Case C-220/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (España) of  15 May 2006  — Asociacion Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia. v Administración del Estado (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, interpretation of the law, liberalisation of the market, postal service, public sector

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/21

The enforcement regime in Ireland does not guarantee the
effectiveness of the application of the Impact Assessment Direc-
tive. Consequently Ireland has failed to fulfil its general obliga-
tion under article 249 of the Treaty to ensure that the directive
is applied effectively

which co-ordinates the procedures for the award of public
works contracts,
in particular under Articles 3 and 12
thereof.

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

ings.

There have been a number of particular deficiencies in relation
to the undertaking of environmental impact assessments for a
wind farm at Derrybrien, County Galway, which amount to a
manifest breach of the directive.

(1) OJ L 175, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, p. 5.

Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-217/06)

(2006/C 178/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the Agreement of 2 October
1991 between the commune of Stintino and Maresar is a
public works contract under Community law. The
said
contract, the subject of which is works with a value (around
EUR 16 million) clearly greater than the threshold for the
application of the Directive, which was in force at that time,
should have been awarded in accordance with the rules laid
down by that Directive.

As regards the Italian authority's arguments put forward to
in
justify their non-fulfilment, the Commission recalls that,
accordance with settled case-law, a Member State cannot rely
on internal difficulties to justify failure to fulfil obligations
derived from Community law.

(1) OJ L 185, p. 5.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: X. Lewis, agent, M. Mollica, lawyer)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (España)
of 15 May 2006 — Asociacion Profesional de Empresas de
Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia. v Administra-
ción del Estado (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, as the commune of Stintino awarded directly
through Agreement No 7/91 of 2 October
to Maresar,
1991 and connected measures, a public works contract
concerning the execution of the works mentioned in Reso-
lution No 48 of the municipal council of Stintino of 14
December 1989, particularly the 'detailed design and
construction of the works for the technological and struc-
tural adaptation, rehauling and completion of the water
supply and drainage networks, the road network, the build-
ings and service facilities in the town centre, the tourist
areas in and outside the territory of the commune of Stin-
tino, including the clean-up and depollution of the coast
and the tourist centres situated in that commune', without
following the procedures laid down by Council Directive
71/305/EEC (1) and,
in particular, without publishing a
notice of invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the
European Communities, the Commission of the European
Communities considers that the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC,

(Case C-220/06)

(2006/C 178/34)

Language of the case: Spanish.

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo
(National High Court, Chamber for Contentious Administrative
Proceedings)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociacion Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y
Manipulado de Correspondencia

Defendant: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia

C 178/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Question(s) referred

Question referred

Are Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
Article 86 thereof, as applied within the framework of the
liberalisation of the postal services established by Directives
1997/67/EC (1) and 2002/39/EC (2) and within the framework
of the rules governing public procurement introduced by the
ad hoc Directives, to be interpreted as precluding an agreement
whose subject-matter includes the provision of postal services,
both reserved and unreserved and,
liberalised,
concluded between a department of the State Administration
and a state company whose capital is wholly state-owned and
which is furthermore, the universal postal service provider?

therefore,

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the
internal market of Community postal services and the improvement
of quality of service. (OJ L 1998 15, p. 14).

(2) Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the
further opening to competition of Community postal services. (OJ L
2002 176, p. 21).

Do Articles 10 EC, 12 EC, 23 EC, 25 EC, 49 EC or 90 EC
preclude a national tax provision which makes the deposit of
waste at a waste disposal site subject to a tax (Altlastenbeitrag;
disused hazardous site levy), but provides for exemption from
that tax for the deposit of waste which demonstrably derives
from the safeguarding or rehabilitation of contaminated sites
(potentially hazardous sites or disused hazardous sites) if the
sites (potentially hazardous sites or disused hazardous sites) are
entered in official registers provided for by law (Verdachtsflä-
chenkataster; register of potentially hazardous sites, or Altlastena-
tlas; disused hazardous sites register), and only sites in Austria
may be entered in those registers, with the result that the tax
exemption is also possible only in respect of the deposit of
waste which originates from potentially hazardous sites or
disused hazardous sites located in Austria?

Appeal brought on 16 May 2006 by Athinaïki Oikogeniaki
Artopoiia AVEE against the judgement of the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 March
2006 in Case T-35/04: Athinaïki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia
AVEE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM), Ferrero OHG mbh

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2006 — Stadtge-
meinde Frohnleiten und Gemeindebetriebe Frohnleiten
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-221/06)

(2006/C 178/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-225/06 P)

(2006/C 178/36)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Athinaïki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE (represented
by: A. Tsavdaridis, Attorney at Law)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero OHG mbh

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision of the Court of First Instance

Applicants: Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten und Gemeindebetriebe
Frohnleiten GmbH

— Reject definitely and in its entirety the opposition to regis-

tration of the mark applied

Defendant: Bundesminister
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,

— Order the Office and intervener to pay the costs, including
those incurred in opposition proceedings and before the
Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.