CELEX: C2001/045/18
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-444/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 November 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd

C 45/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
1.   Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on          (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     the establishment of a European Works Council or a
     procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
     munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes              Pleas in law and main arguments
     of informing and consulting employees, in particular
     Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking          of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
     is resident outside the the Community are obliged to              obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
     provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central          into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
     management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)             expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
     and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the         prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
     average total number of employees and their distribution          1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
     across the Member States, the establishments of the               the field covered by the directive.
     undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
     the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
     controlled by it?                                                 (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
2.   If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     affirmative:
     Does the obligation to provide information also
     encompass the names and addresses of the employee
     representation which is to participate, on behalf of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
     the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings              of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
     controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating      Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
     body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in          vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
     the establishment of a European Works Council?                    of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
                                                                       Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                     Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
                                                                                    Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd
                                                                                                 (Case C-444/00)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 45/18)
Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                         lic of Germany
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
                                                                       trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
                        (Case C-443/00)                                Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
                         (2001/C 45/17)                                Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
                                                                       of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by              the following questions:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal        Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,                 ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the                  Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre                  Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and Commission Decision
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
                                                                       separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
                                                                       ingots, sheets or coils of steel:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order             1.    Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
     to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European                       be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
     Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on                     when they have been:
     the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
     of personal data and on the free movement of such                       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or
     data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and                     b.     used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
     under Article 32 of that directive;                                           or coils of steel?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 45/9
2.     Have those materials been ‘recycled’ for the purposes of           Pleas in law and main arguments
       European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (4)
       on packaging and packaging waste when they have been:
                                                                          —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements in
       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or                       the creation of the contested regulation: The plaintiff
                                                                                complains in particular that there has been no collegiate
                                                                                decision of the Commission in relation to the amendment
       b.    used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets               of the Commission proposal, which took the form of
             or coils of steel?                                                 adopting the content of a compromise suggestion of the
                                                                                Council. A collegiate decision of the content claimed by
                                                                                the Commission representative at the meeting of the
                                                                                Committee of Permanent Representatives, namely to
( 1) of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).                             empower the relevant Commissioner to amend the
( 2) of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32).                             original Commission proposal accordingly, should a
( 3) of 24 May 1996 (OJ L 135, 06.06.1996, p. 32).                              formulation commanding a qualified majority be found
( 4) of 20 December 1994 (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).                         in the Council, is, the plaintiff maintains, not sufficient.
                                                                                That would not ensure that the College of the Com-
                                                                                mission was informed about the essential elements of the
                                                                                amended proposal, let alone ensure that it deliberated
                                                                                over them as a body. If, therefore, a lawful (amended)
                                                                                proposal of the Commission had not at any time been
                                                                                submitted as the basis for the Council decision finally
                                                                                taken, the Council had no authority to decide upon the
                                                                                matter by qualified majority.
Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of
     Austria against the Council of the European Union
                                                                          —     (In the alternative) Infringement of the Treaty by
                                                                                amending the Commission proposal after it had been
                           (Case C-445/00)                                      submitted to the Council: The Republic of Austria submits
                                                                                that the Commission does not have the authority under
                                                                                the procedure pursuant to Article 16 of Protocol No 9 to
                            (2001/C 45/19)                                      the 1994 Act of Accession to alter a proposal once it has
                                                                                been submitted to the Council, if the Council does not
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         pronounce against the proposal by qualified majority.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of Austria,
represented by Harald Dossi, acting as Agent, with an address             —     (In the alternative) Insufficient statement of reasons,
for service in Luxembourg.                                                      infringement of Article 253 EC.
The Republic of Austria claims that the Court should:                     —     (In the alternative) Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                                Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession:
1.     Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 Sep-
       tember 2000 (1) amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9
                                                                                —     Article 1 of the contested regulation has as its
       to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC)
                                                                                      subject-matter a formal alteration to Annex 4 to
       No 3298/94 (2) with regard to the system of ecopoints
                                                                                      Protocol No 9, which is anchored in primary law;
       for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria;
                                                                                      there is no authority in primary law for such an
                                                                                      alteration.
2.     Order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                                      Even if, in the words it actually uses, Article 2(1) of
In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court                     the contested regulation, whereby the reduction in
should:                                                                               the number of ecopoints is generally spread over
                                                                                      several years, refers only to the amendment of
1.     Annul Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (4) of Council                            Article 6(2)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3298/94, and
                                                                                      thereby gives the impression that only another
       Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 September 2000
       amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of                           measure of secondary law is being altered, that
       Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94 with regard                           alteration also amounts to an alteration of rules of
                                                                                      primary law. That is because the ruling in Protocol
       to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles
       transiting through Austria;                                                    No 9 unequivocally and unmistakably provides for
                                                                                      the full reduction of the ecopoints to be curtailed
                                                                                      for the year following the exceeding of the 108 %
2.     Order the Council to pay the costs.                                            limit.