Case C-70/03: Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, consumer protection

C 124/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2003

en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation 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 Commission Decision 96/350/EC
of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32),
the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
for the purpose
Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996,
of implementing 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, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January
1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;

2.

The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a
relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by
Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that
purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
down in the Directive.

( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 3 April 2003

in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio
Samper (1)

(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-
sideration of comparative merits)

(2003/C 124/03)

(Language of the case: French)

Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
in Madrid (Spain),
(represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May

2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;

2.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998
the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;

3.

Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-70/03)

(2003/C 124/04)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national
law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC (1) of
5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Treaty and under that directive;

24.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/3

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is not to apply in the context of

— Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.
The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC
into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the
interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
is to prevail
the
procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive
(prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which
consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;

— incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual
Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered
by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold
restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection
of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller
or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
protection only for certain types of contract and only
where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
tion prohibited by the Directive.

( 1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in

consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
van Vee en Vlees

(Case C-96/03)

(2003/C 124/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor
de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:

1. May a Member State derive from Community law the
power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
virus?

2. Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
and-mouth disease?

3. What limits does Community law place on a Member
State with regard to taking supplementary national
measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?

(1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
(2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

(Case C-97/03)

(2003/C 124/06)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de
Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following
questions:

1. May a Member State derive from Community law the
power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
virus?

2. Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
and-mouth disease?

3. What limits does Community law place on a Member
State with regard to taking supplementary national
measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?

(1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
(2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.