Case C-431/02: Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, hazardous waste, waste management, waste recycling

C 19/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The system of quality labels introduced by the Regions of
Abruzzi and Sicily reserves the use of such labels solely to
products processed or prepared within those regions which
comply with mandatory manufacturing rules. The quality of
the products concerned is therefore explicitly linked to their
place of origin in Abruzzi or Sicily, which serves to create in
the mind of the consumer the impression that products from
those regions are of a quality superior to that of others. The
use of that designation tends therefore to encourage consumers
to purchase such products rather than imported products,
stimulating their sale to the detriment of products from other
Member States.

It follows that the system of quality labels introduced by the
Regions of Abruzzi and Sicily constitutes a barrier to intra-
Community trade contrary to Article 28 EC.

Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
Kingdom

(Case C-431/02)

(2003/C 19/38)

Article 10(1) of the Directive, as amended by Council Directive
94/31/EC (2) of 27 June 1994 amending Directive 91/689/EEC
on hazardous waste, requires Member States to bring into
force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with that Directive by 27 June 1995, and
to inform the Commission forthwith. Article 10(3) of the
Directive provides that Member States shall communicate to
the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national
law which they adopt in the field governed by the Directive.

As a result of an assessment of the national
legislation
communicated, the Commission found the existence of a
number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United Kingdom’s
transposition. As the United Kingdom authorities have not
communicated any amending legislation designed to remedy
the situation, except for a draft concerning Gibraltar which
has not yet been adopted, the Commission concludes that the
United Kingdom has failed to transpose correctly Articles 1(4),
1(5), 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)
and 5(2) of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Lendinara by order of that Court of
29 October 2002 in the case of Dr Lucio Trombin against
Insight World Education Systems Limited

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, acting
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Case C-432/02)

(2003/C 19/39)

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(4), 1(5),
2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)
and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous
waste (1), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
this Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
European Community;

2)

order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Lendinara (Office of the Lendinara Magistrate) of
29 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 Novem-
ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Lucio
Trombin against Insight World Education Systems Limited on
the following questions:

1. Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et