Case C-277/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, public health, transport of dangerous goods, waste recycling

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/3

(c)

to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
tations of organs of the human body, pictures
of members of the health-care professions or of
sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
to health-care activities?

3.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:

How, and by reference to what parameters,
authorised toll
motorway to be calculated in each individual case?

is the
for a single journey along the whole

2. Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
federal minister, whereby a condition of
competent
authorisation is that the health-related information is
consistent with protecting the consumer from being
misled?

( 1) OJ L 33, p. 1.

4. Only if

the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in
the affirmative and are accompanied, as requested in
question 3, by an explanation of the method of calcu-
lation to be employed:

Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/94
Parliament v Council (3), in which it was held that the
effects of Directive 93/89/EEC, which was annulled by
that judgment, were to be preserved until the Council had
adopted a new directive, to be interpreted as meaning
that the effects are to be preserved until the Member
States have transposed the new directive or, as the case
may be, until the time-limit for transposition has expired?

5. Only if the answer to question 4 is in the negative:

In respect of the period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July
2000, are the Member States under an obligation to have
regard to the new directive, that is to say, does it have
advance effects which must be observed?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
Court of 25 June 2002 in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V.
against Republic of Austria

(1) OJ L 279 [1993], p. 32.
(2) OJ L 187 [1999], p. 42.
(3) ECR I-1827 [1995].

(Case C-257/02)

(2002/C 247/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 25 June 2002,
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V. against
Republic of Austria on the following questions:

the Court Registry on 15 July 2002,

1. Are Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC (1) and
Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC (2) intended
to confer on all transport undertakings the right, in return
for payment of a road user charge which complies with
those directives and is thus reasonable,
to conduct
journeys on stretches of motorway for which a toll is
levied on vehicles with more than three axles used for the
commercial carriage of goods?

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC and
Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC have direct
effect according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,
such that, if the directives have not been transposed, or
have been transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they
may be relied on in calculating a toll that complies with
the directives for vehicles with more than three axles used
for the commercial carriage of goods along the whole of
the Austrian Brenner motorway?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz
Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July
2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against
Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz
mbH

(Case C-277/02)

(2002/C 247/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Rheinland-Pfalz Ober-
verwaltungsgericht (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrat-
ive Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
29 July 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-
Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH on the following questions:

1. Under the first

indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30,
p. 1), can an objection to the shipment of waste for
recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
recovery contravenes the requirement arising from the
first paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 74) for
waste to be recovered in a manner which is compatible
with health and environmental imperatives?

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?