Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2000 in Case C-89/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin): Bülent Recep Bicakci and Others v Land Berlin (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Identical question)
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), foreign national, interpretation of the law, removal

C 95/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 19 September 2000

in Case C-89/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin): Bülent Recep Bicakci and
Others v Land Berlin (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Identical
question)

(2001/C 95/05)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-89/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court,
Berlin) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye
Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci and Land
Berlin — on the interpretation of Article 14(1) of Decision
No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the European Economic
Community and Turkey — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
19 September 2000 in which it has ruled:

Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
established by the Association Agreement between the European
Economic Community and Turkey is to be interpreted as precluding
the expulsion of a Turkish national who enjoys a right granted
directly by that decision when it is ordered, following a criminal
conviction, as a deterrent to other aliens without the personal conduct
of the person concerned giving reason to consider that he will commit
other serious offences prejudicial to the requirements of public policy
in the host Member State.

Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-33/01)

(2001/C 95/06)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Janu-
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
its Legal Service, and
represented by Hans Stovlbaek, of
Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil
servant on
secondment to its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-
mission within the time-limit laid down the information
required by Article 8(3) of Directive 97/689/EEG, and (1)
and by Commission Decision 96/302/EC (2) which is
envisaged by that provision, concerning every establish-
ment or undertaking which carries out disposal and/or
recovery of hazardous waste, the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
directive.

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC imposes en obligation
on the Member States to send to the Commission certain
information relating to every establishement or undertaking
which carries out disposal and/or recovery of hazardous waste.

The Commission states that the Hellenic Republic did not send
the information prescribed by that directive within the time-
limit laid down (that is to say immediately after the entry into
force of Commission Decision 96/302/EC of 17 April 1996
establishing a format in which information is to be provided
pursuant to Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC) and, of
course, has not notified the Commission of any changes in
that information.

(1) OJ No C 149, 27.5.2000.

(1) OJ No L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(2) OJ No L 116, 11.5.1996, p. 26.