CELEX: C1999/281/22
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-292/99: Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

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.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
— Infringement of Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC: the              preliminary ruling in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate
     existing management plans do not contain any specific           against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. Farmer 3) C.J. Burley
     chapter relating to packaging waste.                            and 4) B. Denman on the following question:
                                                                     Are the requirements in Articles 15(2) and (3) of Council
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.                                   Regulation 3821/85 (1) for a driver to record ‘all other periods
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
( 3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.                                  of work’ and ‘breaks in work and daily rest periods’ on the
( 4) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                  vehicle record sheet to be construed so that those terms
                                                                     include:
                                                                     (i) a period of time spent travelling to take over a vehicle
                                                                           which is subject to the requirement to install and use
                                                                           vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out
                                                                           in Category A above i.e.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nottingham                       a) time spent travelling pursuant to the instructions of
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), by order of that                          the employer or
court of 30 June 1999, in the case of the Vehicle
Inspectorate against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J.                   b) time (forming part of the daily or weekly rest period
            Farmer 3) C.J. Burley and 4) B. Denman                             following the last period of work) during which the
                                                                               employee travels at a time and in a manner of his own
                                                                               choosing.
                         (Case C-297/99)
                                                                     (ii) a period of time spent performing driving or other duties
                         (1999/C 281/23)                                   which are exempt from the requirement to install and use
                                                                           vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     under Category B above.
European Communities by an order of the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) of 30 June 1999, which           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on
was received at the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for                  recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.85, p. 8).