Case C-394/05: Action brought on  9 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2006-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, vehicle, waste, waste management, waste recycling

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/5

Pleas in law and main arguments

import customs duties (or,

in specific cases,
Suspension of
zero-rating) in respect of certain weapons and military equip-
ment was decided on within a Community context by Council
Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 (4) and was to take effect from
1 January 2003.

the Commission,

In the view of
the unilateral exemption
granted by Italy during the period preceding the application of
that regulation amounted to an unlawful derogation from
Article 26 EC and from Community customs legislation,
resulting in an unjustifiable reduction in customs revenue,
which constitutes the Community's own resources.

Area) No 94 (from IBA Catalogue 89)
‘Gargano
Promontory’ and which have in fact brought about a
deterioration of habitats and resulted in serious distur-
bances affecting birds within the above IBA[s];

(b) after 28 December 1998, the date for the designation
of the Special Protection Area (SPA) ‘Valloni e steppe
pedegarganiche’, the Italian Republic failed to meet its
obligations under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) and Article 7
of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

(1) OJ 1992 L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1989 L 155 of 07.06.1989, p. 1.
(3) OJ 2000 L 130 of 31.05.2000, p. 1.
(4) OJ 2003 L 25 of 30.01.2003, p. 1.

Action brought on 24 October 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-388/05)

(2006/C 22/09)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Pleas in law and main arguments

By failing to take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or dete-
rioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting birds likely to
have significant consequences, with reference to the plan desig-
nated ‘the regional agreement’ and the projects outlined
therein, within the area subsequently designated as the Special
Protection Area (SPA)
‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’, the
Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article
4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds and, after 28 December 1998, under
(3) and (4) and Article 7 of Council Directive
Article 6(2),
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(1) OJ 1979 L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1992 L 206 of 22.07.1992, p. 7.

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 October
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by A. Aresu and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

Action brought on 9 November 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that:

(a) prior to 28 December 1998, the date for the designa-
‘Valloni e
tion of the Special Protection Area (SPA)
steppe pedegarganiche’,
the Italian Republic failed to
meet its obligations under Article 4(4) of Council Direc-
tive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conserva-
tion of wild birds in so far as it failed to take appro-
priate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habi-
tats or any disturbances affecting birds likely to have
significant consequences, with reference to the plan
designated ‘the regional agreement’ and the projects
outlined therein, which were liable to have an impact
on the habitats and species within IBA (Important Bird

(Case C-394/05)

(2006/C 22/10)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 22/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.1.2006

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that the Italian Republic, by adopting Legislative
Decree No 209 of 24 June 2003 transposing the provisions
of Directive 2000/53/EC (1) into national law in a manner
inconsistent with the directive itself, has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 2(2) and (5), Article 3(5), Article
4(2)(a) in conjunction with Annex II, Article 5(1) to (4),
Article 6(3)(a) and (4), Article 7(1) and (2), Article 8(3) and
(4), Article 10(3) and Article 12(2) of Directive 2000/53/EC
of
the Council of 18
the European Parliament and of
September 2000 on end-of life vehicles;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission of the European Communities brought an
action on 7 November 2005 before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities
the Italian
Republic, having failed to take all the measures necessary to:

for a declaration that

— define end-of-life vehicles which are waste and their treat-
ment, corresponding to those laid down in the directive;

— include three-wheel motor vehicles in end-of-life vehicles in

the Legislative Decree transposing the directive;

— provide clearly that all dangerous materials and compo-
nents as laid down in Annex II of the directive are removed
from vehicles before any further treatment;

— implement a system of controls and assessments necessary
to evaluate the attainment of the objectives stated in the
directive so that those objectives have been attained before
1 January 2006;

— determine that

the information to be provided by the
producers of vehicles and components must reflect what is
required by the treatment facilities;

— implement the obligation to regularly monitor the results
achieved and to report such results to the competent autho-
rities and the Commission and,
implement the
obligation on the competent authorities to make provisions
for examining the progress reached under an agreement;

likewise,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(2) and (5),
Article 3(5), Article 4(2)(a)
in conjunction with Annex II,
Article 5(1) to (4), Article 6(3)(a) and (4), Article 7(1) and (2),
Article 8(3) and (4), Article 10(3) and Article 12(2) of Directive
2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles.

The Commission also requests that the Italian Republic be
ordered to pay the costs of the action.

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

— provide, as far as technically feasible, for the collection in
suitable collection facilities of waste used parts removed
when passenger cars are repaired;

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Berlin by judgments of that court of 27 September 2005
in Doris Habelt (C-396/05) and Martha Möser (C-419/05) v
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

— regarding the issue of certificates of destruction, ensure that
those are issued by authorised treatment centres as provided
for in Article 6 of the directive. The issue of those certifi-
cates also does not appear to be a condition for the de-
registration of end-of life vehicles as required by the direc-
tive;

— ensure that producers meet all, or a significant part of, the
costs of the implementation of the system of free delivery
of end-of-life vehicles;

— ensure the safety of dangerous components of end-of-life

vehicles before they are treated;

— give preference to recycling over other recovery methods of

the vehicles in question;

— preclude transposition of certain specific provisions of the
through agreements within the

directive, stated therein,
meaning of Article 10 of the directive;

(Case C-396/05 and C-419/05)

(2006/C 22/11)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgments of the Sozialgericht Berlin of
27 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 and
28 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Doris Habelt (C-396/05) and Martha Möser (C-419/
05) and Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund on the following
question: