Case C-6/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Koblenz by order of that Court of 4 December 2002 in the dispute of administrative law between Eiterköpfe and Land Rheinland-Pfalz
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, interpretation of the law, storage of waste, waste management

C 101/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(First Chamber)

of 30 January 2003

in Case C-176/02 P: Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Action seeking annulment — Inadmissibility on
grounds of lateness — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2003/C 101/24)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-176/02 P: Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS, having
its registered office in Grasse (France), represented by J.-
F. Pupel, avocat — Appeal against the order of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
of 21 March 2002 in Case T-218/01 Laboratoire Monique
Rémy v Commission [2002] ECR II-2139, seeking to have that
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes)
— The Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 30 January 2003, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1.

2.

The appeal is dismissed.

The company Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS shall bear the
costs.

( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
icht Koblenz by order of that Court of 4 December 2002
in the dispute of administrative law between Eiterköpfe
and Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-6/03)

(2003/C 101/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Koblenz (Administrative Court, Koblenz) of 4 December 2002,

received at the Court Registry on 8 January 2003,
for a
preliminary ruling in the dispute of administrative law between
Eiterköpfe and Land Rheinland-Pfalz on the following ques-
tions:

1. On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of Council
Directive 1999/31/EC (1)
laying down Community
requirements for a strategy for the reduction of biodegrad-
able waste going to landfills, can that provision be
transposed into national law in the form of measures
imposing more stringent requirements,
in accordance
with Article 176 EC, which differ from those set out in
Article 5(2) of the directive (reduction by a specific
calendar year of biodegradable municipal waste going to
landfills to a specific percentage of the total amount
by weight of biodegradable municipal waste)
in that
municipal waste and waste that can be deposited in the
same way as municipal waste may be landfilled only if
the appropriate ‘organic component of dry residue of the
original substance’ classification criterion (expressed as
either combustion loss or TOC) is satisfied?

2.

a)

If so, are the Community requirements laid down in
Article 5(2) of the directive to be construed as
meaning that the targets for reduction set out in that
provision, namely:

— 75 % of the total amount by weight by 16 July

2006,

— 50 % of the total amount by weight by 16 July

2009, and

— 35 % of the total amount by weight by 16 July

2016,

are met, having regard to the Community law
principle of proportionality, by a national provision
under which: the organic content of dry residue of
the original substance in the case of municipal waste
and waste that can be deposited in the same way as
municipal waste must, by 1 June 2005, be no more
than either 5 % by mass, expressed as combustion
loss, or 3 % by mass, expressed as TOC; from
1 March 2001, waste subject to mechanical and
biological treatment may be landfilled at existing
sites until 15 July 2009 at the latest, or even beyond
that date in certain cases, only if the organic content
of dry residue of the original substance is no more
than 18 % by mass, expressed as TOC, and the
biodegradability of the dry residue of the original
substance is no more than 5 mg/g, expressed as
aerobic activity (AT4), or 20 l/kg, expressed as the
gas formation rate in the fermentation test (GB21)?

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/15

b) Under

the Community law principle of pro-
portionality,
is the discretion to be exercised in
assessing the impact of overlaying waste that has
not been treated prior to landfill with waste treated
by thermal or mechanical and biological processes
prior to landfill wide or narrow? Does the principle
of proportionality permit hazards caused by waste
treated prior to landfill by mechanical processes
alone to be offset by other safeguards?

( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1 (Council Directive 1999/31/EC of

26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
of that court dated 18 December 2002, in the case of
Société de produits Nestlé SA against Unilever plc

(Case C-7/03)

(2003/C 101/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 18 Decem-
ber 2002, which was received at the Court Registry on
9 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
de produits Nestlé SA and Unilever plc on the following
questions:

1. When considering signs which consist of the shape of
goods, what
the goods
is meant by ‘the nature of
themselves’ in Art 3(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Directive
89/104 (1)? and in particular does that nature arise from:

(a)

(b)

the specification of goods for which the trade mark
is registered (or applied for);

the kind of goods for which the mark is used
regarded as articles of commerce;

I.

(c) only the inherent nature of non-man made articles;

or

(d)

the shape of the goods which makes the product
different in appearance from similar competitive
products;

(e)

something else, and if so what?

2. Where the shape of a product which has been on the
market is merely shown to be recognised by a substantial
proportion of the relevant public as denoting the goods

of a particular trader is that sufficient of itself to prove
that the shape has acquired a distinctive character within
the meaning of Art 3(3) of the Directive?

3.

4.

If that is insufficient, must it also be proved that the shape
is used and relied upon by the relevant public as a
guarantee of trade origin?

If the preponderance of the public recognise a shape
mark as the product of one trader but a significant
minority also regard other shapes in use by other traders
as the shape applied for, has the shape mark acquired a
‘distinctive character’ within the meaning of Art 3(3) of
the Directive?

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks (OJ L 40 11.2.1989, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Naumburg by order of that Court of 8 January 2003
in the procurement review proceedings, Parties to the
proceedings being 1. The City of Halle, 2. RPL Recy-
clingpark Lochau GmbH and 3. The Thermische
Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna
consortium

(Case C-26/03)

(2003/C 101/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Naumburg (Higher Regional Court, Naumburg) of 8 January
2003, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for
a preliminary ruling in the procurement review proceedings,
Parties to the proceedings being 1. The City of Halle, 2. RPL
Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH and 3. The Thermische
Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna consor-
tium, on the following questions:

1. Does the first sentence of Article 1(1) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
coordination of the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions relating to the application of
review procedures to the award of public supply and
public works contracts (1), as replaced by Article 41
of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (2), require Member
States to ensure that a decision taken by a con-
tracting authority to award a public contract other-
wise than by means of a procedure which complies
with the directives relating to the award of public
contracts may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly
as possible?