CELEX: C1998/327/16
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Verona by order of 19 August 1998 in the case of Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA (Case C-323/98)

24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/11
Ð For the purposes of Article 1(4), second indent, of                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
     Directive 91/689/EEC, what procedure must an                    vergabeamt by order of that tribunal of 23 April 1998
     individual Member State follow in classifying as                in the case of Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and
     hazardous waste other than that on the list adopted by          Telefonadress GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third
     Council Decision 904/94/EC which exhibits one of the                           party: Herold Business Data AG
     characteristics set out in Annex III to the directive?
     What body is competent to make the assessment and                                      (Case C-324/98)
     subsequently notify the Commission?                                                     (98/C 327/17)
Ð Can the judicial authorities of an individual Member
     State also be required to notify the Commission?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Eighth Senate
                                                                     of the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal Procurement Office) of
                                                                     23 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
Ð Under Community legislation, is diphenylmethane                    on 26 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     diisocyanate (MDI) to be classified as hazardous waste          Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Telefonadress
     or not?                                                         GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third party: Herold
                                                                     Business Data AG, on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 356, 31.12.1994, p. 14.
                                                                     Principal question:
                                                                     1. Can it be inferred from the legislative history of
                                                                          Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in particular the proposal of
                                                                          the Commission (COM (90) 372 final, OJ C 23,
                                                                          31.1.1991, p. 1), or from the definition of the term
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                public service contract' in Article 1(a) of Directive 92/
e Penale di Verona by order of 19 August 1998 in the case                 50/EEC, that certain categories of contracts concluded
of Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta                        by contracting authorities subject to that directive with
                              SA                                          undertakings which provide services are to be
                       (Case C-323/98)                                    excluded a priori from the scope of the directive,
                                                                          solely on the basis of certain common characteristics
                         (98/C 327/16)                                    as specified in that proposal of the Commission,
                                                                          without the need to rely on Article 1(a)(i) to (viii) or
                                                                          Articles 4 to 6 of Directive 92/50/EEC?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e              If the principal question is answered in the affirmative:
Penale di Verona (Civil and Criminal District Court,
Verona) of 19 August 1998, received at the Court Registry
on 25 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA                   2. Do such categories of contracts also exist, having
on the following question:                                                regard in particular to the 24th recital in the preamble
                                                                          to Council Directive 93/38/EEC (2), within the scope of
                                                                          Directive 93/38/EEC?
Is the rule of national law contained in the last paragraph
of Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of
which an Italian creditor seeking to enforce a claim                 If the second question is answered in the affirmative:
against a foreign debtor is denied protection under the
summary order procedure provided for by Article 633 et
seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the order has
to be served abroad, incompatible with and precluded by              3. May those categories of contracts excluded from the
application of the principles of freedom of movement of                   scope of Directive 93/38/EEC be adequately described,
goods and capital and freedom to provide services                         by analogy with Commission proposal COM (90) 372,
enshrined in Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of                     as having as their essential feature that a contracting
Rome?'                                                                    entity which falls within the scope ratione personae of
                                                                          Directive 93/38/EEC cedes a service for which it is
                                                                          responsible to an undertaking of its choice in return
                                                                          for the right to operate the service concerned for
                                                                          financial gain?