Case C-423/05: Action brought on  29 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, unauthorised dumping, waste management

C 48/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

According to Article 16 of Directive 2002/30/EC, which
entered into force on 28 March 2002, the Member States were
required to bring into force the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 28
September 2003 at the latest. The Royal Decree was adopted
before the deadline for transposition of
the Directive. The
Commission cites the case-law of the Court of Justice according
to which it
follows from Articles 10 EC and 249 EC in
that, during the period
conjunction with a directive itself
allowed for transposition, Member States must refrain from
taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result
prescribed by the directive in question in question. By taking
an approach involving operating restrictions aimed at the with-
drawal of
recertified civil subsonic jet aircrafts, which is
completely different from that taken by the Directive, the Royal
Decree seriously compromises the result prescribed by the
Directive.

(1) OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40.

Action brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

— to ensure that establishments and undertakings which
carry out disposal operate with a permit issued by the
competent authorities;

— to ensure in relation to landfill sites which had been
granted a permit or were already in operation when
Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
landfill of waste (2) was to be transposed into national
law, namely on 16 July 2001, that landfill operators
prepared and presented to the competent authorities, for
their approval, prior to 16 July 2002 a conditioning
including particulars relating to the
plan for the site,
conditions of the permit and any corrective measures
the operator considered would be needed, and that,
following the presentation of conditioning plans, the
take a definite decision on
competent authorities
whether operations may continue, taking all necessary
measures to close down as soon as possible sites which
have not been granted a permit to continue to operate
or authorising the necessary work and laying down a
transitional period for the completion of the plan,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by
Directive 91/156/EEC, (3) and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of
Directive 99/31/EC.

(Case C-423/05)

(2006/C 48/27)

(Language of the case: French)

2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Justice of

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
the European Communities on 29
Court of
November 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by A. Caerios and M. Konstantinidis, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by failing to take all necessary measures:

— to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without
endangering human health or the environment and to
prohibit
the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled
disposal of waste;

— to ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by a
private or public waste collector or by an undertaking
which carries out disposal or recovery operations, or
recovers or disposes of it himself, in accordance with
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
waste; (1)

The Commission considers that, by permitting a very large
number of unlawful and unsupervised landfill sites to operate
in France, and by failing to take all necessary measures to
ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human
health and harming the environment, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of
Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Direc-
tive 91/156/EEC. The French authorities do not dispute that
they have breached these obligations; they do dispute, however,
the number of unlawful landfill sites indicated by the Commis-
sion and claim that their impact on the environment is slight
since the unauthorised landfill sites take only green waste,
rubble and bulky waste.

The French authorities did not provide adequate information
for it
to be possible to assess whether its permit system
complies with the requirements of Article 9 of Directive
75/442/EEC: no permit is required for tips covering an area of
less than 100 m2 with a height of less than 2m or for the
recovery of waste on such tips. The French authorities' interpre-
tation that only landfill sites operated by municipal authorities
without a permit are unlawful sites is incorrect since an indivi-
dual may also operate a landfill site without a permit.

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/15

On the basis of the information provided to it, the Commission
can only assume that, contrary to the requirements under
Article 14 of Directive 99/31/EC, establishments and undertak-
ings carrying out waste disposal operations without being
subject to a permit did not, prior to 16 July 2002, prepare or
present
for their approval, a
conditioning plan for each unlawful or unsupervised landfill
site. Any landfill site that cannot be adapted to the require-
ments of that directive must be closed down immediately.
Operating an unlawful landfill without a conditioning plan and
without a permit constitutes an infringement of Article 14 of
Directive 99/31/EC.

to the competent authorities,

(1) OJ L 194, of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 182, of 16.07.1999, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 78, of 26.03.1991, p. 32.

concerning methyl bromide and halons, together with informa-
tion on the schedules and results of random checks on imports
of controlled substances — is essential for the achievement of
the objectives set by the Regulation and for the implementation
of
taken by the European Community
according to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer and the obligations arising from the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which
the Community is party after Council Decision 88/540/EEC (2).

the engagements

To date Ireland has not communicated to the Commission the
requisite information pursuant to the aforementioned articles
of the Regulation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone
layer. OJ L 244 , 29.09.2000, p. 1-24.

(2) OJ L 297, 31.10.1998, p. 8

Action brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission
against Ireland

(Case C-425/05)

(2006/C 48/28)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29.11.2005 by the
represented by Mr. Ulrich Wölker and Mr.
Commission,
Michael Shotter, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to provide the information on methyl
bromide referred to in Article 4(2)(iii), the information on
halons referred to in Articles 4(4)(iv) and 5(3) and the infor-
mation on the schedules and results of random checks on
the import of controlled substances referred to in Article
20(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European
Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on
substances that deplete the ozone layer, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2)(iii), 4(4)(iv), 5(3) and
20(3) of the Regualtion;

2. order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Regulation
Articles 4(2)(iii), 4(4)(iv), 5(3) and 20(3) of
provide for the submission of information to the Commission
in relation to the main issues covered by the Regulation. The
communication of this information — i.e. annual information

Appeal brought on 7 December 2005 by Land Oberöster-
reich against the judgment delivered on 5 October 2005
by the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-
235/04

(Case C-439/05 P)

(2006/C 48/29)

(Language of the case: German)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 October 2005
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 7 December 2005 by Land Oberösterreich (the Land
of Upper Austria), represented by Franz Mittendorfer, Rechtsan-
walt, established in Europaplatz 7, A-4020 Linz.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October
2005 in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 between
Land Oberösterreich and Republic of Austria, as applicant,
against the Commission of the European Communities, as
defendant, (1) due to a declaration of invalidity of Commis-
sion Decision 2003/653/EC of 2 September 2003 relating
to national provisions on banning the use of genetically
modified organisms in the region of Upper Austria notified
by the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 95(5) of the
EC Treaty; (2)