# C_2012243EN.01001001.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

(Case C-292/12)

2012/C 243/18

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ragn-Sells AS

Applicant:

Defendant: Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (a) | Are Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary to any of them for a Member State to permit an undertaking which operates a specific waste treatment facility to be granted an exclusive right to process municipal waste in a specified area, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Are Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary to any of them for a Member State to permit an undertaking which operates a specific waste treatment facility to be granted an exclusive right to process municipal waste in a specified area, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km?

| (b) | Is Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary thereto for a Member State to regard, first, the collection and transport of waste and, secondly, the processing of waste as services in the general economic interest, but to separate those services from each other, thereby restricting free competition in the waste treatment market? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary thereto for a Member State to regard, first, the collection and transport of waste and, secondly, the processing of waste as services in the general economic interest, but to separate those services from each other, thereby restricting free competition in the waste treatment market?

| (c) | In a procedure for the award of a concession for the service of collecting and transporting waste, a condition of which is that two undertakings are granted an exclusive right to treat waste in the area designated in the concession agreement, may the applicability of the provisions of competition law in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be excluded? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

In a procedure for the award of a concession for the service of collecting and transporting waste, a condition of which is that two undertakings are granted an exclusive right to treat waste in the area designated in the concession agreement, may the applicability of the provisions of competition law in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be excluded?

| (d) | Is Article 16(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of the principle of proximity, restrict competition and permit the undertaking operating the waste treatment facility nearest to the area in which the waste occurs to be granted an exclusive right to process the waste, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Is Article 16(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of the principle of proximity, restrict competition and permit the undertaking operating the waste treatment facility nearest to the area in which the waste occurs to be granted an exclusive right to process the waste, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

1

---