CELEX: C1999/352/29
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-324/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 24 June 1999 in the case of DaimlerChrysler AG against Land Baden-Württemberg

C 352/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
— annul the Decision of the Commission of 11 January 1996                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
     addressed to the Portuguese Government;                             tungsgericht by order of that court of 24 June 1999 in the
                                                                         case of DaimlerChrysler AG against Land Baden-
     or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of                                    Württemberg
     First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of the Statute
     of the Court of Justice;
                                                                                                   (Case C-324/99)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
                                                                                                  (1999/C 352/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in that it has              richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 June 1999, received
decided that the Commission decision of 3 July 1991 addressed            at the Court Registry on 30 August 1999, for a preliminary
to the Portuguese government ensures compliance with the                 ruling in the case of DaimlerChrysler AG v Land Baden-
rules applicable to the sugar sector.                                    Württemberg, represented by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry
                                                                         of Traffic and the Environment, on the following questions:
The Court of First Instance has erred in law when it decided that
the Commission was not entitled to examine the application of            1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the Treaty’ in
Decree-law no. 95/90 to DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimen-                    Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1)
to Agro-Industrial, SA directly in relation to Article 87 (ex 92)            to be construed as meaning that, in the case of a general
EC.                                                                          prohibition on the export of hazardous waste for disposal,
                                                                             which is warranted by the principles of proximity, priority
                                                                             for recovery and self-sufficiency, a further issue to be
The Court of First Instance has erred in law where it found                  examined is whether the export ban is compatible with
that the individual application of Decree-law no. 95/90 to the               primary EC law, in particular with the ban on quantitative
sugar industry (the state aid to DAI) is not incompatible with               restrictions on trace between the Member States under
aims of the common agricultural policy, as implemented by                    Article 28 of the EC Treaty, in its new version?
the relevant rules.
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the case of
As far as it is correct that the different types of aid examined             an export ban imposed by legislation and restricted as to
in the contested decision and by the Court of First Instance are             quantity, is review of the legislative provision as such
covered by different sets of legal provisions and therefore must             sufficient or must there be a review of each individual case
be examined individually in the light of those rules and the                 in which an intended export is prohibited under the
aims which they pursue, the Court of First Instance has erred                legislative provision? In that connection is it permissible to
in law by not taking into account in the framework of its                    impose for a fifteen-year period an export ban operated by
review of the legality of the contested decision and the way the             means of a requirement to ship waste to a domestic facility,
Commission has made use of its discretionary power, the                      when at the time that such requirement was imposed, the
effect of the different aid measures taken together (the                     requisite security in the treatment of waste could be
combined effect).                                                            obtained only by a tie of that duration to the operator of
                                                                             that facility?
Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93) EC apply to aid to which
Regulation 866/90 (2) is applicable. The Court of First Instance         3. May the Member States, under Article 4(3) of Regulation
has erred in law when it decided that aid eligible for Com-                  (EEC) No 259/93, apply a rule in the context of delivery
munity co-financing under Regulation 866/90 is not subject                   requirements making the shipment to other Member States
to the application of Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93).                    of hazardous waste for disposal subject to the condition
                                                                             that the intended disposal meet the environmental-law
                                                                             requirements of the state of dispatch?
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in deciding that
the aid is not incompatible with Regulation 866/90. The
judgment of the Court of First Instance is not properly                  4. Is it reconcilable with Articles 3 et seq. of Regulation (EEC)
motivated in this respect, as the Court of First Instance has not            No 259/93 for a Member State to make provision, in the
taken into account the different pleas submitted by the                      case of an intended transborder shipment of waste for
applicants as to the inapplicability of Regulation 866/90.                   disposal, for the notification procedure to be preceded by
                                                                             a procedure of its own at national level concerning the
                                                                             delivery and allocation of such waste?
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.08.1996, p. 15.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) no. 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
    improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricul-       (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
    tural products (OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1).