CELEX: C2000/259/07
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-228/00: Action brought on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

C 259/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                                        Germany
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                     (Case C-228/00)
                          of 15 June 2000
                                                                                                     (2000/C 259/07)
in Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
(Appeal — PHARE programme — Decision to annul an                           Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
invitation to tender and to issue a new invitation to tender               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— Action for damages — Categorisation of reparable                         Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a Member of the Commission’s
damage — Causal link — Measures of organisation of                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               procedure — Measures of inquiry)
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 259/06)
                                                                           1.    Declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
                                                                                 its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council
                                                                                 Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                                 into and out of the European Community (1) for raising
                                                                                 unwarranted objections to certain waste shipments to
                                                                                 other Member States for use principally as fuel;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
In Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl, established in Rome, represented
initially by A. Tizzano and G.M. Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
and, subsequently, by F. Caruso, also of the Naples Bar, 39 Via            Pleas in law and main arguments
Santa Teresa a Chiaia, Naples — appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October
1998 in Case T-13/96 TEAM v Commission [1998] ECR                          The Commission objects to the administrative practice of
II-4073, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                the competent authorities in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Baden-
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                  Württemberg, Niedersachsen and Rheinland-Pfalz as incom-
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and L. Gussetti) — the                   patible with the Treaty. The practice manifests itself in decrees
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the            of the relevant ministries and individual decisions of the
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                   competent authorities, whereby, partly on the basis of the
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                     decrees, objections under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            No 259/93 were made against certain planned waste ship-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  ments. In the cases in question, it was planned to ship a
15 June 2000, in which it:                                                 mixture of waste for use as fuel in the Belgian cement industry.
                                                                           The Commission argues that such use is to be classified as a
                                                                           recovery operation falling within the procedure referred to in
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                Point R 9 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                           1975 on waste, namely ‘use principally as a fuel or other
                                                                           means to generate energy’. The description of the recovery
2.    Orders TEAM Srl to pay the costs.                                    operation in Point R 9 of Annex II B to the directive contains
                                                                           no quantitative criteria for determining whether or not a waste
                                                                           serves as fuel, but merely refers to the principal use. There is, the
                                                                           Commission argues, nothing in Article 3(1)(b)(i) of Directi-
                                                                           ve 75/442/EEC (2) to support the conclusion that burning of
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                               wastes constitutes a recovery operation only if its main
                                                                           purpose is the generation of energy or the waste has a certain
                                                                           minimum heating value. Nor can a requirement be inferred
                                                                           from the directive that energy recovery may be regarded as
                                                                           present only if a benefit equivalent in value to the recycling of
                                                                           materials is derived from the burning.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/5
Contrary to the view taken by the Federal Republic of Germany,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the content in pollutants of the individual components of
the waste burned can have no impact on the classification of
the burning as recovery or disposal. Article 4 of Directi-
ve 75/442/EEC does impose an obligation on Member States
to ensure that waste is disposed of or recovered in such a way         (1) declare that, by adopting Articles 107(1), 108(1)(h), 109
as not to damage the environment or endanger human health,                   and 111(1)(a) of the Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic
but the provision contains nothing on the distinction between                Law) 1994 and Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen
disposal and recovery. Moreover, reference should be made in                 (Rules on Driving Licences), the Kingdom of the Nether-
this context to the system that underlies Regulation (EEC)                   lands has failed to comply with its obligations under
No 259/93; both the competent authorities in the dispatching                 Articles 1(2) and 6(1)(c) and point 4 in Annex III to
State and the authorities in the receiving State may raise                   Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
objections to waste shipments on grounds that are set out in                 licences (OJ L 237 of 24 August 1991, p. 1) and thus
detail. According to the regulation, the pollutant content of                with its obligations under the EC Treaty;
the waste or compliance with emission rules by the plant
which burns it are not parameters for the raising of objections.
The obligations under Article 4 of the regulation apply to
every Member State within its territory irrespective of the            (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
shipment procedure.
The Commission is further of the opinion that Member States
may not set up criteria which lead to the directive’s provisions
on the demarcation of types of recovery not being complied
with. It is true that, on the current wording of Directi-
ve 75/442/EEC, it is difficult to distinguish between recovery         Pleas in law and main arguments
and disposal in individual cases. The Commission’s staff had
therefore provided for a criterion of heating value in a working
document. At the present time, however, the Commission’s
staff are preparing other solutions, which are subsequently to
be incorporated into Directive 75/442/EEC through technical            —     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,
                                                                             resulting from the introduction of a compulsory, system-
adaptation of the annexes on the basis of Article 17.
                                                                             atic scheme of registration after one year of establishment
                                                                             in the Netherlands: it follows from the objective and
                                                                             scope of Article 1(1) of the directive, and also from the
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.                                                 usual meaning of the wording of Article 1(2) thereof, that
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                              driving licences which have been issued by another
                                                                             Member State without any formal requirements must be
                                                                             recognised by the authorities of the host Member State.
                                                                             The holder of a driving licence issued in accordance with
                                                                             the European model is no longer obliged to exchange
                                                                             that licence upon becoming established in another Mem-
                                                                             ber State. This means that the holder is spared from
                                                                             having to incur administrative expenses upon becoming
                                                                             established and also, of course, upon subsequently
                                                                             returning to the Member State in which the licence was
                                                                             issued or on subsequently moving to a third Member
Action brought on 20 June 2000 by the Commission of                          State. In order effectively to avoid such impediments, the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                          mutual recognition provided for in Article 1(2) must take
                           Netherlands                                       place ‘without any formality’. Under the Netherlands
                                                                             Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic Law) 1994, mutual
                                                                             recognition without any formality occurs only if the
                         (Case C-246/00)                                     holder establishes himself in the Netherlands for less than
                                                                             one year. Driving licences which are not registered within
                                                                             one year after establishment cease to be valid for use in
                         (2000/C 259/08)                                     the Netherlands. Driving a vehicle in the Netherlands
                                                                             with such a driving licence is equivalent to driving
                                                                             without a licence. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                         in fact replaced the obligation to exchange a licence, as
brought before the Court of Justice on 20 June 2000 by the                   laid down by Directive 80/1263 but criticised in the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                       ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 and
M. Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and H.M.H. Speyart, of its Legal               in paragraph 26 of the Skanavi judgment (1), with a
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                    registration obligation. This conflicts with the system of
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal               mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           States, as laid down in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439.