CELEX: C2002/084/91
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-33/02: Action brought on 6 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

6.4.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/51
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of 16 January 2002
in the appeals concerning Dr Roman Moser, the Bürger-
meister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and the land
            transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-15/02)
                                                                         The Commission claims that Directive 98/59 applies to
                                                                         collective redundancies carried out by any ‘employer’, that is
                         (2002/C 84/89)                                  by any natural or legal person who has created an employment
                                                                         relationship, regardless of whether he is engaged in profit-
                                                                         making activities. It follows, therefore, that the implementing
                                                                         Italian regulations, and in particular Law No 223/91, which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   restricts the application of the guarantees to employees of
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                ‘undertakings’ alone, wrongfully exclude all employers engaged
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber,                 in non-profit-making activities.
Salzburg) of 16 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 22 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals
concerning Dr Roman Moser, the Bürgermeister der Lande-
shauptstadt Salzburg, and the land transfer agent of the Land
of Salzburg on the following question:
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          Action brought on 6 February 2002 by the Commission
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           of the European Communities against the Republic of
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                                             Austria
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply                                           (Case C-33/02)
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the                                      (2002/C 84/91)
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 6 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at
Action brought on 5 February 2002 by the Commission                      Centre Wagner C 254, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-32/02)
                                                                         —     declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (2002/C 84/90)                                        obligations under Article 3(3) and (4), Article 7(1) and
                                                                               (2), Article 11(3), and Article 13(1) in conjunction
                                                                               with Article 2(3) of Council Directive 94/67/EC of
                                                                               16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                  waste, by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 February
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            1.    incorrectly transposing, in Paragraph 3 no. 3.2 and
represented by A. Aresu acting as Agent.                                             no. 3.3 of the Verordnung des Bundesministers für
                                                                                     wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten über die Verbren-
                                                                                     nung gefährlicher Abfälle in gewerblichen Betrieb-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          sanlagen (Regulation of the Federal Minister for
                                                                                     Economic Affairs on the incineration of hazardous
—     Declare that, by not adopting provisions in respect of                         waste in commercial plants) (the ‘BMwA Regu-
      employers engaged in non-profit-making activities, the                         lation’), the rule in Article 3(3) of the directive that
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    the heat release from coincineration may not exceed
      Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the                              40 % of the total heat, in respect of ‘the total
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                        heat released in the plant at each moment of its
      to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16);                             operation’;
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/52                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
      2.    permitting non-binding emission guide values in                 in Annex II, the provisions of Article 7, which contains
            certain cases, under Paragraph 8(3) of the BMwA                 the emission limit values for exhaust gases, have been
            Regulation, contrary to the requirement imposed                 complied with, the Austrian rules provide that for certain
            by Article 3(4) of the directive concerning the                 coincineration plants, the authorities are, in individual
            determination of binding emission limit values;                 cases, to lay down emission guide values for individual
                                                                            pollutants.
      3.    failing to set limit values for heavy metal, dioxin
            and furan emissions in exhaust gases at cement             —    Infringe Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive (failure to lay
            production plants under Paragraph 15(1) of the                  down limit values for heavy metal, dioxin and furan
            BMwA Regulation, contrary to Article 7(1) and (2)               emissions in exhaust gases at cement production plants):
            of the directive;                                               Contrary to Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive, the
                                                                            Republic of Austria has not laid down limit values for
      4.    laying down criteria for compliance with emission               heavy metal, dioxin and furan emissions in exhaust
            limit values in Paragraph 10(5) no. 2 of the BMwA               gases at cement production plants in which waste is
            Regulation which contravene Article 11(3) of the                coincinerated.
            directive; and
                                                                       —    Infringe the first paragraph of Article 11(3) of the
                                                                            directive (compliance criteria for limit values):
      5.    laying down transitional provisions in Para-
            graph 19(1) of the Verordnung des Bundesministers               Contrary to the first indent of Article 11(3) which
            für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie über die Verbren-                specifies the circumstances in which emission limit
            nung von gefährlichen Abfällen (Regulation of the               values are deemed to be complied with, the Austrian
            Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the                 Government has laid down rules which provide that
            Family on the incineration of hazardous substances)             emission limit values are only exceeded where more than
            and Paragraph 16(2) of the BMwA Regulation which                3 % of the half-hourly averages exceed the emission limit
            exempt existing plants from the application of the              value by more than 20 %. That threshold of 20 % is not,
            directive for the period from 31 December 1996 to               however, contained in the directive.
            1 February 1999, contrary to Article 13(1) in
            conjunction with Article 2(3) of the directive.            —    Infringe Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 18(1)
                                                                            of the directive (entry into force and transitional pro-
—     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       visions for existing plants):
                                                                            Contrary to the directive, Austria treats plants which were
                                                                            granted permits between 31 December 1996 and the
                                                                            date of transposition of the directive (1 February 1999)
                                                                            as ‘existing plants’. Consequently, under Austrian law,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            incineration plants which were granted permits between
                                                                            31 December 1996 and 1 February 1999 were covered
The Commission has reached the conclusion that the pro-                     by the transitional period until 30 June 2000, whereas,
visions in force in Austria do not fully comply with the                    according to the directive, such plants should have fallen
provisions of Directive 94/67 EC, namely, in that they:                     fully within the scope of the directive from the time of
                                                                            their authorisation.
—     Infringe Article 3(3) of the directive (for coincineration,
      maximum of 40 % of total heat released in the plant):
      Contrary to Article 3(3), which lays down a total heat
      release from a plant of a maximum of 40 % from the
      incineration of hazardous wastes ‘at each moment of its
      operation’, the provisions in force in Austria permit            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
      plants to operate with a total heat release of more than         Roma, Terza Sezione Lavoro by order of 24 January 2002
      40 % , and in certain circumstances exclusively, from the        in the case of Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto
      incineration of hazardous wastes, over lengthy operating                      Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale)
      periods (e.g, for a number of days or even weeks).
      (Calculation on the basis of quarterly averages)
                                                                                               (Case C-34/02)
—     Infringe the second paragraph of Article 3(4) of the
      directive (determination of emission guide values):                                      (2002/C 84/92)
      Contrary to the second indent of Article 3(4) of the
      directive which provides that the permit for a coinciner-
      ation plant is only to be granted if it is demonstrated in       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the application that, according to calculations laid down        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma,