CELEX: C2002/169/46
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-194/02: Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

C 169/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.7.2002
      (b) incorrectly or incompletely transposing into Austri-                  (a)   not transposing into Austrian law the obligation to
            an law the obligation imposed on the competent                            separate waste laid down in Article 2(4) of Council
            authorities by Article 13 of the directive to undertake                   Directive 91/689/EEC(1) of 12 December 1991 on
            appropriate periodic inspections of establishments                        hazardous waste, as amended (2), and
            and undertakings which carry out the operations
            referred to in Articles 9 to 12 of the directive, the               (b) not fully transposing the obligation on the auth-
            Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations                  orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections
            under Article 1(e) and (f) of the directive in conjunc-                   of producers of hazardous waste laid down in
            tion with Annexes II A and II B thereto and                               Article 4(1) of the directive, or the obligation on the
            Article 13 of the directive;                                              authorities to carry out inspections laid down in
                                                                                      Article 5(2), the Republic of Austria has failed to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                                 fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(4), 4(1) and
                                                                                      5(2) of the directive;
                                                                          2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in                 There is no provision of Austrian law which clearly transposes
Article 1(e) and (f) in conjunction with Annexes II A and II B            the duty to separate mixed waste imposed by Article 2(4) of
of Directive 75/442/EEC are of central importance to the                  the directive.
uniform terminology of Community waste law and the
realisation of European waste policy. Under the legal pro-                In addition, the duty to carry out inspections prescribed by
visions in force in the Republic of Austria, terminology                  Austrian law relates only to those entities which collect and
inconsistent with that used in the directive is employed for the          handle hazardous waste, but does not extend to producers of
classification of operations which are regulated in Community             hazardous waste, as required by Directive 91/689/EEC. There
law by the definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’.                      is also no comprehensive obligation on the competent auth-
                                                                          orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of estab-
                                                                          lishments and undertakings as required by Article 5(2) of the
In addition, the provisions in the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (the
                                                                          directive.
Austrian Trade Code of 1994) relating to industrial plants do
not adequately meet the requirements of Article 13 of the
directive, because those provisions do not provide that the               (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
inspection must be carried out by the competent authorities.              (2) Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, OJ L 168, 2.7.1994,
                                                                              p. 28.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Irinodikio
                                                                          Athinon by judgment of that court of 13 May 2002 in the
Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission                           case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepiki-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              nonion Elladas (OTE)
                              Austria
                                                                                                    (Case C-196/02)
                         (Case C-194/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/47)
                         (2002/C 169/46)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Irinodikio Athinon
                                                                          (Small Claims Court, Athens) of 13 May 2002, received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 27 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepikinonion
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May                Elladas (OTE) on the following questions:
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,          1.    Are the existence and operation of a rule, such as, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                 the present case, Article 24a(2a) of the General Staff
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,                 Regulations of the Organismos Tilepikinonion Elladas
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                          (OTE), under which it is laid down that (only) women
                                                                                are taken on as cleaners on employment contracts of
                                                                                indefinite duration for part-time or intermittent employ-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     ment, consistent with the requirements which arise from
                                                                                Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and Directives 117/75 and
1.    declare that by:                                                          207/76?