Case C-379/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
Date: 2008-08-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, polluted area

C 301/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

impute liability to make good the compensation for the
environmental damage in a particular form to the person
who owns the property rights and/or operates an under-
taking on the contaminated site, without having to assess in
advance either whether there is a causal
link between the
conduct of that person and the occurrence of the contamina-
tion or the subjective requirement of intent or negligence?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on
21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and
Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-378/08)

(2008/C 301/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

Questions referred

1. Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle (Article 174(2)

(formerly
Article 130r(2)) of the Treaty of the European Communities)
and the provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April
2004, referred to above, preclude national legislation which
allows the public authorities to require private undertakings
— merely owing to the fact that they currently carry on their
activities in an area which has been contaminated for a long
time or borders on an area which is historically contami-
nated — to implement rehabilitation measures, irrespective
of whether or not any preliminary investigation has been
carried out to identify the party responsible for the pollu-
tion?

2. Do the ‘polluterpays’ principle (Article 174(2)

(formerly
Article 130r(2) of the Treaty of the European Communities)
and the provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April
2004, referred to above, preclude national legislation which
allows the public authorities to impute liability to make good
the environmental damage in a particular form to the person
who owns the property rights and/or carries on commercial
activities on the contaminated site without having to assess
in advance whether
link between the
conduct of that person and the occurrence of the contamina-
(namely,
tion, by virtue merely of that person's ‘situation’
that of being an operator whose activities are carried on
inside the site)?

there is a causal

3. Do the provisions of Community law in Article 174(2)
the European
(formerly Article 130r(2) of
Communities) and Directive 2004/35/EC (2) of 21 April
2004 preclude national
legislation which, overriding the
‘polluter pays’ principle, allows the public authorities to

the Treaty of

Directive

93/97/EC

and
[cited above] preclude national

4. Do the Community competition principles laid down in the
Treaty establishing the European Community and Directive
2004/18/EC (3),
Directive
898/665/EC (4)
legislation
which allows the public authorities to award to private
persons (Società Sviluppo SpA and Sviluppo Italia Aree
Produttive SpA) the activities of characterisation and of plan-
ning and performing cleaning up operations — or more
correctly, the carrying out of public works — in areas owned
by the State directly, without carrying out in advance the
necessary public tendering procedures?

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.
(2) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
(3) OJ 2004 L 290, p. 1.
(4) OJ 2004 L 395, p. 33.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on
21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and
Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-379/08)

(2008/C 301/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

Questions referred

1. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to require, as
‘reasonable methods of remedying environmental damage’,
works on the environmental matrices (here, consisting of the
construction of a physical barrier for the groundwater along
from and supplementary to
the entire seafront) different
those selected in advance following special preliminary
discussions with the parties, already approved, implemented
or in the course of being implemented?

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/15

2. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to impose
such requirements ex officio, that is, without having assessed
the site-specific conditions and the implementation costs in
respect of the reasonably foreseeable benefits, the possible or
probable collateral damage and adverse effects on public
health and safety, and the necessary time scales for imple-
mentation?

3. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to impose
such requirements ex officio as conditions for an authorisa-
tion for the lawful use of the areas not directly affected by
the decontamination in so far as they have already been
decontaminated or in any event were not polluted, included
within the limits of the Priolo site of national interest?

2. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to impose
such requirements ex officio, that is, without having assessed
the site-specific conditions and the implementation costs in
respect of the reasonably foreseeable benefits, the possible or
probable collateral damage and adverse effects on public
health and safety, and the necessary time scales for imple-
mentation?

3. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to impose
such requirements ex officio as conditions for an authorisa-
tion for the lawful use of the areas not directly affected by
the decontamination in so far as they have already been
decontaminated or in any event were not polluted, included
within the limits of the Priolo site of national interest?

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on
21 August 2008 — ENI SpA v Ministero Ambiente e Tutela
del Territorio e del Mare and Others

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2008 — Car
Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems SRL

(Case C-380/08)

(2008/C 301/28)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-381/08)

(2008/C 301/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ENI SpA

Defendants: Ministero Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del
Mare and Others

Questions referred

1. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to require, as
‘reasonable methods of remedying environmental damage’,
works on the environmental matrices (here, consisting of the
construction of a physical barrier for the groundwater along
from and supplementary to
the entire seafront) different
those selected in advance following special preliminary
discussions with the parties, already approved, implemented
or in the course of being implemented?

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Car Trim GmbH

Defendant: KeySafety Systems SRL

Questions referred

1. Is Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted
as meaning that contracts for the delivery of goods to be
produced or manufactured are, notwithstanding specific obli-
gations on the part of the customer with regard to the provi-
sion,
the components to be
produced, including a guarantee of the quality of production,
reliability of delivery and smooth administrative handling of
the order, to be classified as a sale of goods (first indent), and
not as provision of services (second indent)? What criteria
are decisive for the distinction?

fabrication and delivery of