Case C-114/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: earths and stones, interpretation of the law, mining extraction, terminology, waste management, waste recycling

C 173/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

(i)

to indicate that it is necessary for a marketing
authorisation to be granted for product B to be
supported by full clinical data of the type required
by Part 4(F) of the Annex to Directive 75/318/EC (3);
but

or its ancillary site? Is it relevant generally, with
respect to falling within the definition of waste,
whether the said by-products of mining operations
are stored on the area of the mining concession, its
ancillary site or further away?

(ii) having considered the data filed in support of
product B, to grant a marketing authorisation for
product C if that application is supported by trials
not meeting the requirements of Part 4(F) of the
Annex to Directive 75/318/EEC?

(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ 22,
09.02.1965, p. 369 [SE SER 1 (65-66) p. 201]).

(2) ECR 1998 p. I-7967.
(3) Council Directive 75/318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical,
pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in
respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products (OJ L 147,
09.06.1975, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in
the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy

(Case C-114/01)

(2001/C 173/40)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein hallinto-
oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 5 March
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 March
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
Outokumpu Chrome Oy on the following questions:

(1) Are leftover rock resulting from the extraction of ore
and/or ore-dressing sand resulting from the dressing of
ore in mining operations to be regarded as waste
within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2),
having regard to points (a) to (d) below?

(a) What relevance,

in deciding the above question,
does it have that the leftover rock and ore-dressing
sand is stored on the area of the mining concession

(b) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
that the leftover rock is the same as regards its
composition as the basic rock from which it is
quarried, and that it does not change its composition
regardless of how long it is kept and how it is kept?
Should ore-dressing sand which results from the
ore-dressing process perhaps be assessed differently
from leftover stone in this respect?

(c) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
that leftover rock is harmless to human health and
the environment, but that, according to the view of
the environmental
licence authorities, substances
harmful to health and the environment dissolve
from ore-dressing sand? To what extent generally is
importance to be attached to the possible effect of
leftover rock and ore-dressing sand on health and
the environment
in assessing whether they are
waste?

(d) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
that leftover rock and ore-dressing sand are not
intended to be discarded? Leftover rock and ore-
dressing sand may be re-used without special pro-
cessing measures, for example for supporting mine
galleries, and leftover rock also for landscaping the
mine after it has ceased operation. Minerals may in
future with the development of
technology be
recovered from ore-dressing sand for utilisation. To
what extent should attention be paid to how definite
plans the person carrying on mining operations has
for such utilisation and to how soon after the
leftover rock and ore-dressing sand has been tipped
on the mining concession or its ancillary site the
utilisation would take place?

(2)

If the answer to the first question is that leftover rock
and/or ore-dressing sand is to be regarded as waste within
the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Council Directive on
waste, it is further necessary to obtain an answer to the
following supplementary questions:

(a) Does ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of
Article 2(1)(b) of the Waste Directive (91/156/EEC),
waste covered by which is excluded from the scope
of the directive, and which under point (ii) concerns
inter alia waste resulting from prospecting, extrac-
tion, treatment and storage of mineral resources,

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/25

mean exclusively the European Community’s own
legislation? Or may national legislation too, such as
certain provisions of the Kaivoslaki and the Jätease-
tus in force in Finland, be ‘other legislation’ within
the meaning of the Waste Directive?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
Tribunal (Leeds), by order of that court of 12 January
2001, in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett
against Secretary of State for Employment

(b)

(c)

If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,
does that mean exclusively national
legislation
which was already in force at the time of entry into
force of the Waste Directive 91/156/EEC or also
that only enacted afterwards?

If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,
do fundamental European Community provisions
relating to environmental protection or the prin-
ciples of the Waste Directive set requirements for
national legislation concerning the level of environ-
mental protection as a condition for disapplying
the rules of the Waste Directive? What sort of
requirements could those be?

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Bologna by order of that court of 20 February 2001 in
the case of Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone
Ascensori SpA

(Case C-129/01)

(2001/C 173/41)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bologna
of 20 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on
21 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone Ascensori SpA on
the following question:

‘For the purposes of application of the provisions contained in
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts published in Official Journal
1993 L 95, can the co-ownership of buildings referred to in
Articles 1117-1139 of
the Civil Code be regarded as a
consumer where the individual owners are natural persons or
are acting for purposes outside their trade, business or
profession?’

(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.

(Case C-137/01)

(2001/C 173/42)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of
the Employment
Tribunal (Leeds) of 12 January 2001, which was received at
the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett against
Secretary of State for Employment, on the following question:

‘Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (1) fully satisfied by
rules of national law which may result in a claim relating to
holiday pay against the Guarantee Institution being dismissed
owing to unforeseen delay in bringing about a state of
insolvency in the employer, which delay was caused by the
employer?’

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer (OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof der Republik O¨ sterreich, by orders of
28 February and 14 February 2001 in the cases of Christa
Neukomm against O¨ sterreichischer Rundfunk and Josef
Lauermann against O¨ sterreichischer Rundfunk

(Cases C-138/01 and C-139/01)

(2001/C 173/43)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Oberster Gerichtshof
der Republik O¨ sterreich of 28 February and 14 February 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the cases of Christa Neukomm against
O¨ sterreichischer Rundfunk and Josef Lauermann against O¨ ster-
reichischer Rundfunk on the following questions:

1. Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
on data protection (Articles 1, 2, 6, 7 and 22 of Directive
95/46/EC (1)
in conjunction with Article 6 (formerly
Article F) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 8