CELEX: C2002/056/14
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-494/01: Action brought on 20 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

2.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 56/7
1.    Do Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Council Directive                Pleas in law and main arguments
      64/221/EEC (1) of 25 February 1964 preclude national
      legislation which makes it mandatory for authorities to
      expel nationals of other Member States who have been
      finally sentenced to a term of youth custody of at least           a)    The Commission considers that, as a result of a failure to
      two years, or to a term of imprisonment, for an inten-                   ensure that all establishments and undertakings carrying
      tional criminal offence under the Betäubungsmittelgesetz                 out the operations specified in Annex II A (disposal
      (Law on Narcotics) where the sentence has not been                       operations) and Annex II B (operations which may lead
      suspended?                                                               to recovery) of the Directive hold a permit, Ireland is
                                                                               breaching its obligations under Articles 9 and 10 of the
2.    Is Article 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 Febru-                Directive;
      ary 1964 to be interpreted as meaning that the making
      of a statement of facts and a positive development in the
      person concerned which occurred after the final decision
      of the authority must also be taken into account by the            b)    The transposition and application of Article 12 of
      national courts when they review the lawfulness of the                   Directive 75/442/EEC remains unsatisfactory for the
      expulsion of an EU national?                                             following reasons:
(1) OJ L 56, p. 850.
                                                                               First, under the terms of the Directive, the requirement of
                                                                               authorisation or registration should have been the subject
                                                                               of national measures from the expiry of the date of
                                                                               implementation of Directive 91/156/CEE. The Waste
                                                                               Management (Collection Permit) Regulations 2001 do
                                                                               not ensure that all waste collection will in fact be carried
                                                                               out under permit. Second, the Commission has not had
                                                                               confirmation that all waste collection in Ireland is now
Action brought on 20 December 2001 by the Commission                           carried out under permit.
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                         (Case C-494/01)
                                                                         c)    The Commission considers that a seriously incomplete
                                                                               application of the permit requirements of Article 9
                           (2002/C 56/14)                                      represents evidence that Ireland has not taken the appro-
                                                                               priate measures to establish an integrated and adequate
                                                                               network of disposal installations as required under
                                                                               Article 5 of the Directive.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 20 December 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address               d)    By allowing significant amount of waste disposal and
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     recovery in Ireland to take place for a protracted period
                                                                               outside the permit framework of Article 9 of the Directive,
                                                                               Ireland cannot be considered to have taken all the
The Applicant requests that the Court should                                   necessary measures for the purposes of Article 4, (regu-
                                                                               lation of waste disposal and recovery operations so as to
                                                                               avoid endangering human health and without using
—     declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
                                                                               processes or methods which could harm the environ-
      to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of
                                                                               ment), because without permits disposal and recovery
      Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive
                                                                               methods are not properly conditioned and controlled.
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended by
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2), Ireland has failed to
      comply with its obligations under those Articles of the
      said Directive;
                                                                         e)    The Commission considers that Ireland has failed to
                                                                               respect Article 8 of the Directive, in as much as it has
—     declare that, by failing to completely and satisfactorily                failed to ensure that those who hold waste as a result of
      respond to a request for information dated 20 September                  non-permitted waste operations have the waste at the
      1999 in relation to a waste operation at Fermoy, County                  sites concerned handled by a private or public waste
      Cork, Ireland has failed to fulfil the obligations which it              collector or by an undertaking which carries out the
      has pursuant to Article 10 of the EC Treaty;                             operations listed in Annex II A or B, or, alternatively, it
                                                                               has failed to ensure that the holders recover or dispose of
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                          the waste themselves in accordance with the Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
f)    The Commission also considers that, by reason of its              of the dried fodder. According to the Commission, it must also
      failure to respect the requirements of Article 9 and 10 of        be considered that there is a supply for consideration within
      the Directive regarding permits, Ireland is not respecting        the meaning of the Sixth Directive, because the recipient of aid
      Article 13 of the Directive, which requires establishments        is a fodder-processing undertaking which sells fodder to third
      or undertakings carrying waste operations to be subject           parties. In Finland, however, value added tax is not charged on
      to periodic inspection by the authorities, or Article 14 of       such aid.
      the Directive, which requires such establishments or
      undertakings to keep records and to make this infor-
      mation available on request by the competent authorities.         (1) On the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                            to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment, (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).
(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ           (2) (OJ L 63 of 21.03.1995, p. 1).
    L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).
(2) OJ L 078, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
                                                                        Appeal brought on 24 December 2001 (fax: 20.12.2001)
                                                                        by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission                    (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered
of the European Communities against the Republic of                     on 3 October 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                              Finland                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                        T-140/00 between Zapf Creation AG and the Office for
                                                                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                         (Case C-495/01)                                                              Designs)
                          (2002/C 56/15)                                                         (Case C-498/01 P)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 56/16)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by E. Traversa and I. Koskinen, with           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2001
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-140/00 between Zapf
                                                                        Creation AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 December
                                                                        2001 (fax: 20.12.2001) by the Office for Harmonisation in
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland is in breach of              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by
      Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of           Detlev Schennen, Head of Unit in the Legal Department, and
      17 May 1977 on value added tax (1) by failing to charge           Carina Røhl Søberg, administrator in the Legal Department of
      value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common                  Marks and Designs).
      organisation of the market in dried fodder (2);
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) dismiss the application of Zapf Creation AG;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (2) order Zapf Creation AG (as applicant in the proceedings
                                                                              before the Court of First Instance) to pay the costs of the
                                                                              proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
According to Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, the
taxable amount is the consideration payable for the supply,
which is to include ‘subsidies directly linked to the price’ of the     (3) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
supply. Since the Community aid granted for the processing                    3 October 2001 in Case T-140/00 ‘New Born Baby’ (1);
and sale of dried fodder is paid on the basis of the amount of
dried fodder sold and treated, the aid must, in the Commission’s        (4) order Zapf Creation AG to pay the costs of the proceed-
opinion, be considered to have a direct influence on the price                ings before the Court of Justice.