Case C-494/01: Action brought on 20 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, waste disposal, waste management

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)

C 56/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

f)

The Commission also considers that, by reason of its
failure to respect the requirements of Article 9 and 10 of
the Directive regarding permits, Ireland is not respecting
Article 13 of the Directive, which requires establishments
or undertakings carrying waste operations to be subject
to periodic inspection by the authorities, or Article 14 of
the Directive, which requires such establishments or
undertakings to keep records and to make this infor-
mation available on request by the competent authorities.

of the dried fodder. According to the Commission, it must also
be considered that there is a supply for consideration within
the meaning of the Sixth Directive, because the recipient of aid
is a fodder-processing undertaking which sells fodder to third
parties. In Finland, however, value added tax is not charged on
such aid.

(1) On the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ

(2) (OJ L 63 of 21.03.1995, p. 1).

L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).
(2) OJ L 078, 26.03.1991, p. 32.

Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-495/01)

(2002/C 56/15)

An action against
the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by E. Traversa and I. Koskinen, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Republic of Finland is in breach of
Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on value added tax (1) by failing to charge
value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation
(EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common
organisation of the market in dried fodder (2);

Appeal brought on 24 December 2001 (fax: 20.12.2001)
by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered
on 3 October 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-140/00 between Zapf Creation AG and the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)

(Case C-498/01 P)

(2002/C 56/16)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2001
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-140/00 between Zapf
Creation AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 December
2001 (fax: 20.12.2001) by the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by
Detlev Schennen, Head of Unit in the Legal Department, and
Carina Røhl Søberg, administrator in the Legal Department of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs).

2. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, the
taxable amount is the consideration payable for the supply,
which is to include ‘subsidies directly linked to the price’ of the
supply. Since the Community aid granted for the processing
and sale of dried fodder is paid on the basis of the amount of
dried fodder sold and treated, the aid must, in the Commission’s
opinion, be considered to have a direct influence on the price

(1) dismiss the application of Zapf Creation AG;

(2) order Zapf Creation AG (as applicant in the proceedings
before the Court of First Instance) to pay the costs of the
proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

(3)

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
3 October 2001 in Case T-140/00 ‘New Born Baby’ (1);

(4) order Zapf Creation AG to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings before the Court of Justice.