CELEX: C2002/247/06
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-277/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH

12.10.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/3
      (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-       3.     If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:
            tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                How, and by reference to what parameters, is the
            of members of the health-care professions or of
            sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring              authorised toll for a single journey along the whole
            to health-care activities?                                          motorway to be calculated in each individual case?
                                                                         4.     Only if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC                          the affirmative and are accompanied, as requested in
      preclude a national provision which, on the placing into                  question 3, by an explanation of the method of calcu-
      circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-                  lation to be employed:
      mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
      affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the                     Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/94
      competent federal minister, whereby a condition of                        Parliament v Council (3), in which it was held that the
      authorisation is that the health-related information is                   effects of Directive 93/89/EEC, which was annulled by
      consistent with protecting the consumer from being                        that judgment, were to be preserved until the Council had
      misled?                                                                   adopted a new directive, to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that the effects are to be preserved until the Member
                                                                                States have transposed the new directive or, as the case
( 1) OJ L 33, p. 1.                                                             may be, until the time-limit for transposition has expired?
                                                                         5.     Only if the answer to question 4 is in the negative:
                                                                                In respect of the period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July
                                                                                2000, are the Member States under an obligation to have
                                                                                regard to the new directive, that is to say, does it have
                                                                                advance effects which must be observed?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that                  (1 ) OJ L 279 [1993], p. 32.
Court of 25 June 2002 in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V.               (2 ) OJ L 187 [1999], p. 42.
                                                                         (3 ) ECR I-1827 [1995].
                    against Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-257/02)
                         (2002/C 247/05)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz
                                                                         Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July
                                                                         2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                                               mbH
(Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 25 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 15 July 2002, for a                                              (Case C-277/02)
preliminary ruling in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V. against
Republic of Austria on the following questions:                                                    (2002/C 247/06)
1.    Are Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC ( 1) and
      Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC ( 2) intended         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      to confer on all transport undertakings the right, in return       European Communities by order of the Rheinland-Pfalz Ober-
      for payment of a road user charge which complies with              verwaltungsgericht (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrat-
      those directives and is thus reasonable, to conduct                ive Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
      journeys on stretches of motorway for which a toll is              29 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      levied on vehicles with more than three axles used for the         EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-
      commercial carriage of goods?                                      Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH on the following questions:
2.    If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:                 1.     Under the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
      Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC and                        supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
      Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC have direct                  into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30,
      effect according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,                 p. 1), can an objection to the shipment of waste for
      such that, if the directives have not been transposed, or                 recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
      have been transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they                  recovery contravenes the requirement arising from the
      may be relied on in calculating a toll that complies with                 first paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/
      the directives for vehicles with more than three axles used               EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 74) for
      for the commercial carriage of goods along the whole of                   waste to be recovered in a manner which is compatible
      the Austrian Brenner motorway?                                            with health and environmental imperatives?
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
2.     If so, can such an objection be raised not only by the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       authority of destination but also by the authority of               Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June
       dispatch?                                                           2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di
                                                                                                       Treviso
3.     If so, is the authority of dispatch entitled to base its
       assessment of whether the planned recovery of the waste
       at the place of destination is compatible with health and
       environmental imperatives on the standards applicable in
       the State of dispatch even where they are higher than the                                   (Case C-286/02)
       standards applicable in the State of destination?
4.     Under the second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation
       No 259/93, can an objection to the shipment of waste                                        (2002/C 247/08)
       for recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
       recovery contravenes national laws and regulations relat-
       ing to environmental protection, public order, public
       safety or health protection?
5.     If so, can the authority of dispatch raise such an objection
       on the ground that the recovery contravenes national
       laws and regulations in force at the place of dispatch?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Treviso,
                                                                           Prima Sezione (District Court, Treviso, First Chamber) of
                                                                           26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
                                                                           2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l.
                                                                           against Prefettura di Treviso on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002                        1.   Are the first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision
in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land                           2000/766 ( 1) and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision
                       Nordrhein-Westfalen                                      2001/9 ( 2), read together with the other Community rules
                                                                                on which those provisions are based, to be interpreted as
                          (Case C-285/02)                                       meaning that the accidental presence of an unforeseen or
                                                                                prohibited substance in fish flour used in the production
                                                                                of feed-stuffs for animals other than ruminants may be
                          (2002/C 247/07)                                       considered both legally and materially acceptable and
                                                                                that, accordingly, traders are allowed a reasonable margin
                                                                                of error?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Minden (Administrative Court, Minden) of 26 July 2002,                     2.   In the affirmative, in the light of the principle of
received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2002, for a                          proportionality and the principle of precaution, and in
preliminary ruling in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg                     consideration of the Community provisions applicable in
against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:                     the domains in which reference is made to accidental
                                                                                contamination of food-industry products and indications
                                                                                are given of relevant margins of error, does an accidental
Is it compatible with Article 141 EC in conjunction with                        contamination of 0.1 %, and in any case of not more
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 ( 1) on the                    than 0,5 %, of fragments of mammalian bone in fish flour
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                      intended for the production of feed-stuffs for animals
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and                       other than ruminants warrant the adoption of a draconian
women that men and women teachers, part-time as well as                         sanction such as the complete destruction of that fish
full-time, who are officials in the Land North-Rhine Westphalia                 flour?
are not granted remuneration for excess hours worked if that
additional work does not exceed three teaching periods in the
calendar month?
                                                                           3.   Does the exclusion of any margin of error in relation to
                                                                                the presence of the substances mentioned in the preceding
( 1) OJ L 45, p. 19.
                                                                                questions amount to the introduction of a technical
                                                                                standard within the meaning of Directive 83/189 ( 3) (as
                                                                                amended) which would have to be notified in advance to
                                                                                the European Commission?