Case C-285/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002 in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, gender equality, interpretation of the law, overtime, teacher

C 247/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.10.2002

2.

3.

If so, can such an objection be raised not only by the
authority of destination but also by the authority of
dispatch?

If so,
is the authority of dispatch entitled to base its
assessment of whether the planned recovery of the waste
at the place of destination is compatible with health and
environmental imperatives on the standards applicable in
the State of dispatch even where they are higher than the
standards applicable in the State of destination?

4. Under the second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation
No 259/93, can an objection to the shipment of waste
for recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
recovery contravenes national laws and regulations relat-
ing to environmental protection, public order, public
safety or health protection?

5.

If so, can the authority of dispatch raise such an objection
on the ground that the recovery contravenes national
laws and regulations in force at the place of dispatch?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002
in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-285/02)

(2002/C 247/07)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June
2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di
Treviso

(Case C-286/02)

(2002/C 247/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Treviso,
Prima Sezione (District Court, Treviso, First Chamber) of
26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l.
against Prefettura di Treviso on the following questions:

1. Are the first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision
2000/766 (1) and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision
2001/9 (2), read together with the other Community rules
on which those provisions are based, to be interpreted as
meaning that the accidental presence of an unforeseen or
prohibited substance in fish flour used in the production
of feed-stuffs for animals other than ruminants may be
considered both legally and materially acceptable and
that, accordingly, traders are allowed a reasonable margin
of error?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Minden (Administrative Court, Minden) of 26 July 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2002,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg
against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:

2.

Is it compatible with Article 141 EC in conjunction with
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 (1) on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
women that men and women teachers, part-time as well as
full-time, who are officials in the Land North-Rhine Westphalia
are not granted remuneration for excess hours worked if that
additional work does not exceed three teaching periods in the
calendar month?

( 1) OJ L 45, p. 19.

the principle of
in the light of
In the affirmative,
proportionality and the principle of precaution, and in
consideration of the Community provisions applicable in
the domains in which reference is made to accidental
contamination of food-industry products and indications
are given of relevant margins of error, does an accidental
contamination of 0.1 %, and in any case of not more
than 0,5 %, of fragments of mammalian bone in fish flour
intended for the production of feed-stuffs for animals
other than ruminants warrant the adoption of a draconian
sanction such as the complete destruction of that fish
flour?

3. Does the exclusion of any margin of error in relation to
the presence of the substances mentioned in the preceding
questions amount to the introduction of a technical
standard within the meaning of Directive 83/189 (3) (as
amended) which would have to be notified in advance to
the European Commission?