Case C-126/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, arrangement of working time, labour law, transport staff

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/13

Pleas in law and main arguments

The provision of the Austrian regulation on end-of-life vehicles
stating that manufacturers or importers have to take back end-
of-life vehicles of those makes which they have put into circula-
tion,
in so far as those vehicles were registered in Austria,
infringes Article 5 of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000.

The directive obliges the Member States to set up return
systems in such a way that all end-of-life vehicles are taken
back irrespective of their make and establishes an obligation to
take back end-of-life vehicles free of charge. These objectives
are not achieved by the Austrian legislation since it has a dual
restriction: the obligation to take vehicles back is limited to
makes which the relevant manufacturer or importer has put
into circulation, and it
is limited to vehicles registered in
Austria.

The Commission is unable to subscribe to the view of the
Republic of Austria that the distinction drawn on the basis of
registration in Austria is objectively justified because that is the
only way of avoiding a disproportionately heavy burden being
placed on individual manufacturers by the obligation to take
vehicles back. It states, on the contrary, that if it should turn
out in practice that a disproportionate burden is placed on indi-
vidual manufacturers or
the collectors in a
Member State because end-of-life vehicles registered abroad are
taken back free of charge, account is to be taken of that within
the framework of the procedure under the fourth subparagraph
of Article 5(4). This provision states that the Commission is to
monitor regularly implementation of the obligation to take
vehicles back in order to ensure that it does not result in
market distortions.

importers or

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Chamber) (Italy) of 22 October 2004, received at the Court
Registry on 14 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed
Artigianato and Spa Lucchini Siderurgica on the following
questions:

1. In the light of the principle of the primacy of immediately
applicable Community law,
in the form in this case of
general ECSC Decision No 3484 of 1985, the Commission
decision of 20 June 1990, notified on 20 July 1990, and
Commission decision No 5259 of 16 September 1996,
requiring the recovery of aid — which all formed the basis
for the recovery measure challenged in the present proceed-
ings (namely Decree No 20357 of 20 September 1996 over-
turning Decrees Nos 17975 of 8 March 1996 and 18337 of
3 April 1996) — is it legally possible and compulsory for
the national administrative authority to recover aid from a
private recipient even though a final civil
judgment has
been delivered confirming the unconditional obligation to
pay the aid in question?

2. Or, in view of the generally accepted principle that decisions
on the recovery of aid are governed by Community law but
the implementation thereof and the associated recovery
procedure, in the absence of Community provisions on the
matter, is governed by national law (regarding which prin-
ciple see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined
Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany), is
the recovery procedure rendered legally impossible by virtue
of a specific judicial decision that has become res judicata
(Article 2909 of the Civil Code), thereby being conclusive as
between the private individual and the administration, and
requires the administration to comply with it?

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the
European Communities against United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
that court of 22
Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of
October 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Industria,
Commercio ed Artigianato v Spa Lucchini Siderurgica

(Case C-119/05)

(2005/C 132/25)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case C-126/05)

(2005/C 132/26)

(Language of the case: English)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth

An action against United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 March 2005 by Commission of
the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell, acting as
agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 132/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1. find that

the United Kingdom has failed its obligations
under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2000/34/EC (1) of 22 June 2000 amending
Directive 93/104/EC (2) concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities
excluded from that directive and/or by failing to inform the
Commission thereof;

2. condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the

procedure.

13(1), both read in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, (2) the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under these Directives;

2. order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 1 August 2003.

The Commission maintains that:

(1) OJ L 195, 01.08.2000, p. 41.
(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-131/05)

(2005/C 132/27)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Mr Michel Van
Beek, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr Frédéric Louis, avocat,
and Mr Antonio Capobianco, avvocato, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, in failing to comply with its obligations under
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conser-
vation of wild birds (1) and under Article 12(2) and Article

— by limiting the prohibition contained in Article 6(1) of
Directive 79/409/EEC, the Wild Birds Directive, regarding
the sale, transport for sale, keeping for sale and the offering
for sale of wild birds to species resident in, or visitors to,
Great Britain, the United Kingdom has infringed the afore-
mentioned article as the prohibition is clearly intended to
cover all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild
state in the European territory of the Member Staes to
which the Treaty applies;

— by limiting the prohibition contained in Article 12(2) of
Directive 92/43/EEC, the Habitats Directive, regarding the
keeping, transport and sale or exchange, and offering for
sale or exchange of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a)
of the Directive to animal species whose natural range
includes Great Britain, the United Kingdom has infringed
the aforementioned article as, as a consequence of that
limitation, the list of protected animal species covered by
the UK legislation is shorter than the list in Annex IV of the
directive;

— by limiting the prohibition on the trade in plant species
contained in Article 13(1) of
the Habitats Directive to
species ‘whose natural range includes any area in Great
Britain as listed in Schedule 4 [of the 1994 Regulations]’
the United Kingdom has infringed the aforementioned
Article as, as a consequence of that limitation, the list of
protected plant species in Schedule 4 is shorter than the list
of protected species in Annex IV(b) of the Habitats Direc-
tive.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.04.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.07.1992, p. 7.