Case C-194/02: Action brought on 24 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 protection, hazardous waste, waste management

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?