Case C-380/08: 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
Date: 2008-08-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: directive (EU), environmental impact, interpretation of the law

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