CELEX: C2000/247/01
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 23 May 2000 in Case C-209/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/Miljøsektion (FFAD) v Københavns Kommune (Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) in conjunction with Articles 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC) and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Directive 75/442/EEC — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Special or exclusive right to collect building waste — Environmental protection)

26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 247/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on
                                                                             the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into
                                                                             and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), in
                          of 23 May 2000                                     particular Articles 2(j) and 13 thereof — the Court, composed
                                                                             of: G.C. Rodrı́guez, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                             D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chamber,
                                                                             P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
in Case C-209/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    teur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
the Østre Landsret): Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/                         D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
     Miljøsektion (FFAD) v Københavns Kommune (1)                            given a judgment on 23 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
(Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) in conjunc-
tion with Articles 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
ment, Article 29 EC) and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
EC) — Directive 75/442/EEC — Regulation (EEC)                                1.    Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29
No 259/93 — Special or exclusive right to collect building                         EC) prohibits a system for the collection and receipt of non-
              waste — Environmental protection)                                    hazardous building waste destined for recovery, under which a
                                                                                   limited number of undertakings are authorised to process the
                                                                                   waste produced in a commune, if that system constitutes, in law
                                                                                   or in fact, an obstacle to exports in that it does not
                          (2000/C 247/01)
                                                                                   allow producers of waste to export it, in particular through
                                                                                   intermediaries. Such an obstacle cannot be justified on the basis
                                                                                   of Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                   Article 30 EC) or in the interests of environmental protection,
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                  in particular by application of the principle referred to in
                                                                                   Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                   Article 174(2) EC) that damage should as a priority be rectified
                                                                                   at source, in the absence of any indication of danger to the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             health or life of humans, animals or plants or danger to the
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  environment.
In Case C-209/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Østre Landsret
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              2.    Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC), read in
court between Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/Miljøsektion                          conjunction with Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
(FFAD), trading as Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v Københavns                         EC), does not preclude the establishment of a local system, such
Kommune — on the interpretation of Article 90 of the EC                            as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to
Treaty (now Article 86 EC), read in conjunction with Article 34                    resolve an environmental problem resulting from the absence of
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC) and                         processing capacity for non-hazardous building waste destined
Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), Articles 36                       for recovery, provides that a limited number of specially selected
and 130r(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                                undertakings may process such waste produced in the area
Articles 30 EC and 174(2) EC), Articles 7(3) and (10) of                           concerned, thus making it possible to ensure a sufficiently large
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste                              flow of such waste to those undertakings, and precludes other
OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive                             undertakings from processing that waste, even though they are
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and                             qualified to do so.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.8.2000
3.    Neither Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1995 on               of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings held by the
      waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  State and public bodies in joint stock companies (GURI
      18 March 1991, nor Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93                 No 177 of 30 July 1994), and the decrees concerning the
      of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and monitoring of               ‘special powers’ laid down in the case of the privatisation of
      shipments of waste within, into and out of the European               ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA, the Italian Republic has failed
      Community requires that Member States conclude contracts              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC
      with all the undertakings authorised, within the meaning of           Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and
      Article 10 of that directive, to receive and recover environmen-      Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — the Court
      tally non-hazardous building waste.                                   composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O Ed-
                                                                            ward, L Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
4.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it allows a              G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;
      Member State to take measures in relation to the shipment of          J. Misco, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      waste, including measures which prohibit the shipment of non-         Administrator, for the Registrar has given a judgment on
      hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if the shipment       23 May 2000 in which it:
      is not in accordance with its waste management plan, on
      condition that that plan is compatible with the rules of the          1.    Declares that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the consoli-
      Treaty and of that directive.                                               dated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted,
                                                                                  after amendment, into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing
5.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive                    for acceleration of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer             held by the State and public bodies in joint stock companies,
      on individuals any right on which they might rely before the                and the decrees concerning the ‘special powers’ laid down in the
      national courts for the purpose of challenging a measure                    case of the privatisation of ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA,
      designed to prevent movements of waste which are not in                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      accordance with a waste management plan, on the ground that                 Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      that measure has not been notified to the Commission.                       Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                                                                                  (now Article 56 EC);
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 23 May 2000
                                                                                                     (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-58/99 Commission of the European Communi-                                                   of 25 May 2000
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            in Case C-82/98 P, Max Kögler v Court of Justice of the
(Privatisation of public undertakings — Grant of special                    European Communities and Council of the European
                               powers)                                                                     Union (1)
                          (2000/C 247/02)                                   (Appeal — Staff Case — Weighting applicable to retirement
                                                                                                           pension)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                   (2000/C 247/03)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive version will be published in the
In Case C-58/99, Commission of the European Communities                                            European Court Reports)
(Agents: A. Aresu and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
Professor U. Leanza and I.M. Braguglia) — Application for a                 In Case T-95/98: Max Kögler, a former official of the Court of
declaration that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                    Justice of the European Communities, resident at Konz,
consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994                       Germany, represented by T. Baltes, of the Trier Bar, with an
(GURI No 126 of 1 June 1994), converted, after amendment,                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing for acceleration                 R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge v Court of Justice of the European