Case C-516/03: Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, public health, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

C 59/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-516/03)

(2004/C 59/06)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Konstantinidis, member of its Legal Service,
and R. Amorosi, judge of the District Court on secondment to
that Service, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
ensure that waste generated in Campolungo (Ascoli
Piceno) is recovered or disposed of without endangering
human health and without using processes or methods
which could harm the environment and, by not taking
the measures necessary to ensure that any holder of waste
so generated has it handled by a private or public waste
collector or by an undertaking which carries out the
operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive, or
recovers or disposes of it himself, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Directive
91/156/EEC;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the Italian Republic has adopted
no measures to ensure that the waste discharged in Campolun-
go is recovered or disposed of without endangering human
health and without using processes or methods which could
harm the environment. The Italian authorities submit merely
that the progressive mineralisation of waste raises questions
about the production of 35 m3 of lechate per day, without
giving any clear observations on the merits, and before
expressly admitting that ‘the production and therefore dif-
fusion of lechate may continue indefinitely’.

the EC Treaty,

that, according to
The Commission further points out
Article 175(4) of
the Member States are
responsible for financing and implementing the environment
policy so that the lack of sufficient financial resources cannot
be used as a justification for the failure to take specific
measures to make good the site. It must therefore be concluded
that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4 of the directive. Furthermore, the Italian Republic has
failed to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that any
holder of waste so generated has it handled by a private or

public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out
the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive. It
follows that the Italian Republic has also failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 8 of the directive.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo
Social del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
Valenciana by order of that Court of 27 November 2003
in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero against Fondo
de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-520/03)

(2004/C 59/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sala de lo Social del
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana
(Chamber for Social and Labour Matters of the High Court of
Justice of the Community of Valencia) of 27 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 12 December 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero
against Fondo de Garantía Salarial on the following questions:

A) Does the compensation claimed for unfair dismissal fall
within the scope of Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October
1980 (1)
in its version prior to that as amended by
Directive 2000/74/EC (2)?

B)

In the context of respect for the principles of equality and
non-discrimination, can the rules set out in Article 33(2)
of the consolidated text of the Ley de Estatuto de los
Trabajadores, inasmuch as they require a ruling or an
administrative decision in order for Fogasa to pay the
appropriate compensation, be considered objectively
unreasonable and, accordingly, inapplicable?

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer (OJ L 283 of 28.10.1980, p. 23).

(2) Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/
987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the protection of employees in the event of the
insolvency of their employer (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 270
of 8.10.2002, p. 10).