Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-341/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg): Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and waste packaging — Plastic carrier bags — National legislation on the collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging — Collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging — Obligation to have recourse to an approved undertaking or to organise a collection system — Admissibility)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, packaging product, plastics, sale, trade mark, waste management

C 118/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2. Article 13(B)(a) of

the Sixth Directive 77/388, under which
insurance transactions are exempt from value added tax, does not
preclude, in the case of a tax on insurance premiums such as that
at issue in the main proceedings, the introduction of a special rate
which is identical to the standard rate of value added tax, since
that tax is compatible with Article 33 of the Sixth Directive
77/388, so that the procedure provided for in Article 27 of that
directive, which obliges any Member State wishing to introduce
special measures for derogation from that directive to seek prior
authorisation from the Council of the European Union, does not
have to be complied with before the introduction of that rate.

(1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.

P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

1) Dismisses the application;

2) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs;

3) Orders Ireland, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Portuguese
Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the European Parliament to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Council of the European Union (1)

(Directive 2001/44/EC — Choice of legal basis)

(2004/C 118/21)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Lyal), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
supported by European Parliament (Agents: R. Passos and A.
Baas), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of
the European Union (Agents: M. Sims-Robertson and F. Florindo
Gijón), supported by Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan, assisted by E.
Fitzsimons SC, K. Maguire BL and D. Moloney BL), with an
address for service in Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg (Agent:
J. Faltz), the Portuguese Republic (Agents: L.
Fernandes, V. Guimarães and Â. Seiça Neves), with an address
for service in Luxembourg, and by the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted
by D. Wyatt QC), with an address for service in Luxembourg
— application for
annulment of Council Directive
2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC
on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from
operations forming part of the system of financing the Euro-
pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agri-
cultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added
tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17) and for
the maintenance of the effects of that directive until the entry
into force of a directive adopted on the correct legal basis —
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting
as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-

the

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-341/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Korneuburg): Plato Plastik Robert Frank
GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (1)

(Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and waste packaging —
Plastic carrier bags — National legislation on the collection
and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging —
Collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packa-
ging — Obligation to have recourse to an approved under-
taking or to organise a collection system — Admissibility)

(2004/C 118/22)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-341/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH and Caropack
Handelsgesellschaft mbH — on the interpretation of Article 3(1)
of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10) and other Community provisions — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans,
the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas
acting for
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
(Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it
has ruled:

the President of

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/13

1. Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive
94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
waste must be construed as meaning that plastic carrier bags given
to customers in a shop, whether free of charge or not, are packa-
ging within the meaning of that directive.

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders British Sugar plc to pay the costs.

2. The concept of ‘producer’ in the context of the first subparagraph
of Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 refers to the producer of the
goods, not the manufacturer of the packaging produced.

(1) OJ C 317, 10.11.2001.

(1) OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-359/01 P: British Sugar plc v Tate & Lyle plc,
Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Appeal — Competition — Sugar market — Article 85(1) of
the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Agreement —
Effect on trade between Member States — Fine — Propor-
tionality)

(2004/C 118/23)

(Language of the case: English)

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

In Case C-359/01 P: appeal by British Sugar plc, established in
Peterborough (United Kingdom), (Lawyers: T. Sharpe QC and
D. Jowell, barrister, and A. Nourry, solicitor) against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Joined Cases T-
202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98 Tate & Lyle and Others v
Commission [2001] ECR II-2035, seeking the annulment of
that judgment, the other parties to the proceedings being: Tate
& Lyle plc, established in London (United Kingdom), Napier
Brown & Co. Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),
first
applicants at
the European
Communities
(Agents: K. Wiedner, assisted by N. Khan,
barrister) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A Timmer-
mans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

instance, Commission of

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-387/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel
v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (1)

(Free movement of workers — Importation of a car — Duty
payable on standard consumption (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’)
— Customs duties and duties having equivalent effect —
Discriminatory taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Turnover
tax)

(2004/C 118/24)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-387/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Federal Administrative Court)
(Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel, on
the one hand, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg, on the
other, concerning the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 23 EC,
25 EC, 39 EC and 90 EC, and of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the
common system of value added tax and amending Directive
77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ
1991 L 376, p. 1) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
V. Skouris, acting as President of
the Sixth Chamber, C.
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric
Gulmann,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F.
(Rapporteur),
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has delivered
a judgment on 29 April 2004, the operative part of which is as
follows: