Case C-289/08: Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2008-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard, public health, safety standard

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/33

Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-286/08)

(2008/C 223/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and J.-B. Laignelot)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to draw up and adopt within a
reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that
accords with the requirements of the relevant Community
legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and
adequate network of disposal
installations for hazardous
waste that enables such waste to be disposed of by means of
the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high
level of protection for the environment and public health,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 1(2) and 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC (1) on hazar-
dous waste, in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and
7(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC (2)
(formerly Directive
75/442/EEC
by Directive
91/156/EEC);

on waste,

amended

as

— declare that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to
ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste,
compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC
(formerly Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive
91/156/EEC) and Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of
Directive 1999/31/EC (3) on the landfill of waste,
the
its obligations under
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, in
conjunction with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC
(formerly Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by
under
and
Directive
Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC
on the landfill of waste;

91/156/EEC),

obligations

its

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

After examining the legislative measures notified by the Hellenic
Republic relating to the management of hazardous waste, and in
particular
the Commission
found that they did not meet the requirements of the Com-
munity provisions relating to the management of hazardous
waste.

the National Management Plan,

More specifically, the National Management Plan is deficient
since it merely contains guidelines which require further
elaboration and do not meet the requirement of ‘sufficient preci-
in breach of Articles 1(2) and 6(1) of Directive
sion’,
91/689/EEC,
in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive
2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC).

Also, the National Management Plan does not provide for an
integrated and adequate network of disposal
installations,
because adequate infrastructure is lacking, there are no assess-
ments relating to the required level of operational capacity and
there are deficiencies relating to the establishment and geogra-
phical location of appropriate sites, in breach of Article 1(2) of
Directive 91/689/EEC, in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive
2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC).

the

Furthermore, it has been established that the disposal of hazar-
dous waste in Greece is in practice usually in the form of
‘temporary storage’, which however, because
relevant
permits are renewed in the absence of appropriate landfill sites,
has become permanent. It follows that appropriate measures
have not been taken for the safe final disposal of hazardous
waste without endangering human health and without harming
the environment,
in breach of Article 1(2) of Directive
91/689/EEC, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive
2006/12/EC
of
Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC on
the landfill of waste.

(formerly Directive

75/442/EEC),

and

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-289/08)

(2008/C 223/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos)

(2) OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 223/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not drawing up an external emergency plan
for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject
to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December
1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving
dangerous substances (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of
that directive;

— order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

otherwise need international protection and the content of
the protection granted and (1),
in any event, by failing to
inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

— order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
10 October 2006.

for transposition of

the directive expired on

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 304, p. 12.

The applicant claims that drawing up an emergency plan for the
measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9
of Council Directive 96/82/EC is a fundamental requirement of
that directive. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the directive since it has not drawn
up such plans for eight operational establishments situated on
its territory.

(1) OJ 1997, L 10, p. 13.

Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-293/08)

(2008/C 223/53)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and I. Koskinen, acting as
Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum stan-
dards for
third country
nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who

the qualification and status of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Montpellier (France) lodged on 3 July 2008 — Ministère
public v Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea

(Case C-296/08)

(2008/C 223/54)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministère public

Defendant: Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea

Questions referred

1. Does the failure of a Member State (in this case Spain) to
give notification under Article 31(2) of the Framework Deci-
sion of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and
the surrender procedures between Member States (1) of its
intention to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agree-
ments preclude, by reason of the word ‘replace’ in Article 31
of that Framework Decision, that Member State from using
with another Member State (in this case France), which has
made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Deci-
sion, procedures other than that of
the European arrest
warrant?