Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-159/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA (Directive 83/189/EEC — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations — Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Waste — Obligation to make notification of planned measures — National regulations on disposal of packaging waste — Obligation on producers or importers to identify packaging to be disposed of by an approved undertaking — Obligation on the approved undertaking to ensure that packaging for which it is responsible meets technical requirements)
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, higher court, interpretation of the law, packaging, waste disposal, waste management

C 180/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 June 2002

(Fifth Chamber)

of 6 June 2002

in Case C-158/00: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

in Case C-159/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages
SA (1)

(Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1996 to 1998 financial
years — Arable crops — Procedure to be followed by the
Commission)

(2002/C 180/06)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-158/00, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
M. F. Hoffstetter, assisted by R. Nothar) v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and G. Berscheid):
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37),
in so far as it excluded from Community financing, for the
1996 to 1998 ;financial years, expenditure of LUF 56 106 800
;incurred by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the arable
crops sector, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
(Rapporteur),
President of
the Chamber, S. von Bahr
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and M. Wathelet,
Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March
2000 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural Guidance Fund (EAGGF), in so far
as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred
by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the arable crops sector
prior to 26 May 1996;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

(Directive 83/189/EEC — Procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regu-
lations — Obligation to communicate draft technical regu-
lations — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Waste
— Obligation to make notification of planned measures —
National regulations on disposal of packaging waste —
Obligation on producers or importers to identify packaging
to be disposed of by an approved undertaking — Obligation
on the approved undertaking to ensure that packaging for
which it is responsible meets technical requirements)

(2002/C 180/07)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-159/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Cour de Cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Sapod
Audic and Eco-Emballages SA on the interpretation of
Articles 1 and 10 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March
1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information
in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983
L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of
22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), Article 3(2) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975
L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in which it
has ruled:

1. A provision of national law such as the second paragraph of
Article 4 of Decree No 92-377 of 1 April 1992 implementing,
in respect of packaging waste, Law No 75-633 of 15 July
1975 relating to the disposal of waste and the recovery of
materials, as amended, could constitute a technical regulation
within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of
28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March
1988, only if the national court were to hold that it had to be
interpreted as requiring a mark or label to be applied.

27.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 180/5

2. Article 10 of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/
182, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a provision of
national law such as the second paragraph of Article 4 of
Decree No 92-377 must be understood as requiring a mark or
label to be applied, that provision is not exempted from the
notification requirement under Article 8 of Directive 83/189.

3.

4.

In the event that a national provision such as the second
paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92-377 were to be
interpreted as requiring a mark or label to be applied, an
individual may invoke the failure to make notification of that
national provision in accordance with Article 8 of Directive
83/189. It is then for the national court to refuse to apply that
provision, the question of the conclusions to be drawn from the
inapplicability of that national provision as regards the severity
law, such as
of the sanction under the applicable national
nullity or unenforceability of the contract, being a question
governed by national law. That conclusion is, however, subject
to the condition that the applicable rules of national law are
less favourable than those governing similar domestic
not
actions and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible
in practice the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.

the Member State concerned ought

If Directive 83/189 does not apply to the provisions of Decree
No 92-377,
to have
informed the Commission of the proposed national provisions
in accordance with Article 3(2) of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.

5. Article 3(2) of Directive 75/442, properly construed, does not
give individuals any right which they may enforce before
national courts in order to obtain the annulment or suspension
of national rules falling within the scope of that provision on
the ground that the rules were adopted without having been
previously communicated to the Commission.

6.

If the national court were to interpret a provision such as the
second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92-377 as not
requiring a mark or label to be applied but as imposing only a
general obligation to identify the packaging collected for
disposal by an approved undertaking, that provision may be
regarded as a selling arrangement. It is for the national court
to verify whether the relevant conditions under the case-law of
the Court for exempting such an obligation from the scope of
application of Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 28 EC) are met, namely that the provision
at issue applies to all relevant traders operating within the
national territory and that it affects in the same manner, in law
and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those
from other Member States.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 25 April 2002

in Case C-183/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instruccio´ n no 5 de
Oviedo): Marı´a Victoria Gonza´lez Sa´nchez v Medicina
Asturiana SA (1)

(Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Product
liability — Relationship with other systems of liability)

(2002/C 180/08)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-183/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instruccio´ n no 5 de
Oviedo (Spain), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Marı´a Victoria Gonza´lez
Sa´nchez and Medicina Asturiana SA — on the interpretation
of Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and C. W. A. Timmer-
Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
mans,
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April
2002, in which it ruled:

Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on
the approximation of
the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
products must be interpreted as meaning that the rights conferred
under the legislation of a Member State on the victims of damage
caused by a defective product under a general system of liability
having the same basis as that put in place by the Directive may be
limited or restricted as a result of the Directive’s transposition into
the domestic law of that State.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000.