CELEX: C1998/055/33
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 12 December 1997 by Société anonyme des traverses en béton armé (SATEBA) against the order made on 29 September 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/97 between Société anonyme de traverses en béton armé (SATEBA) and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-422/97 P)

20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) In regard to the building and demolition waste
                                                                             from which the chips are produced, operations
                                                                             are carried out already at an earlier stage than
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    burning which are to be regarded as a discarding
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    of the waste, namely operations (recycling
    Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on                          operations) to render the waste suitable for reuse
    the minimum safety and health requirements for                           (use as a fuel)?
    improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             If so, is an operation to render waste suitable for
    obligations under that Directive,
                                                                             reuse (recycling operation) to be regarded as an
                                                                             operation for recovery of waste only if that
                                                                             operation is expressly mentioned in Annex II B of
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                             Directive 75/442/EEC, or also if that operation is
                                                                             analogous to an operation mentioned in
                                                                             Annex II B?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (b) Wood chips constitute waste under contemporary
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                       thinking whereby it is of particular relevance
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for                   whether they may be recovered in an
transposition expired on 31 December 1994.                                   environmentally responsible manner for use as
                                                                             fuel without further processing?
(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
(2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.                                           (c)  The use of wood chips as a fuel is comparable
                                                                             with an accepted method of waste recovery?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November
1997 in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees,
Stichting    Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk                 Appeal brought on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           anonyme des traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) against
           Water Services Department, Gelderland                   the order made on 29 September 1997 by the First
                       (Case C-419/97)                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ anonyme
                          (98/C 55/32)                             de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                          (Case C-422/97 P)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                                        (98/C 55/33)
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang         An appeal against the order made on 29 September 1997
Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk              by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           European Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ
Water Services Department, Gelderland, on the following            anonyme de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
questions:                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ anonyme de traverses en
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that wood chips           beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA), represented by Jacques Manseau,
    undergo an operation listed in Annex II B to Directive         of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    75/442/EEC (1) that that substance has been discarded          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
    so as to enable it to be regarded as waste for the             Mathias Hardt.
    purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does           order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1997
    the reply to the question whether the use of wood              in Case T-83/97 (1) on the grounds of (i) erroneous
    chips as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting              interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty and, in
    discarding depend on whether:                                  particular, Articles 155, 169 and 86 thereof and of
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/18                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
Regulation No 17 which was adopted to implement                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
Article 86; (ii) infringement of Article 173; and (iii) breach      by order of that court of 2 October 1997 in the case of
of essential procedural requirements.                               Sarclad International Ltd, Wittington, Chesterfield, United
                                                                           Kingdom, against the Bundesamt für Finanzen
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                        (Case C-428/97)
                                                                                             (98/C 55/34)
Ð Error in classification
    Ð Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 17.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
    Ð Erroneous interpretation of Article 169 of the EC             (Federal Finance Court) of 2 October 1997, received at
        Treaty: in order for Article 169 concerning failure         the Court Registry on 18 December 1997, for a
        of a Member State to fulfil obligations to apply, it        preliminary ruling in the case of Sarclad International Ltd,
        is not sufficient that a failure to comply with            Wittington, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, against the
        Directive 93/38' is concerned and was expressly             Bundesamt für Finanzen (Federal Finance Office) on the
        referred to in the complaint, since the complaint           following question:
        was directed only at the conduct of the contracting
        entity, both as regards competition and free
        movement of goods.
                                                                    Is Article 3(a) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/
                                                                    EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the
        Nor does the Court of First Instance establish that
                                                                    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to
        the procedure followed by the Commission was
                                                                    be interpreted as meaning:
        appropriate by citing the case-law of the Court of
        Justice according to which acts of contracting
        entities are imputable to the Member States to
        which those entities belong. If that case-law is            Ð that the duplicate of a substitute document may also
        applied to the present case, the SNCB has no                    be regarded as the original import document or the
        liability, contrary to the principle set out in                 Member States are allowed in some circumstances to
        Article 222 of the Treaty, even though the same                 treat the duplicate as the original import document, or
        misconduct could be raised against a private
        undertaking.
                                                                    Ð that taxable persons not established in the territory of
    Ð Misinterpretation of the concept of an act against                the country Ð who are covered by the eighth
        which proceedings may be brought.                               Directive 79/1072/EEC Ð are definitively precluded
                                                                        from asserting their right to deduct input tax if the
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements                           import document originally issued has been lost before
                                                                        the application for a refund of the value added tax is
                                                                        made?
    Ð Manifest violation of the rights as of defence: the
        Court of First Instance acted in breach of this
        fundamental principle by adopting the premise               (1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979, p. 11.
        that, in the context of a procedure pursuant to
        Article 169 of the Treaty, persons who have lodged
        a complaint have no procedural rights.
    Ð Distortion of the subject-matter of the dispute:
        with regard to the plea of inadmissibility raised by
        the Commission, the Court of First Instance failed
        to find in limine litis that there was no legal basis       Action brought on 18 December 1997 by the Commission
        for the Commission's letter closing the file, as            of the European Communities against the French Republic
        SATEBA, in its application, requested it to do. The                                (Case C-429/97)
        Court of First Instance could not, therefore,
        without exceeding its powers, act in the place of                                    (98/C 55/35)
        the Commission in selecting one of the procedures
        made available to the Commission in the context
        of Article 155 of the Treaty, in order to establish a
        ground for declaring the applicant's action                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
        inadmissible.                                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard and Enrico
(1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997, p. 27.
                                                                    Traversa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.