Case C-219/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban waste water — Agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera — Discharge in a sensitive area without treatment)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, urban area, wastewater, water treatment

C 96/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v Italian
Republic

(Case C-135/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
management — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and
1999/31/EC)

competent authorities, for their approval, a conditioning plan
for the site including particulars relating to the conditions of
the permit and any corrective measures which the operator
considered would be needed and that, following the presentation
of the conditioning plan, the competent authorities took a defi-
nite decision on whether operations might continue, by closing
down as soon as possible sites which had not been granted a
permit to continue to operate, or by authorising the necessary
work and laying down a transitional period for the completion
of the plan,

(2007/C 96/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Arti-
cles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive
91/156/EEC,
Council Directive
91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and
under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of
26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

under Article

2(1)

of

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and
G. Fiengo, Agent)

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1995 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32) — Infringement of Article 2(1) of Council Directive
91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
1991 L 377, p. 20) — Infringement of Article 14(a), (b) and (c)
of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the land-
fill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to

ensure that:

— waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human
health and without using processes or methods which could
the abandonment,
harm the environment, and to prohibit
dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste;

— any holder of waste has it handled by a private or public under-
taking which carries out the operations of recovery or disposal,
or recovers or disposes of
in accordance with the
provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991;

it himself

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 —
Commission of the European Communities v Spain

(Case C-219/05) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of
its coastal
urban waste water — Agglomeration of Sueca,
districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera — Discharge
in a sensitive area without treatment)

(2007/C 96/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais and
I. del Cuvillo Contreras, Agents)

— any establishment or undertaking which carries out waste-
disposal operations is required to obtain a permit from the
competent authority;

Re:

— on every site where tipping (discharge) of hazardous waste takes

place the waste is recorded and identified, and

— as regards landfills which had already been granted a permit or
were already in operation on 16 July 2001, the operator of a
landfill, before 16 July 2002, prepared and presented to the

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ment of Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC
of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ
1991 L 135, p. 40) — Urban waste water of Sueca, its coastal
agglomerations and certain municipalities of La Ribera —
Discharge in a sensitive area without adequate treatment

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/9

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

its

coastal districts

the urban waste water of

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure
the
that, by 31 December 1998,
agglomeration of Sueca,
(El Perelló, Les
Palmeres, Mareny de Barrequetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar)
and also certain municipalities of the region of La Ribera (Benifaió,
treated appropriately before being
Sollano and Almussafes)
discharged in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil
the second paragraph of
Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of
21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the latter
provision being read together with Article 4(4) of that directive.

its obligations under

is

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade

Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007
formerly Alsen AG v
— Holcim (Deutschland) AG,

Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-282/05 P) (1)

(Appeals — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Reimbur-
sement of bank guarantee charges)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 —
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) v Celltech R&D Ltd

(2007/C 96/14)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-273/05 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (c)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for word mark
CELLTECH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of
distinctive character — Descriptive character)

(2007/C 96/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
Folliard-
Monguiral, Agent)

(represented by: A.

and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings: Celltech R&D Ltd (represented by:
D. Alexander QC and G. Hobbs QC, instructed by N. Jenkins,
Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03 Celltech
R&D Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which the Court of First
Instance annulled decision R 659/2002-2 of OHIM's Second
Board of Appeal of 19 May 2003, rejecting the appeal against
the examiner's decision refusing registration of the word mark
‘CELLTECH’ for goods and services falling within Classes 5, 10
and 42

Parties

Appellant: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG (repre-
sented by: P. Niggemann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, and G. Wilms, Agents)

the European

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 Holcim
(Deutschland) v Commission, dismissing an action for damages
which sought
the
Commission's decision imposing a fine in a proceeding under
Article 81 EC, the reimbursement of charges in respect of a
bank guarantee lodged in order to avoid immediate payment of
the fine in question.

following the annulment of

to obtain,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.