Case C-251/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 May 2007 — Gävle Kraftvärme AB v Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: energy production, interpretation of the law, power plant, waste incineration

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/15

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Trespa International B.V.

(Case C-247/07)

(2007/C 170/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the European Parliament and of

— declare that by failing to adopt all of the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2003/35/EC (1) of
the
Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation
certain plans and
in respect of
programmes relating to the environment and amending
with regard to public participation and access to justice
Council Directives 85/337/EEC (2) and 96/61/EC (3), or, in
any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the
Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 6 of that Directive.

the drawing up of

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 25 June 2005.

(1) OJ L 156, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 175, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 257, p. 26.

Respondents: Nova Haven-en
Meadwestvaco Europe B.V.B.A.

Vervoerbedrijf N.V.

and

Questions referred

for

1. Under Article 291 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down
the Community
the implementation of
provisions
Customs Code (1), as applicable during the period from 1 July
1997 to 15 May 1998 inclusive, who is
‘the person
importing the goods or having them imported for free circu-
lation’?: does this term include the customs agent which
makes the customs declaration in its own name and for its
own account or does it cover only the importer for which
the goods are intended?

2. Is there a transfer of goods within the Community for the
purposes of Articles 297 and 1a of Regulation No 2454/93
in the case where goods are imported into the European
Union at Antwerp and then transported to the Netherlands
and/or should the person referred to in Article 291 of Regu-
lation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the imple-
mentation of the Community Customs Code, as applicable
during the period from 1 July 1997 to 15 May 1998 inclu-
sive, in such a case hold the authorisation referred to in that
article?

3. Does the term ‘transferee’

in Article 297 of Regulation
No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation
of the Community Customs Code, as applicable during the
period from 1 July 1997 to 15 May 1998 inclusive, refer to
the customs agent which clears the goods inwards from
outside the Community to a Member State of the European
Union on behalf of the ultimate importer?

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993
L 253, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 23 May 2007 —
Trespa International B.V. v Nova Haven-en Vervoerbedrijf
N.V. and Meadwestvaco Europe B.V.B.A.

(Case C-248/07)

(2007/C 170/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 May 2007 — Gävle
Kraftvärme AB v Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län

(Case C-251/07)

(2007/C 170/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

C 170/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gävle Kraftvärme AB

dures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport
and postal services sectors, or in any event by failing to
notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

Defendant: Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Questions referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Where a combined power and heating plant consists of a
number of units (furnaces), on interpretation of Directive
2000/76/EC (1) of
the
Council on the incineration of waste,
is each unit to be
assessed as a separate plant or is the assessment to cover the
combined power and heating plant as a whole?

the European Parliament and of

2. On interpretation of the Directive, is a plant constructed for
waste incineration but having as its main purpose the
production of energy to be classified as an incineration plant
or as a co-incineration plant?

(1) OJ L 332, p. 91.

The period within which Directive 2004/17/EC had to be trans-
posed expired on 31 January 2006.

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 1 June 2007 by Tokai Europe GmbH
against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04
the European
Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-262/07P)

(2007/C 170/30)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-254/07)

(2007/C 170/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Kukovec, acting as
Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004 (1) coordinating the procurement proce-

Appellant: Tokai Europe GmbH (represented by G. Kroemer,
Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 (1)
and declare the application to be admissible;

— in the alternative, set aside the order referred to above and
refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in order for
it to give a ruling on the substance;

— order the respondent to pay the costs.