Case C-181/05: Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, metal waste, vehicle, waste management, waste recycling

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As long as the Grand Ducal regulation implementing Article
65 of the Law of 18 April 2001 on copyright has not been
adopted and has not come into force, the remuneration for
public lending, required by Article 5(1) of Directive 92/100 as
a condition for permitting derogation from the exclusive right
laid down in Article 1 of Directive 92/100, is not paid. Articles
1 and 5 of Directive 92/100 have therefore not been correctly
applied.

the provisions of

with the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC, since Article 3(1)
of the directive — in conjunction with Article 2(1) — applies
to all vehicles designated as category M1 or N1 and also to
the
In contrast,
special-purpose vehicles.
German End-of-life Vehicle Regulations apply to special-
purpose vehicles only up to a maximum permissible weight of
3.5 tons. Article 3(4) of the directive exempts special-purpose
vehicles from the reuse and recovery provisions, but not from
the prohibited substances. Accordingly, it is clear from the rele-
vant provisions that it is the characteristics of the end product
which determine the area of application: thus,
if a special-
purpose vehicle, after adaptation, has the characteristics asso-
ciated with category M1 it falls unconditionally within the area
of application of Directive 2000/53. Therefore, the restriction
by reference to total weight infringes the directive.

(1) OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61

Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

The third sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the German End-of-life
Vehicle Regulations exempts ‘instruments, components and
other equipment required for special purpose of the vehicles’
from the prohibited substances. This exception is not provided
for in the directive, since its relevant provisions apply to all
materials and components principally included for use in vehi-
cles covered by the directive, including materials and compo-
nents which are required for the special purpose.

(Case C-181/05)

(2005/C 171/13)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against
the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

— declare that by not correctly implementing the necessary
provisions in German law, the Federal Republic of Germany
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4), 5(4)
and 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of
life vehicles; (1)

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of

the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the Federal Republic of
Germany's End-of-life Vehicle Regulations does not comply

In accordance with Paragraph 3(4) of the End-of-life Vehicle
Regulations the principle that end-of life vehicles be collected
free of charge does not apply if the end-of-life vehicle is not
registered or was not last registered in compliance with the
provisions of the German registration procedure, if the end-of-
life vehicle has been registered in accordance with the provi-
sions of the German registration procedure for less than one
month prior to its retirement, if the vehicle registration book
was not surrendered or if the end-of-life vehicle is a category
M1 or N1 vehicle which was not produced and approved in
series and in a single-stage process. These exceptions are not
provided for in the directive.

Paragraph 8(2) of the End-of-life Vehicle Regulations restricts
the prohibition of certain substances under Article 4(2)(a) of
the directive to vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003
and to materials and components for those vehicles. Since,
however, the prohibition of certain substances under the direc-
tive covers all materials and components put on the market
after 1 July 2003, the End-of-life Vehicle Regulation's provision
is not in compliance with the directive. The fact that, with deci-
sions 2002/525 and 5006/63, exceptions for spare parts addi-
tional to those currently listed in Annex II to the directive were
foreseen cannot justify an alternative interpretation of Article
4(2)(a) of the directive, as the necessity of those exceptions
the directive. The
became apparent only after adoption of

C 171/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.7.2005

abovementioned conflict as regards the German Regulations
will be revived when the temporally-limited exceptions expire.
The directive's aims — to minimise the impact of end-of-life
vehicles on the environment and to prevent waste as far as
possible — could be best achieved by interpreting Article
4(2)(a) as strictly as possible.

(1) OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

the client's request
is regarded by the Commission as an
obstacle to trade, which should be assessed in the light of Arti-
cles 28 EC and 30 EC. The Swedish Government, for its part,
considers that the prohibition on private import is a part of the
retail trade monopoly's existence and operating method and
should be assessed in accordance with Article 31 EC and that
as such it cannot be regarded as discriminatory or likely to
distort competition between Member States and, in the alterna-
tive, that it is appropriate and proportional.

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Sweden

(Case C-186/05)

(2005/C 171/14)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 April
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by L. Ström van Lier and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by obstructing the private import of alcoholic
beverages by independent agents or commercial transpor-
ters, which cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30
EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has infringed Article 28 of the
Treaty establishing the European Communities;

2. order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Article 28 EC does not
permit Sweden, generally, to obstruct the private import of
alcoholic drinks by independent agents or commercial carriers.
The Commission further takes the view that the obstacle to
trade cannot be justified under Article 30 EC on the ground of
protection of public health with reference to the following
underlying reasons:
(2) to limit
access to alcoholic drinks or (3) the need to maintain age
checks;
in each case the measure is neither necessary nor
proportional to the aim stated. The fact that the retail trade
monopoly alone has the right to deal with private imports at

(1) to limit private profits,

References for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos
by orders of that court of 17 March 2005 in G. Agoras-
toudis and Others (Case C-187/05), I. Panos and Others
(Case C-188/05), K. Kotsampougioukis and Others (Case C-
189/05) and G. Akritopouolos and Others (Case C-190/05)
v Goodyear Ellas AVEE

(Cases C-187/05, C-188/05, C-189/05 and C-190/05)

(2005/C 171/15)

(Language of the case: Greek)

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by orders of the Arios Pagos (Supreme
Court of Cassation) (Greece) of 17 March 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 27 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings brought by G. Agorastoudis and Others,
I.
Panos and Others, K. Kotsampougioukis and Others and G.
Akritopouolos and Others against Goodyear Ellas AVEE on the
following question:

Given that Greek (national) law does not provide for a prior
judicial decision where an undertaking or establishment
is
closed down definitively on the sole initiative of the employer,
under Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC (1) does
that directive apply to collective redundancies caused by the
definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or
establishment which has been decided on voluntarily by the
employer without a prior judicial decision on the matter?

(1) OJ No L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29.