Case C-192/02: Action brought on 23 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental policy, waste disposal, waste recycling

13.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 169/25

— The object of Directive 2002/15/EC is not road safety
because it is regulates working time rather than driving
In contrast, Regulation No 3820/85 (2), which
time.
applies
self-employed and
employed, regulates driving time and breaks and rest
periods.

types of carriers,

to all

within the areas of which those economic activities are
carried on, and by restricting exclusively to municipalities
the conduct of the activity of posting advertisements,
results in giving surreptitious finance to the municipal
advertising undertaking?

— Failure to state reasons: there is a failure to state the
reasons for bringing self-employed operators within the
scope of the directive at issue. Recital 8 in the preamble
to the directive lacks precision.

(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1).

3) May Article 2 (ex Article 2), Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) (ex
Article 3), (as amended by Article 2(3) and Article 61(1)
of the Treaty of Amsterdam), of Article 23 (ex Article 9),
of Article 27 (ex Article 29)
(b) and (d), and of
Article 31 (ex Article 37) (1) and (3) of the EC Treaty be
construed as meaning that they preclude a law of a
Member State — in this instance, Italy — which provides
for a tax on advertising and imposes payment of charges
for public bill-posting,
including that tax, payable to
municipalities which engage in the posting of bills on an
exclusive basis?

(a)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 9 April 2002 in
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
Immobilier S.a.r.l.

Action brought on 23 May 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-190/02)

(2002/C 169/44)

(Case C-192/02)

(2002/C 169/45)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 9 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 22 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:

1) whether it is contrary to the proper interpretation of
Articles 49 (ex Article 59) and 50 (ex Article 60) for the
law of the Italian State to introduce, govern and make
regulations for advertising tax and bill-posting charges,
restricting the management of these exclusively to Italian
municipalities, and whether the concept of the provision
of services, as provided in Article 50 (ex Article 60) of
the EC Treaty, can include the activity pursued by the
agencies of
the municipal authorities or by entities
entrusted with the operation of this field of economic
activity.

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 May
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

In its application, as amended by the corrigendum lodged on
28 May 2002, the applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that by:

2) Must Articles 81 (ex Article 85), 82 (ex Article 86),
86 (ex Article 90) and 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty
be construed as meaning that they preclude legislation
which, by providing for a tax on outdoor advertising or a
charge for bill-posting payable to the municipalities

(a)

incorrectly transposing into Austrian law the defi-
nitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’
laid down in
Article 1(e) and (f) of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended,
in
conjunction with Annexes II A and II B thereto, and

C 169/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

(b)

incorrectly or incompletely transposing into Austri-
an law the obligation imposed on the competent
authorities by Article 13 of the directive to undertake
appropriate periodic inspections of establishments
and undertakings which carry out the operations
referred to in Articles 9 to 12 of the directive, the
Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 1(e) and (f) of the directive in conjunc-
tion with Annexes II A and II B thereto and
Article 13 of the directive;

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’

The definitions of
laid down in
Article 1(e) and (f) in conjunction with Annexes II A and II B
of Directive 75/442/EEC are of central
importance to the
uniform terminology of Community waste law and the
realisation of European waste policy. Under the legal pro-
visions in force in the Republic of Austria,
terminology
inconsistent with that used in the directive is employed for the
classification of operations which are regulated in Community
law by the definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’.

In addition, the provisions in the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (the
Austrian Trade Code of 1994) relating to industrial plants do
not adequately meet the requirements of Article 13 of the
directive, because those provisions do not provide that the
inspection must be carried out by the competent authorities.

(a)

not transposing into Austrian law the obligation to
separate waste laid down in Article 2(4) of Council
Directive 91/689/EEC(1) of 12 December 1991 on
hazardous waste, as amended (2), and

(b) not fully transposing the obligation on the auth-
orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections
of producers of hazardous waste laid down in
Article 4(1) of the directive, or the obligation on the
authorities to carry out inspections laid down in
Article 5(2), the Republic of Austria has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(4), 4(1) and
5(2) of the directive;

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

There is no provision of Austrian law which clearly transposes
the duty to separate mixed waste imposed by Article 2(4) of
the directive.

In addition, the duty to carry out inspections prescribed by
Austrian law relates only to those entities which collect and
handle hazardous waste, but does not extend to producers of
hazardous waste, as required by Directive 91/689/EEC. There
is also no comprehensive obligation on the competent auth-
orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of estab-
lishments and undertakings as required by Article 5(2) of the
directive.

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(2) Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, OJ L 168, 2.7.1994,

p. 28.

Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-194/02)

(2002/C 169/46)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that by:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Irinodikio
Athinon by judgment of that court of 13 May 2002 in the
case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepiki-
nonion Elladas (OTE)

(Case C-196/02)

(2002/C 169/47)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Irinodikio Athinon
(Small Claims Court, Athens) of 13 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 27 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepikinonion
Elladas (OTE) on the following questions:

1. Are the existence and operation of a rule, such as, in
the present case, Article 24a(2a) of the General Staff
Regulations of the Organismos Tilepikinonion Elladas
(OTE), under which it is laid down that (only) women
are taken on as cleaners on employment contracts of
indefinite duration for part-time or intermittent employ-
ment, consistent with the requirements which arise from
Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and Directives 117/75 and
207/76?