CELEX: C2001/173/53
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-177/01: Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

16.6.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 173/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 24 February
1988, put forward by the Grand Duchy as its disposal plan,                Pleas in law and main arguments
cannot be considered fully to meet the requirements of
Article 11(1) of the directive in so far as concerns the                  Decree No 2001/63 of 18 January 2001 which the French
equipment included in the inventory provided for by Article 4             authorities forwarded to the Commission provides for the
thereof. Member States are to determine, on the basis of the              drawing-up of a national inventory of equipment with a PCB
inventory provided for under Article 4(1) of the directive, the           volume of more than 5 dm3 which is to be the basis for a
dates on which it is possible, in view of the quantities of spent         national plan for decontamination or disposal of inventoried
PCB and of the number of contaminated pieces of equipment                 equipment which must subsequently be adopted in accordance
involved and of the available processing capacity, to require             with the procedure laid down in Article 7(5) et seq of the
that the elimination and decontamination required by the                  aforementioned decree. The Order of 13 February 2001 has as
directive be carried out; the Luxembourg authorities, however,            its sole purpose to request those who hold equipment contain-
have taken no steps to satisfy themselves that what they                  ing PCB to make a declaration before the Prefect. The
termed the ‘filière de décontamination ou d’élimination’ is able          Commission therefore remains of the view, first, that the
to process the equipment and PCB involved within the period               implementation of a procedure for drawing up a national
prescribed since, other than the laying down of a final deadline          inventory does not remedy the complaint regarding failure to
of 31 December 2010, no indication is given as to plans                   communicate to it a summary of inventories pursuant to
regarding the decontamination and elimination of spent                    Article 4(1) of the directive.
equipment and PCB in such a case.
                                                                          Secondly, the adoption of that decree is not sufficient to
                                                                          remedy the complaint that that Member State had not drawn
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 up either a plan for decontamination and/or disposal of
                                                                          contaminated equipment or plans for the collection and
                                                                          subsequent disposal of equipment not subject to inventory.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-177/01)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
                         (2001/C 173/53)                                  Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, by judgment of that court
                                                                          of 26 April 2001 in the case of (1) H. Jippes, (2)
                                                                          Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen en
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April                  omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherm-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       ing van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with                               Natuurbeheer en Visserij
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                                  (Case C-189/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                  (2001/C 173/54)
—     Declare that, by failing to send it a summary of inventories
      compiled of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
      5 dm3, plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein                European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
      and plans for the separate removal and collection of                voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
      equipment containing PCBs which is not subject to                   Industry) of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
      inventory in accordance with Article 4(1) and as referred           27 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of             (1) H. Jippes, (2) Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse
      16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated                Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen
      biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the             en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under          van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
      Articles 4 and 11 of the abovementioned directive;                  en Visserij on the following questions: