CELEX: C1998/072/10
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen, Italy, by order of that court of 16 December 1997 in the cases brought by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Italia Nostra, national association, and Günther Bachmann and others v. the Autonome Provinz Bozen, the Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen, the Gemeinde Leifers, Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and Airport Bolzano-Bozen AG (Case C-435/97)

7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/5
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                Registry on 16 December 1997, in the criminal
                       (Third Chamber)                              proceedings against Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus
                                                                    Johannes Maria Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor
                    of 18 December 1997                             Pierre Maria Nuchelmans on the following question:
in Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening
and Sven ke Henrikson v. Commission of the European                Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico mimetische
                        Communities (1)                             werking (P.V.V.) 1991 and, more particularly, Article 3(1)
                                                                    thereof, contain technical regulations which, pursuant to
(Common agricultural policy Ð Agricultural conversion
                                                                    Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the
    rate in the sugar sector Ð Appeal clearly unfounded)
                                                                    time when the Verordening came into force, should have
                         (98/C 72/08)                               been notified to the Commission beforehand?'
                (Language of the case: English)                     (1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
In Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening,
an association established under Swedish law, having its
registered office in Malmö (Sweden), and Sven ke
Henrikson, residing in Lund (Sweden), represented by
Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, Michael             Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling    by    the
Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and Vanessa Turner,                  Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         Bozen, Italy, by order of that court of 16 December 1997
Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume Ð                   in the cases brought by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of          Italia Nostra, national association, and Günther
the European Communities (First Chamber) of 4 October               Bachmann and others v. the Autonome Provinz Bozen, the
1996       in    Case     T-197/95     Sveriges    Betodlares       Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen, the
Centralförening and Henrikson v. Commission [1996]                  Gemeinde Leifers, Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and
ECR II-1283, seeking to have that order set aside, the                                Airport Bolzano-Bozen AG
other party to the proceedings being the Commission of                                      (Case C-435/97)
the European Communities (Agent: James Macdonald
                                                                                              (98/C 72/10)
Flett) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C.
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; M. B.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Elmer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
                                                                    European        Communities        by    order     of     the
order on 18 December 1997, the operative part of which
                                                                    Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz
is as follows:
                                                                    Bozen (Administrative Court, Separate Division for the
                                                                    Province of Bolzano), Italy, of 16 December 1997,
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                         received at the Court Registry on 24 December 1997, for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the cases brought by the World
                                                                    Wildlife Fund (WWF), Italia Nostra, national association,
2. The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.                     and Günther Bachmann and others against the Autonome
                                                                    Provinz Bozen (Autonomous Province of Bolzano), the
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                              Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen (District of
                                                                    Bolzano), the Gemeinde Leifers (District of LaÁives),
                                                                    Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and Airport Bolzano-
                                                                    Bozen AG on the following questions:
                                                                    1. Is Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) to be
                                                                         interpreted as meaning:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch, by judgment of that court of
11 November 1997 in the criminal proceedings against                     (a) that certain classes of the projects listed in
Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus Johannes Maria                            Annex II may from the outset, in the absolute
Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor Pierre Maria                               discretion of the Member States, be excluded in
                          Nuchelmans                                          their entirety from the obligation to carry out an
                                                                              environmental assessment; or
          (Cases C-425/97, C-426/97 and C-427/97)
                         (98/C 72/09)                                    (b) that the margin of discretion enjoyed by the
                                                                              Member States is limited by the obligation laid
                                                                              down in Article 2(1) of the directive to subject to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        an environmental assessment in any event those
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof                           projects likely to have significant effects on the
(Regional Court of Appeal) 's-Hertogenbosch, of                               environment, by virtue inter alia of their nature,
11 November 1997, which was received at the Court                             size or location?
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.3.98
   (c)   Does Article 4(2) of the directive, in conjunction          6. If the directive has been incorrectly transposed, is
         with Article 2(1) thereof, allow a Member State                 Article 4(2) thereof in conjunction with Article 2(1)
         to specify (or to fail to specify) types of project or          vertically directly effective (self-executing) in the sense
         criteria and/or thresholds so that the remodelling              that the authorities of the Member State are required
         of an airport with a runway shorter than                        to subject the projects at issue to an environmental
         2 100 metres is excluded from environmental                     assessment?
         assessment from the outset although it is
         environmentally significant, or is the margin of
         discretion which the Member State enjoys under              (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
         Article 4(2) of the directive (if (b) is answered in
         the affirmative) thereby exceeded?
2. Is Article 4(2) of the directive, in conjunction with
   Article 2(1), to be interpreted as meaning that the
   obligation to carry out an environmental assessment
                                                                     Reference      for    a     preliminary     ruling    by    the
   also applies to the extension and remodelling of the
                                                                     Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien by order of that court of
   projects in Annex II if significant effects on the
                                                                     18 December 1997 in the cases of (1) Evangelischer
   environment are likely, or do Articles 4(2) and 2(1)
                                                                     Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission
   allow environmentally significant projects comprising
                                                                     and (2) Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.
   remodelling to be excluded, expressly or impliedly (for
                                                                                 Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
   example by rules which are not applicable to airports),
   from environmental assessment from the outset?                                           (Case C-437/97)
                                                                                              (98/C 72/11)
3. To what extent does      Article 2(1) of the directive, also
   in conjunction with      Article 2(2), allow the Member
   States to introduce      (or use) alternative assessment
   procedures to that        of an ordinary environmental            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   assessment and if a      positive answer is given to this         European        Communities        by      order     of     the
   question:                                                         Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien (Administrative Court,
                                                                     Vienna) of 18 December 1997, received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 24 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling
   (a) what essential requirements or minimum                        in the cases of (1) Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien
         requirements must such an assessment satisfy in             (Protestant Hospital Society, Vienna) v. Abgabenberu-
         order to accord with the objectives of the                  fungskommission (Tax Appeals Commission) and (2) Ikera
         directive and, in particular,                               Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Oberösterreichische
                                                                     Landesregierung (Regional Government of Upper Austria)
                                                                     on the following questions:
   (b) is the participation of the public within the
         meaning of Article 6 of the directive an essential
         requirement of an environmental assessment?
                                                                     1. Does Article 33(1) of the Sixth Council Directive of
                                                                         17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                         Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
4. May Article 1(5) of the directive be interpreted as also              system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   covering projects which, while provided for in a                      (77/388/EEC) (1) preclude the maintenance in force of
   legislative provision which sets out a programme, are                 a levy on the supply for consideration of ice cream
   approved under a separate administrative procedure?                   (including fruits processed therein or added thereto)
                                                                         and beverages, in each case including the containers
                                                                         and accessories sold therewith, the rate of such levy
   What minimum environmental requirements must the                      being 10 % of the consideration in the case of ice
   legislative process' contain in order to achieve the                 cream and alcoholic beverages and 5 % of the
   objectives . . . including that of supplying information'            consideration in the case of non-alcoholic beverages,
   pursued by the directive?                                             where the consideration for the purposes of the
                                                                         relevant provisions of turnover tax law is measured in
                                                                         such a way as to exclude value added tax, service
5. Is the exclusion of projects from the scope of the                    charges and beverage duty?
   directive pursuant to Article 1(4) to be applied to an
   airfield used for both civil and military purposes?
                                                                     2. Do Article 3(2) or the second sentence of Article 3(3)
                                                                         of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) (Excise duties
   Could the applicable criterion be the predominant use                 directive) of 25 February 1992 preclude the
   or is it sufficient for the exclusion to apply that the               maintenance in force of a levy such as described in
   airfield is also used for military purposes?                          Question 1?