CELEX: C2000/079/31
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-10/00: Action brought on 13 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 79/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-                          Regulation No 259/93 of waste to be transported for an
tentgericht by order of that court of 20 October 1999 in                     intended recovery operation under Annex II B to Directive
            the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co                               75/442/EEC (2) and, in the event that the classification is
                                                                             incorrect, prohibit the transport of such waste?
                         (Case C-517/99)
                                                                         2. In the reasoned objection to the transport of waste on the
                          (2000/C 79/29)                                     ground that the planned transport is not for purposes of
                                                                             recovery but for disposal, contrary to the classification
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       indicated by the notifier in the accompanying notification,
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                     may the competent authority at the place of dispatch rely
(Federal Patents Court) of 20 October 1999, received at the                  on the matters constituting grounds for an objection under
Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling                 the fifth indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93?
in the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. on the following
question:                                                                3. Should the reply to Question 2 be in the negative:
Is Article 3(1)(d) of the First Council Directive of 21 December             On what provision of Regulation No 259/93 or other
1988 (1) to approximate the laws of the Member States relating               provisions of Community law may the competent auth-
to trade marks (89/104/EEC) to be interpreted restrictively,                 ority at the place of dispatch rely in refusing to authorise a
contrary to the wording thereof, as meaning that only signs or               transport of waste, where contrary to the information
indications which directly describe goods and services for                   given by the notifier, the transport is for purposes not of
which registration has specifically been applied, or the essential           recovery but of disposal?
characteristics or features thereof, are affected by the bar to
registration? Or is the provision to be construed as meaning
that, in addition to ‘free signs’ and generic names, signs or            4. Is any delivery of waste to a mine to be regarded,
indications which have become customary in the current                       irrespective of the actual circumstances of such delivery, as
language or in the bona fide and established practices of the                a disposal of waste within the meaning of Regulation
trade in the relevant or a similar sector as advertising slogans,            No 259/93 in conjunction with Annex II A (D 12) to
indications of quality or incitements to purchase etc., without              Directive 75/442/EEC?
directly describing the specific characteristics of the goods or
services for which registration has been applied, may likewise           5. If Question 4 is answered in the negative:
not be registered?
                                                                             According to what criteria is classification under the
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p.1.                                                       operations listed in Annex II to Directive 75/442 to be
                                                                             carried out?
                                                                         (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that court of 16 December 1999 in
the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG against Federal
     Minister for the Environment, Youth and Family
                           (Case C-6/00)
                          (2000/C 79/30)                                 Action brought on 13 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Supreme Administrative Court) of 16 December 1999,                                            (Case C-10/00)
received at the Court Registry on 11 January 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG                                         (2000/C 79/31)
against Federal Minister for the Environment, Youth and
Family on the following questions:
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
1. Is the competent authority at the place of dispatch under             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 January
    Council Regulation No 259/93 (1) on supervision and                  2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the            represented by Enrico Traversa and Hans Hartvig, Legal
    European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) competent to                 Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    verify the correctness of the classification by the notifier as      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
    waste for recovery under the fifth indent of Article 6(5) of         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 79/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 18 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(a) Declare that, by failing to make available to the Com-
    mission LIT 29 223 322 226 and by not paying default
    interest on that amount as from 1 January 1996, the Italian                                (Case C-14/00)
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    Community provisions on own resources;
                                                                                               (2000/C 79/32)
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 January
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
The Commission and the Italian Republic have agreed that the          and Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to
duties relating to the importation into Italy of goods from           the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
third countries intended for San Marino during the period             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
running from 1 January 1979 to 30 November 1992 (that is              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
to say before the entry into force of the interim commercial
and customs union agreement between the Community and
San Marino of 16 December 1991 (1), did not constitute                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community own resources in view of San Marino’s sovereign
state status and of the fact that it was not a Member State of
the Community. It was moreover agreed that a specific                 — Declare that, by prohibiting products containing vegetable
distinction was to be drawn between the duties payable to San              fats other than cocoa butter, which are lawfully manufac-
Marino and the duties levied by Italy which constituted                    tured in Member States which permit the use of such
Community own resources and that, in order to protect the                  substances, from being marketed in Italy under the name
Community’s financial interests, such a distinction could not              with which they are marketed in the State of origin
be made unilaterally by Italy without the approval of the                  and requiring that such products be marketed only on
Commission. However, no agreement was reached with regard                  condition that they bear the words ‘chocolate substitute’,
to the method to be employed when determining the duties                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
payable to San Marino; Italy has therefore improperly reduced              Article 28 of the Treaty; and
the own resources payable to the Community by carrying out
deductions, without the prior approval of the Commission,
according to a method contested by the Commission.                    — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
According to the Commission, by continuing to make
deductions unilaterally from its payment of own resources
without the approval of the Commission and without                    Pleas in law and main arguments
responding to the Commission’s request to justify such
deductions, thus threatening improperly to reduce the Com-
munity’s own resources, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the Treaty.                                                     A ministerial circular adopted in 15 March 1996 lays down
                                                                      that chocolate products originating in the United Kingdom,
                                                                      Ireland and Denmark containing vegetable fats other than
The Commission accordingly asked the Italian Government to            cocoa butter may be marketed in Italy only under the name
make available to the Commission LIT 29 223 322 226 and               ‘chocolate substitute’.
to pay default interest thereon as from 1 January 1996, the
date from which such interest was due in view of the failure to
pay the principal sum, and until that sum is made available.
                                                                      The chocolate products in question are products which are
                                                                      lawfully manufactured in Member States which permit the
Since the abovementioned amount has not been made available           addition of vegetable fats and which comply with the manufac-
to the Commission and since the relevant default interest has         turing requirements laid down in Council Directive
not been paid, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its          73/241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the
obligations under the Community provisions relating to own            laws of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate,
resources.                                                            products intended for human consumption (1).
(1) OJ 1992 L 359, p. 14.
                                                                      The Italian authorities claim that the national provisions in
                                                                      question do not prevent access to the Italian market for the
                                                                      products concerned but rather provide for a namechange in
                                                                      the interests of consumer protection.