Case C-264/06: Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, carrier, indemnification, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure

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.