CELEX: C2001/331/12
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-345/01: Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

C 331/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
3.1. Is a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the               Directive, is ‘essential’, because everything marked with
      Directive, only someone who brings goods into contact                   the ‘Grüner Punkt’ symbol is mixed together and, above
      with the product used as packaging or has them brought                  all, takes away from consumers the right, granted and
      into contact, and not also an undertaking which makes                   guaranteed to consumers by the Sixth VAT Directive, to
      a product intended for use as packaging, and is this                    a VAT rate reduced by half or a lower rate for the disposal
      product then to be regarded as packaging material?                      of their household waste?
                                                                         7.   May the Austrian Packaging Regulation arrange the
                                                                              collection and recovery systems required by Article 7(1)of
                                                                              the Directive in such a way that a monopolist or an
3.2. Additional question, in the event that the preceding
                                                                              oligopolist can have power of disposal over all packaging
      question is answered in the affirmative: May the Austrian
                                                                              waste to be recycled into raw materials and so, by
      legislature or the Commission compel traders who
                                                                              providing subsidies to particular businesses, to particular
      merely make packaging material, that is to say a product
                                                                              branches of industry (for example the cement industry)
      which is intended to be filled with goods, to participate
                                                                              or to certain local authorities (for example, the City of
      in a collection and recovery system set up pursuant to
                                                                              Vienna), can control and subsidise the recycling of
      Article 7(1) of Directive 94/62/EC?
                                                                              waste as it wishes, thereby producing distortions of
                                                                              competition, or is such a system contrary to Community
                                                                              law, in particular Article 30 et. seq. and especially
                                                                              Article 37 EC?
4.   Is it contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle referred to in
     the preamble to Directive 94/62/EC for a law to provide,
     as does the first sentence of Paragraph 3(1) of the                 (1) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
     Austrian Verpackungsverordnung (Austrian Packaging
     Regulation), that producers, in particular producers of
     packaging material (see paragraph 3(1) in conjunction
     with paragraph 1(1) of the Austrian Packaging Regu-
     lation), importers, packagers and distributors must take
     back free of charge sales and transport packaging after
     they have been used, in that the group of persons affected
     by this obligation is defined too narrowly and does not             Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Com-
     include consumers, and/or does such a regulation conflict           mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
     with Article 1(1) of the Directive in so far as it is stated                                  lic of Austria
     there that the Directive’s aim is to avoid obstacles to
     trade, whereas an obligation for a producer to take back                                    (Case C-345/01)
     packaging materials is the greatest imaginable obstacle to
     trade?
                                                                                                 (2001/C 331/12)
5.   Does a collection and recovery system such as that                  An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
     operated in Austria by Altstoff Recycling Austria Aktien-           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     gesellschaft pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Austrian               13 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
     Packaging Regulation [Or. 3] conflict with the principle            Communities represented by Götz zur Hausen, a legal adviser
     of proportionality if it is disproportionate to the needs of        in the legal Service of the Commission of the European
     effective environmetal protection?                                  Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a member of the Legal
                                                                         Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254,
                                                                         Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
6.   Is it contrary to the principles laid down in Article 30 et
     seq., in particular Article 37 EC, for a Member State to set
     up, in implementation of Article 7 of the Directive, as has         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     happened in Austria pursuant to paragraph 11 of the
     Austrian Packaging Regulation, a collection and recovery            1.   Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     system occupying a monopoly position (in Austria,                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Altstoffrecycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft) so that com-               Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 (1)
     petition and the fundamental freedoms are dispro-                        amending Directive 90/219/EEC (2) on the contained use
     portionately and excessively restricted, this interference is            of genetically modified micro-organisms, or at least by
     out of proportion to any effective contribution towards                  failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
     increasing the level of environmental protection and                     Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
     moreover this system, set up in parallel with the munici-                under Article 2(1) of that Directive.
     pal system, is not compatible with the objective of sorting
     waste at source, which, according to the preamble to the            2.   Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
As a result of the fact that directives are binding in nature           Case C-345/01 (2).
pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and the first
paragraph of Article 10 EC, the Member States to which a
directive is addressed are bound to transpose the provisions in         (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 13.
the directive into domestic law so that they are fully effective        (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
by the time the deadline for transposition expires. That
deadline expired on 5 June 2000 without Austria having
adopted the requisite provisions.
(1) OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13.
(2) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1.                                                Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                               Republic of Germany
                                                                                                   (Case C-347/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 331/14)
Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Com-                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                     Republic of Germany                                ties on 13 September 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities represented by Götz zur Hausen, a
                                                                        legal adviser in the Legal Service of the Commission of
                         (Case C-346/01)                                the European Communities, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a member
                                                                        of the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner
                         (2001/C 331/13)
                                                                        Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
ties on 13 September 2001 by the Commission of the                            Directive 98/8/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
European Communities represented by Götz zur Hausen, a                        the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
legal adviser in the Legal Service of the Commission of                       of biocidal products on the market, or at least by failing
the European Communities, with an address for service in                      to communicate them to the Commission, the Federal
Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a member                   Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
of the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner                       under Article 34(1) of that directive.
Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                        2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 98/81/EEC (1) of 26 October 1998           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
      amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of             Case C-345/01 (2): the deadline for transposition expired on
      genetically modified micro-organisms, or at least by              14 May 2000.
      failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        (1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
      under Article 2(1) of that Directive.
                                                                        (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.