Case C-254/05: Action brought on 16 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fire protection, import restriction, standard

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court), Divisional Court, by order of that
court of 20 May 2005 in The Queen on the application of
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v South East London Division,
Bromley Magistrates' Court, Intervener: The Environment
Agency

(b) comes within article 2(2) of the WFD and is excluded
from the scope of ‘directive waste’ under the WFD, in
particular, by virtue of the UWWTD.

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 30.05.1991, p. 40.

(2) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194,

25.07.1975, p. 39.

(3) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Direc-

tive 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.

(Case C-252/05)

(2005/C 205/20)

Action brought on 16 June 2005 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

(Language of the case: English)

Belgium

(Case C-254/05)

(2005/C 205/21)

(Language of the case: French)

the High Court of

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
Justice
pean Communities by order of
(England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative
Court), Divisional Court, of 20 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 15 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between The Queen on the application of
Thames Water Utilities Ltd and South East London Division,
Bromley Magistrates' Court, Intervener: Environment Agency,
on the following question:

1. Whether sewage which escapes from a sewerage network
maintained by a statutory sewerage undertaker pursuant to
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC (1)
(‘UWWTD’) and/or the Water Industry Act 1991 (‘WIA
1991’), amounts to ‘directive waste’ for the purposes of the
Directive
by Directive
(as
amended
91/156/EEC (3))
(‘the Waste Framework Directive’ herein-
after, the ‘WFD’).

75/442/EEC (2)

2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, whether the afore-

said sewage:

(a) is excluded from the scope of ‘directive waste’ under the
WFD by virtue of article 2(1)(b)(iv) of the WFD, in par-
ticular, by virtue of the UWWTD and/or the WIA 1991;
or,

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Bruno Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

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

1. declare that, by requiring automatic fire detection systems
with point detectors lawfully manufactured or marketed in
another Member State which do not have the ‘EC’ mark:

— to comply with Belgian standard NBN S21-100;

— to be subject to type approval, in this case by BOSEC,
an obstacle made worse by the disproportionate costs
which that approval incurs;

— to undergo tests and checks in connection with that
type approval which, essentially, duplicate the controls
which have already been carried out under other proce-
dures in another Member State,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 28 EC;

2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

C 205/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the Belgian regulations intro-
duce restrictions on the use of fire detectors lawfully manufac-
tured or marketed in other Member States which are therefore
incompatible with Article 28 EC and are not justified in the
light of Article 30 EC.

for an appropriate period to enable it
to comment
thereon before the competent authority reached a deci-
sion, and did not make available to the public that deci-
sion and a copy of the permit;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ASM Brescia SpA operates an incinerator which comprises two
lines and was authorised in 1993. Before 1993, however, ASM
Brescia SpA developed a ‘third line’ of waste incinerators.

The third line of the Brescia incinerator is classified as a plant
which carries out recovery operations as provided for in Point
R 1 of Annex IIB to Directive 75/442//EEC and has a capacity
of over 100 tonnes per day. As such,
it should have been
subject to the environmental impact assessment (‘EIA’) proce-
dures within the meaning of Directive 85/337/EEC,
as
amended.

However, the development project for the third line was never
subject either to the EIA procedure or to specific examination
(checks that an EIA is required). That has also been confirmed
by the Italian authorities. The Italian legislation does not, in
fact, provide for a general EIA requirement for waste processing
plants
in accordance with the provisions of Directive
85/337/EEC, but contains wide exceptions which restrict
considerably the scope of that directive.

The Commission submits that the exclusion of plants which
carry out recovery activities from the EIA procedures has no
basis in Community legislation and is therefore a clear infringe-
ment thereof.

the
With regard to Article 12 of Directive 2000/76/EC,
Commission complains that
the Italian authorities did not
publish the application for a permit to operate the third incin-
erator line and the respective authorisation measure in accord-
ance with the provisions of that article.

(1) OJ L 175 of 05.07.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73 of 14.03.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000, p. 91.

Action brought on 16 June 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-255/05)

(2005/C 205/22)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agent, and by F. Louis
and A. Capobianco, lawyers.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Direc-
tive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3
March 1997, (2) and under Article 12(1) of Directive
2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (3)

— inasmuch as it did not subject, prior

to granting
construction consent, the project for the third ASM
Brescia incinerator line, which is a plant listed in Annex
I to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, to an environ-
mental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5
to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended; and

— inasmuch as it did not make the application for a
permit to operate the third Brescia incinerator line avail-
able at one or more locations accessible to the public