Case C-493/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that court of 4 December 2001 in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land Baden-Württemberg
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, criminal law, interpretation of the law, removal

C 56/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

Is Directive 2001/37/EC (1) invalid, in whole or in part,
by reason of:

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 98/76/EC (1) of 1 October 1998
amending Directive 96/26/EC (2) on admission to the
occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
intended to facilitate for these operators the right to
freedom of establishment in national and international
transport operations the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

the inadequacy of Articles 95 and/or 133 EC as a
legal basis;

the use of Articles 95 and 133 EC as a dual legal
basis;

infringement of the principle of proportionality;

infringement of Article 295 EC, the fundamental
right to property and/or Article 20 of TRIPs;

infringement of Article 253 EC and/or the duty to
give reasons;

Pleas in law and main arguments

f.

infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;

Under the binding provisions of Articles 10 and 249 EC
the Member States must take all appropriate measures to
implement directives in national law within the prescribed
period. The period prescribed in Article 2(1) of Directive
98/76/EC ended on 1 October 1999 without the Kingdom
of Sweden having adopted the necessary laws and other
provisions.

g. misuse of powers?

2.

If it is valid, does Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the
Parliament and Council apply only to tobacco products
marketed within the European Community, or does it
apply also to tobacco products packaged within the
European Community for export to third countries?

(1) OJ L 277, 14.10.1998, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.

(1) Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
products — Commission statement (OJ L 194, 18/07/2001,
p. 26).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
6 December 2001, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) British American Tobacco (Investments)
Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco Ltd against Secretary of State for
Health

(Case C-491/01)

(2002/C 56/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of that court of 4 December 2001
in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land Baden-
Württemberg

(Case C-493/01)

(2002/C 56/13)

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) dated 6 December 2001, which was received at
the Court Registry on 19 December 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) British
American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco
Ltd against Secretary of State for Health, on the following
questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 4 December 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/7

1. Do Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Council Directive
64/221/EEC (1) of 25 February 1964 preclude national
legislation which makes it mandatory for authorities to
expel nationals of other Member States who have been
finally sentenced to a term of youth custody of at least
two years, or to a term of imprisonment, for an inten-
tional criminal offence under the Betäubungsmittelgesetz
(Law on Narcotics) where the sentence has not been
suspended?

2.

Is Article 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 Febru-
ary 1964 to be interpreted as meaning that the making
of a statement of facts and a positive development in the
person concerned which occurred after the final decision
of the authority must also be taken into account by the
national courts when they review the lawfulness of the
expulsion of an EU national?

(1) OJ L 56, p. 850.

Action brought on 20 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-494/01)

(2002/C 56/14)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 20 December 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant requests that the Court should

— declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of
Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2), Ireland has failed to
comply with its obligations under those Articles of the
said Directive;

— declare that, by failing to completely and satisfactorily
respond to a request for information dated 20 September
1999 in relation to a waste operation at Fermoy, County
Cork, Ireland has failed to fulfil the obligations which it
has pursuant to Article 10 of the EC Treaty;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

a)

The Commission considers that, as a result of a failure to
ensure that all establishments and undertakings carrying
out the operations specified in Annex II A (disposal
operations) and Annex II B (operations which may lead
to recovery) of the Directive hold a permit, Ireland is
breaching its obligations under Articles 9 and 10 of the
Directive;

b)

The transposition and application of Article 12 of
Directive 75/442/EEC remains unsatisfactory for the
following reasons:

First, under the terms of the Directive, the requirement of
authorisation or registration should have been the subject
of national measures from the expiry of the date of
implementation of Directive 91/156/CEE. The Waste
Management (Collection Permit) Regulations 2001 do
not ensure that all waste collection will in fact be carried
out under permit. Second, the Commission has not had
confirmation that all waste collection in Ireland is now
carried out under permit.

The Commission considers that a seriously incomplete
the permit requirements of Article 9
application of
represents evidence that Ireland has not taken the appro-
priate measures to establish an integrated and adequate
network of disposal
installations as required under
Article 5 of the Directive.

By allowing significant amount of waste disposal and
recovery in Ireland to take place for a protracted period
outside the permit framework of Article 9 of the Directive,
Ireland cannot be considered to have taken all
the
necessary measures for the purposes of Article 4, (regu-
lation of waste disposal and recovery operations so as to
avoid endangering human health and without using
processes or methods which could harm the environ-
ment), because without permits disposal and recovery
methods are not properly conditioned and controlled.

The Commission considers that Ireland has failed to
respect Article 8 of the Directive, in as much as it has
failed to ensure that those who hold waste as a result of
non-permitted waste operations have the waste at the
sites concerned handled by a private or public waste
collector or by an undertaking which carries out the
operations listed in Annex II A or B, or, alternatively, it
has failed to ensure that the holders recover or dispose of
the waste themselves in accordance with the Directive.

c)

d)

e)