C 165/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
19.4.2022
In the alternative, the General Court should have reserved judgment on the admissibility until after consideration of the application on the merits. — Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 130(3) of the General Court's Rules of Procedure require the General Court to reserve its decision on a plea of inadmissibility until it rules on the substance of the case where special circumstances so justify, and to subsequently prescribe new time limits for further steps in the procedure.
Per settled case law, those special circumstances exist where a reservation is needed for the proper administration of justice. — The General Court was required to assess the nature, content and context of the contested act to determine if it was of direct concern to the appellants.
For that, it is necessary to look at the act's substance and whether it imposes independent legal obligations on Member States.
There is overlap between that assessment and the first plea in law on the merits regarding the Commission's lack of competence to adopt Annex I of the contested act.
By not reserving its decision on the Commission's plea on inadmissibility until it had heard the arguments on the merits, the General Court infringed the provisions of paragraph 7 and 8 of Article 130 of its Rules of Procedure.
(1)
OJ 2020 C 317, p. 5
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2022 — Papier Mettler Italia S.r.l. v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly the Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Case C-86/22) (2022/C 165/41) Language of the case: Italian Referring court Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Papier Mettler Italia S.r.l.
Defendants: Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly the Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Questions referred 1.
Do Article 114(5) and (6) TFEU, Article 16(1) of Directive 94/62/EC (1) and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC (2) preclude the application of a national provision such as that laid down in the contested interministerial decree, which prohibits the marketing of single-use shopping bags made of non-biodegradable materials but otherwise complying with the requirements laid down in Directive 94/62/EC, where that national provision containing more restrictive technical rules than the EU legislation was not notified by the Member State to the European Commission in advance, but only after the adoption and before the publication of the measure? 2.
Must Articles 1, 2, 9(1) and 18 of Directive 94/62/EC, as supplemented by the provisions of points 1, 2 and 3 of Annex II to the directive, be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a national rule prohibiting the marketing of single-use shopping bags made of non-biodegradable materials, which otherwise comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 94/62/EC, or may the additional technical rules laid down by national law be justified by the aim of ensuring a higher level of environmental protection, considering, if need be, the specific problems regarding waste collection in the Member State and the need for that State to implement the EU obligations laid down in that related context? 3.
Must Articles 1, 2, 9(1) and 18 of Directive 94/62/EC, supplemented by the provisions of points 1, 2 and 3 of Annex II to the directive, be interpreted as constituting a clear and precise rule aimed at prohibiting any obstacle to the marketing of bags complying with the requirements laid down in the directive and leading to the necessary disapplication of any conflicting national legislation by all organs of the State, including public authorities?