Case C-381/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 8 August 2007 — Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivieres — TOS v Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aquatic environment, dangerous substance, environmental standard, interpretation of the law, pollution control measures, water pollution, water protection

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/29

in

even if

contract

relationship

indefinite duration,

(b) is it compatible with Community law for a national
court to interpret and apply national law to the effect
that a provision prohibiting the conversion of fixed-term
contracts of employment in the public sector to contracts
of indefinite duration must be construed as an absolute
prohibition in any circumstance to convert a fixed-term
employment
the
or
public sector to an employment contract or relationship
it was wrongfully
of
concluded as a fixed-term contract, that is to say, when
the requirements met were in fact fixed and permanent,
and that the national court has no discretion in such
cases to make a finding as to the true character of the
legal employment relationship at
issue and correctly
qualify it as a contract of indefinite duration? Alterna-
tively should the prohibition in question be restricted
solely to fixed-term contracts of employment which were
in fact concluded in order to meet temporary, unforesee-
able, urgent, exceptional or similar
types of special
requirements and not to cases in which they were in fact
concluded in order to meet fixed and permanent require-
ments?

respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in nature,
with a reference to those standards and a right on the part of
the administrative authority to object to the commencement of
the operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the
facility concerned?

(1) OJ L 64 of 4.3.2006, p. 52.

Appeal brought on 13 August 2007 by Der Grüne Punk —
Duales System Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on
24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales
System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Vfw AG, Landbell AG für
Rückhol-Systeme and Belland Vision GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
(France) lodged on 8 August 2007 — Association Nationale
pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivieres — TOS v Ministry
of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Parties

(Case C-385/07 P)

(2007/C 269/51)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-381/07)

(2007/C 269/50)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et
Rivieres — TOS

Defendant: Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Devel-
opment

Question referred

May Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollu-
tion caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
aquatic environment of the Community (1) be interpreted as
allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water
pollution including environmental quality standards have been
adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in

Appellant: Der Grüne Punk — Duales System Deutschland
GmbH (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Wagner, B. Meyring,
Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities, Vfw AG, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and
Belland Vision GmbH

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities of 24 May 2007 in Case
T-151/01;

— annulment of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of
20 April 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to
Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/34493 — DSD) (1);

— in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance
for reassessment in accordance with the Court's judgment;

— in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs both
before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of
Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal against the above mentioned
judgment of the Court of First Instance on eight grounds of
appeal.