CELEX: C2000/047/31
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-461/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,                   issue of a first residence document or have an expulsion
Belgium, by judgment of that court of 23 November 1999,                      order made against them before the issue thereof?
in the case of ASBL Mouvement contre le Racisme,
l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX) v Belgian State
                                                                        (1) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, p. 13).
                         (Case C-459/99)                                (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
                                                                            establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14).
                                                                        (3) determining the third countries whose nationals must be in
                                                                            possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the
                          (2000/C 47/30)                                    Member States (OJ L 234, p. 1.).
                                                                        (4) on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement
                                                                            and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds
                                                                            of public policy, public security or public health (OJ L 56, p. 850).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
(Council of State), Belgium, by judgment of 23 November
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ASBL Mouvement
contre le Racisme, l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX)
v Belgian State, on the following questions:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
1. Must Article 3 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October      1968 (1),              of the European Communities against Ireland
    Article 3 of Directive 73/148 of 21 May 1973 (2) and
    Regulation No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 (3), read in                                        (Case C-461/99)
    the light of the principles of proportionality, non-
    discrimination and the right to respect for family life, be
    interpreted as meaning that the Member States may, at the                                       (2000/C 47/31)
    border, send back foreigners who are subject to a visa
    requirement and spouses of Community nationals who
    attempt to enter the territory of a Member State without            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    being in possession of an identity document or visa?                Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 1999 by
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Lena
                                                                        Ström, member of the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
2. Must Article 4 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October 1968                address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    and Article 6 of Directive 73/148, read in the light of             Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
    Article 3 of each of those directives and of the principles         Commission, Centre Wagner.
    of proportionality, non-discrimination and the right to
    respect for family life, be interpreted as meaning that
    Member States may refuse to issue a residence document              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
    to the spouse of a Community national who has entered
    their territory in an irregular manner and issue an expulsion       — declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
    order against him?                                                       comply with Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on
                                                                             waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC(2),
                                                                             Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous
3. Do Articles 3 and 4(3) of Directive 68/360, Article 3 of                  waste, and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC (4) on packag-
    Directive 73/148 and Article 3(3) of Directive 64/221 of                 ing and packaging waste, Ireland has failed to comply with
    25 February 1964 (4) mean that the Member States may                     these Directives and with its obligations under the Treaty;
    neither withhold a residence document nor expel the
    foreign spouse of a Community national who has entered              — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    the national territory in a regular manner but whose visa
    has expired when application is made for the issue of that
    document?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
4. Must Articles 1 and 9(2) of Directive 64/221 of 25 Februa-           The Commission considers that the existing general waste
    ry 1964 be interpreted as meaning that the foreign spouses          plans and existing toxic waste plans submitted to it by Ireland
    of Community nationals who are not in possession of                 are unsatisfactory for the purposes of meeting the requirements
    identity documents or a visa or whose visa has expired              of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive
    have the right to refer the matter to the competent                 91/156/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC and Directive 94/62/EC,
    authority mentioned in Article 9 when applying for the              for the following reasons:
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/20                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
— None of the existing general or toxic waste plans submitted              brought by an aggrieved party against a decision taken by the
      by Ireland contain a specific chapter on the management              national regulatory authority?
      of packaging and packaging waste. They thus fail to
      comply with Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC;
                                                                           2.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
— With regard to Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC, the                    are Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC, Article 2(3) and 4 of
      existing general waste plans submitted by Ireland do not             Commission Directive 96/2/EC (3), and Articles 9(2) and 11(2)
      cover hazardous waste;                                               of Directive 97/13/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           the Council, or the other provisions of Community law, to be
— With regard to Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as                     construed as precluding a provision of national law under
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, the general waste                   which existing holders of a licence for the provision of reserved
      management plans submitted by Ireland were prepared                  mobile telecommunications services within the digital cellular
      pursuant to Irish implementing legislation for Directive             mobile communications sector may, prior to the expiry of
      75/442/EEC before it was amended by Directive                        three years from the entry into force of the decision granting
      91/156/EEC. They were not prepared by reference to the               the DCS-1800 licence in 1997 to an applicant, be granted
      specific requirements of the Irish implementing legislation          additional frequencies from the frequency band reserved for
      for amendments to Directive 75/442/EEC effected by                   DCS-1800 if it is established that, despite employing all
      Directive 91/156/EEC. They therefore cannot be con-                  commercially viable technical possibilities, their user capacity
      sidered as fulfilling the obligations which Ireland has              has been exhausted, where those additional frequencies may
      under Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive                  be allocated without a requirement that a separate fee for their
      91/156/EEC.                                                          use be paid and may also be allocated to a public undertaking
                                                                           holding a dominant market position within the 900 MHz
                                                                           sector?
( 1) of the Council, of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39).
( 2) of 18.3.1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32).
( 3) of 12 December 1991 (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48).                    ( 1) OJ L 192 of 24.7.1990, p. 1.
( 4) European Parliament and Council Directive of 20 December 1994         ( 2) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 23.
     (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).                                        ( 3) OJ L 20 of 26.1.1996, p. 59.
                                                                           ( 4) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof (Austria) by order of 24 November 1999 in                        Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission
the appeal brought by Connect Austria Gesellschaft für                     of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Telekommunikation GmbH against the Telekom-Control-                                                          lic
Kommission (intervening party: Mobilkom Austria
                         Aktiengesellschaft)
                                                                                                    (Case C-463/99)
                           (Case C-462/99)
                                                                                                     (2000/C 47/33)
                            (2000/C 47/32)
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 December
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by order of 24 November 1999 from                     represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Federal Administrative Court)                  and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on
(Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on                     secondment to that service, with an address for service in
2 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought by Connect Austria Gesellschaft für Telekommunika-                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
tion GmbH against the Telekom-Control-Kommission (Tele-
com Monitoring Commission) (intervening party: Mobilkom
Austria Aktiengesellschaft) on the following questions:                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — declare that, by not adopting and, as a subsidiary claim,
1.      On a proper construction of Article 5a(3) of Council                    by not communicating to the Commission, within the
Directive 90/387/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/51/EC (2)                  time-limit laid down the laws, regulations and administrat-
of the European Parliament and of the Council, does that                        ive provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
provision have direct effect in the sense that, overriding                      Directive 96/62/EC (1) of 27 September 1996 on ambient
a contrary domestic rule of jurisdiction, it establishes the                    air quality assessment and management, the Hellenic
jurisdiction of a specific ‘independent body’ at national level to              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
implement a ‘suitable mechanism’ for dealing with an appeal                     and that directive;