Case C-103/02: Action brought on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, hazardous waste, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

C 118/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2002

Action brought on 19 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Govern-
ment has failed to implement Directive 92/51 in respect of
access to those professions.

(Case C-101/02)

(2002/C 118/32)

(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Antonio Aresu, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not having implemented the provisions
of Council Directive 92/51/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional
education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/
EEC (2) in relation to the professional activities of athletes,
coaches, technical and sporting directors and athletics
trainers, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its
obligations under that directive.

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is apparent from an examination of the provisions of Law
No 91/81 that the activities of athlete, coach, technical and
sporting director and athletics trainer are regulated professions
in Italy within the meaning of Directive 92/51. Consequently,
when the competent Italian authorities receive an application
for recognition of professional education and training in
respect of those activities they are required to examine that
application in accordance with the rules laid down by that
directive.

is competent

Article 13 of Decree-Law No 319/94 lists the authorities
responsible for the recognition of professional education and
training, providing in particular at subparagraph (a) that the
minister responsible for supervising the professions referred to
in Article 2(a)
to rule on applications for
recognition in accordance with annex C of that decree. The
relevant annex lists a number of professions and the ministers
competent to examine applications for recognition of qualifi-
cations concerning those professions. However the only sport-
ing professions listed are those of ski
instructor, sailing
instructor, mountain guide and potholing guide with no
reference to athlete, coach, technical and sporting director and
athletics trainer.

Action brought on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-103/02)

(2002/C 118/33)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Richard Wainwright and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by adopting the decree of 5 February 1998
on the identification of non-hazardous waste covered by
the simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and
33 of Legislative Decree No 55 of 5 February 1997
which,

a.

b.

contrary to the first and second indents of the first
paragraph of Article 11 and Article 10 of Directive
75/442/EEC (1), as amended, exempts establishments
and undertakings which recover non-hazardous
waste from seeking authorisation, without such
exemption being subject to the following require-
ments: (1) prior setting of a maximum quantity of
waste; (2) compliance with the conditions laid down
in Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended,
regarding the quantity of waste processed by the
establishments exempt from authorisation,

contrary to the first indent of Article 11(1) of
Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, does not define
precisely the kinds of waste covered by the exemp-
tion from authorisation and thus, also contrary to
Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC (2),
in certain
cases, as a result of the lack of clarity and precision,
allows
establishments or undertakings which
recover certain kinds of hazardous waste to be
exempted from seeking authorisation on the basis
of the less stringent requirements provided for in
respect of non-hazardous waste,

18.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/21

c.

contrary to Articles 9 and 11, which refer to
Article 1(e)
to (f) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
amended, and to Annex IIA and IIB, as amended by
Decision 96/350/EC (3), defines some of the disposal
operations as ‘environmental recovery’ operations
and thus allows establishments and undertakings
which deal with disposal other than disposal of
waste on the site where it is produced to be exempt
from the obligation to seek authorisation, as if they
were carrying out recovery operations, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 1, 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (4), and Article 3
of Directive 91/689/EEC; and

B.

t o i n d i c a t e o r e r r o n e o u s

F a i l u r e
c a t i o n o f
t h e a u t h o r i s a t i o n e x e m p t i o n

i n d i -
t h e t y p e s o f w a s t e c o v e r e d b y

the first

the purposes of

So far as concerns the types of waste in respect of which no
authorisation for
indent of
Article 11(1) is required, some parts of the technical provisions
contained in Annexes 1 and 2 to the Italian decree define the
types of waste so vaguely that some hazardous types of waste
could be classified with non-hazardous waste, thus allowing
establishments and undertakings processing it to be exempt
from seeking authorisation by relying on the less stringent
criteria laid down for non-hazardous waste.

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In other cases, the codes of the European Waste Catalogue
(EWC), adopted by way of Commission Decision 94/3/EC (5),
are not cited (for example 5.9) or, where they are cited, they
do not correspond to the definition set out in the technical
provisions.

A.

S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e q u a n t i t i e s

C.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l r e c o v e r y o p e r a t i o n s

The Commission’s contention is that Article 7 of the decree,
in laying down the maximum quantities of waste applicable to
recovery operations which may be exempted from the obli-
gation to seek authorisation under Articles 9 and 10 of the
directive, does not mention an absolute maximum quantity,
by reference to the type of establishment or undertaking, but
a relative maximum quantity which varies according to the
annual output of the plant at which the operation is carried
out.

The failure to specify beforehand the maximum quantity of
waste below which disposal or recovery operations may be
exempt from seeking authorisation gives rise to the result
that any undertaking or establishment, even if it processes
enormous quantities of waste, may seek such exemption which
not only empties the ordinary procedure of any practical
usefulness but also makes it impossible to check whether the
conditions laid down in the second indent of Article 11(1), in
conjunction with Article 4 thereof, have been complied with.

The Commission therefore takes the view that the environmen-
tal recovery operations described in Article 5 of the decree are
in fact disposal operations.

This means that undertakings and establishments which carry
out, pursuant to Article 5 of the Italian decree, environmental
recovery operations which are in fact waste disposal operations
may be exempted from seeking the authorisation provided for
at Article 9 of the directive beyond the limits laid down
for undertakings and establishments which carry out waste
disposal operations, which may be exempted only on condition
that they dispose of their own waste on the site where it is
produced.

(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
(3) OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32.
(4) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.
(5) OJ 1994 L 5, p. 15.