CELEX: C1999/281/21
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-289/99 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a company incorporated under French law, against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities

C 281/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
The nationality requirement laid down in Article 134 the               represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal
Consolidated Legislation on Public Security thus cannot be             Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
imposed on service providers established in other countries.           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Such an obstacle is discriminatory and therefore contrary to           Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC). The effect of such legislation is to deny undertakings            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
established in other countries of the Community any chance             the Court should:
of providing security services in Italy so long as they retain a
head office in another country.                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
                                                                            order to ensure complete and correct transposition of
                                                                            Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the
                                                                            prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste
                                                                            incineration plants (1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC
                                                                            of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from
                                                                            existing municipal waste-incineration plants (2), the
                                                                            Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                     under Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 89/369/EEC and
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case                    Articles 2, 6 and 7 of Directive 89/429/EEC;
 of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco                 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-284/99)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                        (1999/C 281/19)                                The Commission proposes to limit the present proceedings to
                                                                       the Brussels-Capital Region.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 5 July 1999 from the                  In relation to Directive 89/369/EEC, the Commission refers to
Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg) (Aus-            a series of respects in which the rules applying to Brussels are
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 July             not in conformity with the directive, particularly as regards the
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of New Yorker               absence of any obligation on the authorities requiring them to
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco on the following               take action in the event that standards are exceeded and the
question:                                                              absence of any detailed provisions regarding the obligations
                                                                       incumbent on undertakings.
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                  In relation to Directive 89/429/EEC, the Commission declares
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,            that Articles 6(3) to (5) and 7(1) and (2) of the directive have
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of               not been transposed.
counterfeit and pirated goods (1) also applicable to situations
in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course
of transit between two States not belonging to the European            (1) OJ L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 203 of 15.7.1989, p. 50.
Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a
Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of
a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been
infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a
Member State of the European Community?
(1) OJ L 341 of 30.12.1994.                                            Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a
                                                                       company incorporated under French law, against the
                                                                       order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet
                                                                           and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              (Case C-289/99 P)
Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                             (1999/C 281/21)
                            Belgium
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the
                        (Case C-287/99)                                First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between
                                                                       Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (1999/C 281/20)                                was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, represented
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before            by Pascal Barbier, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July            service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Viva Vacances
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    agency, 33 Rue de Strasbourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/11
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) set aside the contested order in so far as it dismisses the
    claims under Article 173 of the Treaty;                                                     (Case C-292/99)
(2) allow the appellant’s claim (1);
                                                                                                (1999/C 281/22)
(3) alternatively, in the event that the Court accepts the appeal,
    examine the case and rule on the unresolved points of the           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
    application, having regard to the principle of the essential        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 August
    need to ensure the impartiality of the court seised of the          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    master, and, principally, on the validity of the provisions         represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal
    of Council Regulation 684/92 of 16 March 1992 (2);                  Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
(4) order the Commission to pay all the costs, both of the
    proceedings at first instance and of the proceedings before
    the Court of Justice.                                               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to draw up management plans
                                                                            either for the whole of its territory or for all waste, and by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             failing to include a chapter relating to packaging waste in
                                                                            all the waste plans adopted, the French Republic has failed
                                                                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive
— Distortion of the facts by virtue of the legal characterisation           75/442/EEC on waste (1), as amended by Directive
    applied to them, and of the evidence: the contested order               91/156/EEC (2), Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC on
    distorted the concept of acts producing binding effects for             hazardous waste (3) and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC
    the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the              on packaging and packaging waste (4);
    EC Treaty by taking the view that the contested decision
    (in the form of a letter stating that no action was to be
                                                                        — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    taken on the complaint) did not involve measures which
    might affect the appellant’s legal situation;
— Contravention of the principle of complete legal certainty,
    by means of Article 234 EC: the contested order wrongly             Pleas in law and main arguments
    finds that the appellant should have pleaded the illegality
    of Regulation No 684/92 before the national court;                  — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (as
                                                                            amended) and of Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC:
— Distortion of the nature of the application: it was wrongly               twelve of the one hundred French départements do not have
    held in the contested order that the actions for annulment              a ‘departmental plan for the elimination of domestic and
    were intended, in substance, to obtain a declaration that               related waste’ as provided for by the French legislation
    the French State had failed to comply with its Treaty                   transposing the abovementioned directives, and six of the
    obligations, whereas, in reality, they were principally                 twenty six French regions do not have a ‘regional plan for
    directed against the conduct of undertakings supported by               the elimination of waste other than domestic and related
    the French authorities which were engaged in practices                  waste’.
    contrary to Community competition law, analogous to
    those referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68            — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (as
    in the field of transport by road.                                      amended) and of Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC: the
                                                                            existing waste management plans do not cover all of
                                                                            the waste which is the subject of the abovementioned
                                                                            directives. Thus, most of the regional plans do not take
                                                                            into account PCBs (the French Government seeks to justify
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998, pp. 25 and 26.
(2) OJ L 74 of 20.3.1992, p. 1.                                             this by citing the imminent transposition of Directive
                                                                            96/59/EC); the ‘schemes for the elimination of hospital
                                                                            waste’ do not constitute plans for the implementation of
                                                                            the requirements laid down by Community law, and the
                                                                            six regions possessing such plans are not therefore covered
                                                                            by a plan relating to that category of waste; moreover, in
                                                                            18 départements ‘special domestic waste’ is not covered by
                                                                            either a regional or a departmental plan.