Case C-444/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 November 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, fuel, interpretation of the law, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

C 45/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

1.

Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on
the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes
of informing and consulting employees,
in particular
Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong
to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking
is resident outside the the Community are obliged to
provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central
management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the
average total number of employees and their distribution
across the Member States, the establishments of the
undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
controlled by it?

2.

If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
affirmative:

the obligation to provide

Does
information also
encompass the names and addresses of the employee
representation which is to participate, on behalf of
the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings
controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating
body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in
the establishment of a European Works Council?

(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-443/00)

(2001/C 45/17)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of
the
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg.

the Legal Service of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order
to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement of such
data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and
under Article 32 of that directive;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
the field covered by the directive.

(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd

(Case C-444/00)

(2001/C 45/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
the following questions:

Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission Decision
and
Directive
96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
ingots, sheets or coils of steel:

91/156/EEC (2)

1. Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
when they have been:

a.

b.

rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or

used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
or coils of steel?

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/9

2. Have those materials been ‘recycled’ for the purposes of
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (4)
on packaging and packaging waste when they have been:

Pleas in law and main arguments

a.

rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or

b.

used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
or coils of steel?

(1) of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).
(2) of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32).
(3) of 24 May 1996 (OJ L 135, 06.06.1996, p. 32).
(4) of 20 December 1994 (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).

Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of
Austria against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-445/00)

(2001/C 45/19)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of Austria,
represented by Harald Dossi, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements in
the creation of the contested regulation: The plaintiff
complains in particular that there has been no collegiate
decision of the Commission in relation to the amendment
of the Commission proposal, which took the form of
adopting the content of a compromise suggestion of the
Council. A collegiate decision of the content claimed by
the Commission representative at the meeting of the
Committee of Permanent Representatives, namely to
empower the relevant Commissioner to amend the
original Commission proposal accordingly, should a
formulation commanding a qualified majority be found
in the Council, is, the plaintiff maintains, not sufficient.
That would not ensure that the College of the Com-
mission was informed about the essential elements of the
amended proposal, let alone ensure that it deliberated
over them as a body. If, therefore, a lawful (amended)
proposal of the Commission had not at any time been
submitted as the basis for the Council decision finally
taken, the Council had no authority to decide upon the
matter by qualified majority.

— (In the alternative)

Infringement of

the Treaty by
amending the Commission proposal after it had been
submitted to the Council: The Republic of Austria submits
that the Commission does not have the authority under
the procedure pursuant to Article 16 of Protocol No 9 to
the 1994 Act of Accession to alter a proposal once it has
been submitted to the Council, if the Council does not
pronounce against the proposal by qualified majority.

— (In the alternative)

Insufficient statement of reasons,

infringement of Article 253 EC.

The Republic of Austria claims that the Court should:

— (In the alternative) Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or

Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession:

1. Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 Sep-
tember 2000 (1) amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9
to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC)
No 3298/94 (2) with regard to the system of ecopoints
for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria;

2. Order the Council to pay the costs.

In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court
should:

1. Annul Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (4) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 September 2000
amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of
Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94 with regard
to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles
transiting through Austria;

2. Order the Council to pay the costs.

— Article 1 of the contested regulation has as its
subject-matter a formal alteration to Annex 4 to
Protocol No 9, which is anchored in primary law;
there is no authority in primary law for such an
alteration.

Even if, in the words it actually uses, Article 2(1) of
the contested regulation, whereby the reduction in
the number of ecopoints is generally spread over
several years, refers only to the amendment of
Article 6(2)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3298/94, and
thereby gives the impression that only another
measure of secondary law is being altered, that
alteration also amounts to an alteration of rules of
primary law. That is because the ruling in Protocol
No 9 unequivocally and unmistakably provides for
the full reduction of the ecopoints to be curtailed
for the year following the exceeding of the 108 %
limit.