LAID DOWN THEREIN .
15 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTIVE DO NOT CREATE BARRIERS TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE , AND THAT IN SO FAR AS SUCH MEASURES , IN PARTICULAR THE REQUIREMENT THAT PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED IN ADVANCE , HAVE A RESTRICTIVE EFFECT ON THE FREEDOM OF TRADE AND OF COMPETITION , THEY MUST NEVERTHELESS NEITHER BE DISCRIMINATORY NOR GO BEYOND THE INEVITABLE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE PURSUIT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION , WHICH IS IN THE GENERAL INTEREST . THAT BEING SO , ARTICLES 5 AND 6 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW MENTIONED ABOVE .
ARTICLES 13 AND 14 OF THE DIRECTIVE
16 THE ARTICLES IN QUESTION PROVIDE FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF UNDERTAKINGS BEING GRANTED INDEMNITIES FOR THE SERVICES WHICH THEY PERFORM IN COLLECTING AND/OR DISPOSING OF WASTE OILS .
17 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THAT THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS WHETHER THOSE INDEMNITIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FREE COMPETITION , AND IN PARTICULAR WITH ARTICLES 92 TO 94 OF THE TREATY , WHICH PROHIBIT THE GRANTING OF AID BY MEMBER STATES .
18 IN THAT RESPECT THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL , IN THEIR OBSERVATIONS , RIGHTLY ARGUE THAT THE INDEMNITIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 92 ET SEQ OF THE EEC TREATY , BUT RATHER CONSIDERATION FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE COLLECTION OR DISPOSAL UNDERTAKINGS .
19 IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE DIRECTIVE ' THE AMOUNT OF THESE INDEMNITIES MUST BE SUCH AS NOT TO CAUSE ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTORTION OF COMPETITION OR TO GIVE RISE TO ARTIFICIAL PATTERNS OF TRADE IN THE PRODUCTS . '
20 ARTICLES 13 AND 14 OF THE DIRECTIVE CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE COMPETITION .
21 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION IS THAT CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES 5 , 6 , 13 AND 14 OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 75/439/EEC OF 16 JUNE 1975 HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THEIR VALIDITY .
INTERPRETATION OF THE DIRECTIVE
22 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING AND FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE FRENCH LEGISLATION PERMITS THE BURNING OF WASTE OILS ONLY IN INDUSTRIAL INSTALLATIONS , THEREBY PROHIBITING ANY OTHER FORM OF BURNING .
23 IN THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION THE NATIONAL COURT ENQUIRES WHETHER DIRECTIVE NO 75/439 , IN IMPLEMENTATION OF WHICH THE FRENCH LEGISLATION WAS ADOPTED , JUSTIFIES THE PROHIBITION OF THE BURNING OF WASTE OILS .
24 THE GERMAN , FRENCH AND ITALIAN GOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION ADVOCATE AN AFFIRMATIVE REPLY . THEY ARGUE THAT THE UNCONTROLLED BURNING OF WASTE OILS CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY TO AIR POLLUTION AND , CONSEQUENTLY , THAT A PROHIBITION OF OIL-BURNING IN ANY PLANT