CELEX: C2000/163/20
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-112/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Beschlusses des Oberlandesgerichts Innsbruck by order of 1 February 2000 in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v Republic of Austria

C 163/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 notice has been given, may not be authorised, if it can also
                                                                             be held at a place away from the transit route with a
a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the                     comparable effect on public awareness, or by requiring it
      Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-               at least to be dispersed once this becomes possible?
      visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
      97/65/EC (1) of 26 November 1997 adapting, for the third
      time, to technical progress Council Directive
      90/679/EEC (2) on the protection of workers from risks              2. Where, on account of the failure by a Member State to
      related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh              indicate in its national provisions on freedom of assembly
      individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of            and the right to exercise it that, in the weighing of freedom
      Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the Republic of Austria has                 of assembly against the public interest, the principles of
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that            Community law, primarily the fundamental freedoms and,
      directive;                                                             in this particular case, the provisions on the free movement
                                                                             of goods, are also to be observed, a political demonstration
b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                           of 28 hours’ duration is authorised and held which,
                                                                             in conjunction with a pre-existing national generally
                                                                             applicable ban on holiday driving, causes an essential intra-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Community goods transit route to be closed, inter alia, to
                                                                             the majority of heavy goods traffic for four days, with a
                                                                             short interruption of a few hours, does that failure
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put                  constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of Com-
forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission                    munity law in order to establish liability on the part of the
the time-limit for transposition expired on 30 June 1998                     Member State under the principles of Community law,
without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full                provided that the other requirements for such liability are
for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.        met?
( 1) OJ L 335, 6.12.1997, p. 17.
( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                           3. Where a national authority decides that there is nothing in
( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official         the provisions of Community law, in particular those
     Journal.                                                                concerning the free movement of goods and the general
                                                                             duty of cooperation and solidarity under Article 5 of the
                                                                             EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), to preclude, and thus no
                                                                             ground on which to ban, a political demonstration of
                                                                             28 hours’ duration which, in conjunction with a pre-
                                                                             existing national generally applicable ban on holiday
                                                                             driving, causes an essential intra-Community goods transit
                                                                             route to be closed, inter alia, to the majority of heavy
                                                                             goods traffic for four days, with a short interruption of a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Beschlusses des                    few hours, does that decision constitute a sufficiently
Oberlandesgerichts Innsbruck by order of 1 February                          serious infringement of Community law in order to
2000 in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v Republic of                         establish liability on the part of the Member State liable
                               Austria                                       under the principles of Community law, provided that the
                                                                             other requirements for such liability are met?
                           (Case C-112/00)
                           (2000/C 163/20)
                                                                          4. Is the objective of an officially authorised political demon-
                                                                             stration, namely that of working for a healthy environment
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       and of drawing attention to the danger to public health
European Communities by order of 1 February 2000 by the                      caused by the constant increase in the transit traffic of
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court), Innsbruck, which                  heavy-goods vehicles to be deemed to be of a higher order
was received at the Court Registry on 24 March 2000, for a                   than the provisions of Community law on the free
preliminary ruling in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v                       movement of goods under Article 28 EC?
Republic of Austria on the following questions:
1. Are the principles of the free movement of goods under
      Article 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 et              5. Is there already loss giving rise to a claim founded on State
      seq. EC), or other provisions of Community law, to be                  liability where the person incurring the loss can prove that
      interpreted as meaning that a Member State is obliged,                 he was in a position to earn income, in the present case
      either absolutely or at least as far as reasonably possible,           from the international transport of goods by means of the
      to keep major transit routes clear of all restrictions and             heavy-goods vehicles operated by him but rendered idle by
      impediments, inter alia, by requiring that a political                 the 28 hour demonstration, yet is unable to prove the loss
      demonstration to be held on a transit route, of which                  of a specific transport journey?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/13
6. Should the reply to Question 4 be in the negative:                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel
                                                                        de Paris (13th Chamber) in the case of Ministère Public v
    In order to comply with the obligation of cooperation and                                  Claude Laguillaumie
    solidarity incumbent under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
    Article 10 EC) on national authorities, in particular the                                    (Case C-116/00)
    courts, and with the principle of effectiveness, must
    application of national rules of substantive or procedural
    law curtailing the ability to assert claims which are well                                   (2000/C 163/22)
    founded under Community law, such as in the present
    case a claim founded on State liability, be deferred pending
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    full elucidation of the substance of the claim at Community
                                                                        European Communities by request received at the Court
    law, if necessary following a reference to the Court of
                                                                        Registry on 27 March 2000 from the Cour d’Appel de Paris
    Justice for a preliminary ruling?
                                                                        (13th Chamber) for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor) v Claude Laguillaumie.
                                                                        The Cour d’Appel de Paris (13th Chamber) asks the Court of
                                                                        Justice to rule on the compatibility of the decree of 1 April
                                                                        1992 and the ministerial decrees of 12 November 1992 and
                                                                        30 August 1996 authorising Eco Emballage SA and granting
                                                                        it exclusive rights in French territory to the reclamation of all
                                                                        products other than glass and medicines, with the principles
                                                                        laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 81
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                        EC), Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 82
Münster by order of 23 February 2000 in the case of
                                                                        EC), Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991, Directive
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service S.à.r.l.
                                                                        83/189/EEC (2) of 28 March 1983, Articles 30 and 36 of the
                      v Finanzamt Borken
                                                                        Treaty of Rome (now, after amendment, Articles 28 and 30
                                                                        EC) and Directive 94/62/EC (3) of 20 December 1994.
                         (Case C-115/00)
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
                         (2000/C 163/21)                                    Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
                                                                            procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
                                                                            standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (3) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
European Communities by order of 23 February 2000 by the                    20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
Finanzgericht Münster (Finance Court, Münster), which was                   L 365, p. 10).
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Andreas Hoves Internationaler
Transport-Service S.à.r.l. v Finanzamt Borken on the following
questions:
1. Does Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93
    of 25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) preclude
    national rules which result in motor vehicle tax being
    charged for the use of commercial goods vehicles which
    are registered in another Member State of the European
    Union, for which a cabotage authorisation has been issued
                                                                        Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Commission of
    in that Member State, which carry out cabotage operations
                                                                                 the European Communities against Ireland
    in the Federal Republic of Germany and which have their
    regular base there?
                                                                                                 (Case C-117/00)
2. Does Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of
    25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), in cases like that                                   (2000/C 163/23)
    mentioned in Question 1, preclude national rules such as
    the second half of the second sentence of Paragraph 1(1)(2)
    of the Kraftfahrzeugsteuergesetz (KraftStG, Law on Motor            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    Vehicle Tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 1(1)(3) of the           Justice of the European Communities on 27 March 2000 by
    KraftStG?                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
                                                                        agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.