CELEX: C2002/084/92
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-34/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma, Terza Sezione Lavoro by order of 24 January 2002 in the case of Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale)

C 84/52                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
      2.    permitting non-binding emission guide values in                 in Annex II, the provisions of Article 7, which contains
            certain cases, under Paragraph 8(3) of the BMwA                 the emission limit values for exhaust gases, have been
            Regulation, contrary to the requirement imposed                 complied with, the Austrian rules provide that for certain
            by Article 3(4) of the directive concerning the                 coincineration plants, the authorities are, in individual
            determination of binding emission limit values;                 cases, to lay down emission guide values for individual
                                                                            pollutants.
      3.    failing to set limit values for heavy metal, dioxin
            and furan emissions in exhaust gases at cement             —    Infringe Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive (failure to lay
            production plants under Paragraph 15(1) of the                  down limit values for heavy metal, dioxin and furan
            BMwA Regulation, contrary to Article 7(1) and (2)               emissions in exhaust gases at cement production plants):
            of the directive;                                               Contrary to Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive, the
                                                                            Republic of Austria has not laid down limit values for
      4.    laying down criteria for compliance with emission               heavy metal, dioxin and furan emissions in exhaust
            limit values in Paragraph 10(5) no. 2 of the BMwA               gases at cement production plants in which waste is
            Regulation which contravene Article 11(3) of the                coincinerated.
            directive; and
                                                                       —    Infringe the first paragraph of Article 11(3) of the
                                                                            directive (compliance criteria for limit values):
      5.    laying down transitional provisions in Para-
            graph 19(1) of the Verordnung des Bundesministers               Contrary to the first indent of Article 11(3) which
            für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie über die Verbren-                specifies the circumstances in which emission limit
            nung von gefährlichen Abfällen (Regulation of the               values are deemed to be complied with, the Austrian
            Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the                 Government has laid down rules which provide that
            Family on the incineration of hazardous substances)             emission limit values are only exceeded where more than
            and Paragraph 16(2) of the BMwA Regulation which                3 % of the half-hourly averages exceed the emission limit
            exempt existing plants from the application of the              value by more than 20 %. That threshold of 20 % is not,
            directive for the period from 31 December 1996 to               however, contained in the directive.
            1 February 1999, contrary to Article 13(1) in
            conjunction with Article 2(3) of the directive.            —    Infringe Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 18(1)
                                                                            of the directive (entry into force and transitional pro-
—     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       visions for existing plants):
                                                                            Contrary to the directive, Austria treats plants which were
                                                                            granted permits between 31 December 1996 and the
                                                                            date of transposition of the directive (1 February 1999)
                                                                            as ‘existing plants’. Consequently, under Austrian law,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            incineration plants which were granted permits between
                                                                            31 December 1996 and 1 February 1999 were covered
The Commission has reached the conclusion that the pro-                     by the transitional period until 30 June 2000, whereas,
visions in force in Austria do not fully comply with the                    according to the directive, such plants should have fallen
provisions of Directive 94/67 EC, namely, in that they:                     fully within the scope of the directive from the time of
                                                                            their authorisation.
—     Infringe Article 3(3) of the directive (for coincineration,
      maximum of 40 % of total heat released in the plant):
      Contrary to Article 3(3), which lays down a total heat
      release from a plant of a maximum of 40 % from the
      incineration of hazardous wastes ‘at each moment of its
      operation’, the provisions in force in Austria permit            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
      plants to operate with a total heat release of more than         Roma, Terza Sezione Lavoro by order of 24 January 2002
      40 % , and in certain circumstances exclusively, from the        in the case of Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto
      incineration of hazardous wastes, over lengthy operating                      Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale)
      periods (e.g, for a number of days or even weeks).
      (Calculation on the basis of quarterly averages)
                                                                                               (Case C-34/02)
—     Infringe the second paragraph of Article 3(4) of the
      directive (determination of emission guide values):                                      (2002/C 84/92)
      Contrary to the second indent of Article 3(4) of the
      directive which provides that the permit for a coinciner-
      ation plant is only to be granted if it is demonstrated in       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the application that, according to calculations laid down        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma,
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/53
Terza Sezione (Rome District Court, Third Employment                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Chamber) of 24 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 8 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza            —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
Sociale [National Social Welfare Institution]) on the following                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
questions:                                                                        Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
                                                                                  adapting for the second time to technical progress
                                                                                  Council Directive 96/49/EC (2) on the approximation of
                                                                                  the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport
Is a provision of national law, which provides, without any                       of dangerous goods by rail or in any event by not
time-limit and thus, in breach of the principle of legal certainty,               notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian Repub-
for the recovery of an undue payment arising from the                             lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
application of Community legislation, compatible with the
objectives of Council Regulations No 1408/71 (1) and
574/72 (2)?                                                                 —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Are the Community provisions cited in (1) to be interpreted as
precluding the application of a provision of national law which             Pleas in law and main arguments
does not lay down time-limits for the recovery of undue
payments arising from the belated or improper application of
the relevant Community provisions?
                                                                            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), which
                                                                            provides that a directive is to be binding as to the result to be
                                                                            achieved on each Member State to which it is addressed,
Is it possible, given that the transitional rules for the application       implies an obligation that the Member States comply with the
of the social security regulations provide for a time-limit of              time-limits for transposition prescribed by directives. In the
two years in which to claim, with retrospective effect, the                 present case the prescribed period expired on 1 July 1999
rights conferred by those regulations, to apply a contrario the             without the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
same time-limit of two years from notification of recovery of               necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
undue payment in cases of reduction of rights previously                    Commission’s claim.
conferred, except where more favourable time-limits are laid
down by national law, and provided that the person concerned
is not guilty of improper conduct?
                                                                            (1) OJ 1999 L 169, p. 58.
                                                                            (2) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 25.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159.
                                                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-18/99 (1)
Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission                                                   (2002/C 84/94)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                           (Case C-50/02)
                                                                            By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                           (2002/C 84/93)                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-18/99:
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities v Aiolika Parka
                                                                            Siteias AE.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February                 (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.