Case C-247/06: Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, chemical process, environmental impact, environmental protection, waste recycling, wood residue

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 —
Permesaen v Office national des pensions

Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest
due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

(Case C-233/06)

(2006/C 190/18)

Language of the case: French

(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progres-
sive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Noëlle Permesaen

Defendant: Office national des pensions

Questions referred

1. With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of
the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
ticular
to become
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment
(a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions
recovery of which would be time-barred under the legisla-
tion applicable in that State in the case of the latter category
of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
applicable time-limit
the contributions
which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of
that legislation?

recovery of

for

2. With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the
Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third sub-
paragraph of Article 16b(4))

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
ticular
to become
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large
amount of late payment interest recovery of which would
be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State
in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the

Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-247/06)

(2006/C 190/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

— Declaration that

the Federal Republic of Germany has
infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex I, point 9,
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on
the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment by authorising the construc-
tion and operation of a wood gas firing plant on the
premises of Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche
GmbH in Herzogenrath without first carrying out an assess-
ment of the effects on the environment;

— Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the application is an authorisation given
for a wood gas firing plant for obtaining process heat and elec-
trical current for sand mining and sand reclamation. According
to the application for authorisation, only such wood chips
were to be used as did not constitute dangerous waste.
However, after the report on environmental effects was drawn
up in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC, the application for
authorisation was amended so as to include the use of wood
chips that were classifiable as dangerous waste. The authorisa-
tion for the construction and operation of the plant was issued
on 7 November 2002 without any new assessment of the
environmental effects on the basis of the amended application.

C 190/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

In this case, therefore, the possible environmental impact has
not been sufficiently investigated, and the Commission has no
information that the effects of burning dangerous waste have
been investigated. The defendant should have carried out
renewed full public participation after the change in the appli-
cation for authorisation, but failed to do so.

The Commission takes the view that the Federal Republic of
Germany has thereby infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with
Annex I, point 9, of Directive 85/37/EEC.

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringe-
ments of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tion under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

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

The Commission does not accept the defendant's argument
that, under the current version of the directive, an environ-
mental assessment is not compulsory even where dangerous
waste is burned, on the ground that,
in this case, the main
purpose of the plant's operation is not waste disposal but the
utilisation of waste. Even if Annex I of the current version does
refer only to ‘disposal’,
it would be irreconcilable with the
essential purpose to exclude projects with obvious environ-
mental effect from systematic examination. Waste utilisation
procedures are not necessarily less environmentally threatening
than disposal procedures; as is apparent in this case, it depends
on the particular type of treatment. The Commission takes the
view that the term 'waste-disposal' in point 9 of Annex I to the
regulation covers both the utilisation and disposal of waste.
The contrary legal interpretation of the defendant would lead
to a decisive step backwards in relation to the present legal
situation, as installations for the utilisation of waste fall entirely
outside the scope of the directive.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides:
‘The
sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this
Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’.
Under Article 19, the regulation entered into force on 17
February 2005. According to the information available to the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet met
the obligation to lay down sanctions, in the event of infringe-
ment of the regulation, which are effective, proportionate and
dissuasive.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against
the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02
Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the Council of the European Union

Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-264/06)

(2006/C 190/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-266/06 P)

(2006/C 190/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Degussa AG (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl
and C. Steinle, lawyers,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Council of the European Union

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Forms of order sought

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

1. Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the
appellant.