 5(4) and 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by not correctly implementing the necessary provisions in German law, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4), 5(4) and 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles; (1)

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the Federal Republic of Germany's End-of-life Vehicle Regulations does not comply with the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC, since Article 3(1) of the directive — in conjunction with Article 2(1) — applies to all vehicles designated as category M1 or N1 and also to special-purpose vehicles. In contrast, the provisions of the German End-of-life Vehicle Regulations apply to special-purpose vehicles only up to a maximum permissible weight of 3.5 tons. Article 3(4) of the directive exempts special-purpose vehicles from the reuse and recovery provisions, but not from the prohibited substances. Accordingly, it is clear from the relevant provisions that it is the characteristics of the end product which determine the area of application: thus, if a special-purpose vehicle, after adaptation, has the characteristics associated with category M1 it falls unconditionally within the area of application of Directive 2000/53. Therefore, the restriction by reference to total weight infringes the directive.

The third sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the German End-of-life Vehicle Regulations exempts ‘instruments, components and other equipment required for special purpose of the vehicles’ from the prohibited substances. This exception is not provided for in the directive, since its relevant provisions apply to all materials and components principally included for use in vehicles covered by the directive, including materials and components which are required for the special purpose.

In accordance with Paragraph 3(4) of the End-of-life Vehicle Regulations the principle that end-of life vehicles be collected free of charge does not apply if the end-of-life vehicle is not registered or was not last registered in compliance with the provisions of the German registration procedure, if the end-of-life vehicle has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the German registration procedure for less than one month prior to its retirement, if the vehicle registration book was not surrendered or if the end-of-life vehicle is a category M1 or N1 vehicle which was not produced and approved in series and in a single-stage process. These exceptions are not provided for in the directive.

Paragraph 8(2) of the End-of-life Vehicle Regulations restricts the prohibition of certain substances under Article 4(2)(a) of the directive to vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003 and to materials and components for those vehicles. Since, however, the prohibition of certain substances under the directive covers all materials and components put on the market after 1 July 2003, the End-of-life Vehicle Regulation's provision is not in compliance with the directive. The fact that, with decisions 2002/525 and 5006/63, exceptions for spare parts additional to those currently listed in Annex II to the directive were foreseen cannot justify an alternative interpretation of Article 4(2)(a) of the directive, as the necessity of those exceptions became apparent only after adoption of the directive. The abovementioned conflict as regards the German Regulations will be revived when the temporally-limited exceptions expire. The directive's aims — to minimise the impact of end-of-life vehicles on the environment and to prevent waste as far as possible — could be best achieved by interpreting Article 4(2)(a) as strictly as possible.

---

(1)  OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

1

---