CELEX: C2001/173/40
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-114/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy

C 173/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
      (i)   to indicate that it is necessary for a marketing                          or its ancillary site? Is it relevant generally, with
            authorisation to be granted for product B to be                           respect to falling within the definition of waste,
            supported by full clinical data of the type required                      whether the said by-products of mining operations
            by Part 4(F) of the Annex to Directive 75/318/EC (3);                     are stored on the area of the mining concession, its
            but                                                                       ancillary site or further away?
      (ii) having considered the data filed in support of
            product B, to grant a marketing authorisation for
            product C if that application is supported by trials                 (b) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
            not meeting the requirements of Part 4(F) of the                          that the leftover rock is the same as regards its
            Annex to Directive 75/318/EEC?                                            composition as the basic rock from which it is
                                                                                      quarried, and that it does not change its composition
                                                                                      regardless of how long it is kept and how it is kept?
                                                                                      Should ore-dressing sand which results from the
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-                    ore-dressing process perhaps be assessed differently
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-                     from leftover stone in this respect?
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ 22,
    09.02.1965, p. 369 [SE SER 1 (65-66) p. 201]).
(2) ECR 1998 p. I-7967.
(3) Council Directive 75/318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approxi-
    mation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical,                  (c)  What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
    pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in                    that leftover rock is harmless to human health and
    respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products (OJ L 147,               the environment, but that, according to the view of
    09.06.1975, p. 1).                                                                the environmental licence authorities, substances
                                                                                      harmful to health and the environment dissolve
                                                                                      from ore-dressing sand? To what extent generally is
                                                                                      importance to be attached to the possible effect of
                                                                                      leftover rock and ore-dressing sand on health and
                                                                                      the environment in assessing whether they are
                                                                                      waste?
                                                                                 (d) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
                                                                                      that leftover rock and ore-dressing sand are not
                                                                                      intended to be discarded? Leftover rock and ore-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
                                                                                      dressing sand may be re-used without special pro-
hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in
                                                                                      cessing measures, for example for supporting mine
   the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy
                                                                                      galleries, and leftover rock also for landscaping the
                                                                                      mine after it has ceased operation. Minerals may in
                           (Case C-114/01)                                            future with the development of technology be
                                                                                      recovered from ore-dressing sand for utilisation. To
                                                                                      what extent should attention be paid to how definite
                           (2001/C 173/40)                                            plans the person carrying on mining operations has
                                                                                      for such utilisation and to how soon after the
                                                                                      leftover rock and ore-dressing sand has been tipped
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on the mining concession or its ancillary site the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein hallinto-                             utilisation would take place?
oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 5 March
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 March
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
Outokumpu Chrome Oy on the following questions:                             (2) If the answer to the first question is that leftover rock
                                                                                 and/or ore-dressing sand is to be regarded as waste within
                                                                                 the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Council Directive on
(1) Are leftover rock resulting from the extraction of ore                       waste, it is further necessary to obtain an answer to the
      and/or ore-dressing sand resulting from the dressing of                    following supplementary questions:
      ore in mining operations to be regarded as waste
      within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2),
                                                                                 (a)  Does ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of
      having regard to points (a) to (d) below?
                                                                                      Article 2(1)(b) of the Waste Directive (91/156/EEC),
                                                                                      waste covered by which is excluded from the scope
      (a)   What relevance, in deciding the above question,                           of the directive, and which under point (ii) concerns
            does it have that the leftover rock and ore-dressing                      inter alia waste resulting from prospecting, extrac-
            sand is stored on the area of the mining concession                       tion, treatment and storage of mineral resources,
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 173/25
           mean exclusively the European Community’s own                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
           legislation? Or may national legislation too, such as        Tribunal (Leeds), by order of that court of 12 January
           certain provisions of the Kaivoslaki and the Jätease-        2001, in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett
           tus in force in Finland, be ‘other legislation’ within                against Secretary of State for Employment
           the meaning of the Waste Directive?
                                                                                                 (Case C-137/01)
      (b) If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,
           does that mean exclusively national legislation
           which was already in force at the time of entry into                                  (2001/C 173/42)
           force of the Waste Directive 91/156/EEC or also
           that only enacted afterwards?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      (c)  If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,      European Communities by an order of the Employment
           do fundamental European Community provisions                 Tribunal (Leeds) of 12 January 2001, which was received at
           relating to environmental protection or the prin-            the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
           ciples of the Waste Directive set requirements for           in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett against
           national legislation concerning the level of environ-        Secretary of State for Employment, on the following question:
           mental protection as a condition for disapplying
           the rules of the Waste Directive? What sort of
                                                                        ‘Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (1) fully satisfied by
           requirements could those be?
                                                                        rules of national law which may result in a claim relating to
                                                                        holiday pay against the Guarantee Institution being dismissed
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
                                                                        owing to unforeseen delay in bringing about a state of
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                        insolvency in the employer, which delay was caused by the
                                                                        employer?’
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                            protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
                                                                            employer (OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Bologna by order of that court of 20 February 2001 in
the case of Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone
                          Ascensori SpA
                         (Case C-129/01)
                         (2001/C 173/41)                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                        Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich, by orders of
                                                                        28 February and 14 February 2001 in the cases of Christa
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Neukomm against Österreichischer Rundfunk and Josef
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bologna                      Lauermann against Österreichischer Rundfunk
of 20 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on
21 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone Ascensori SpA on                              (Cases C-138/01 and C-139/01)
the following question:
                                                                                                 (2001/C 173/43)
‘For the purposes of application of the provisions contained in
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts published in Official Journal               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1993 L 95, can the co-ownership of buildings referred to in             European Communities by orders of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Articles 1117-1139 of the Civil Code be regarded as a                   der Republik Österreich of 28 February and 14 February 2001,
consumer where the individual owners are natural persons or             received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a
are acting for purposes outside their trade, business or                preliminary ruling in the cases of Christa Neukomm against
profession?’                                                            Österreichischer Rundfunk and Josef Lauermann against Öster-
                                                                        reichischer Rundfunk on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                        1.    Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
                                                                              on data protection (Articles 1, 2, 6, 7 and 22 of Directive
                                                                              95/46/EC (1) in conjunction with Article 6 (formerly
                                                                              Article F) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 8