You are on page 1of 2

25.7.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 234/21

naturally used predominantly by goods vehicles in Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeits-
regional and local traffic, registered in Austria. For gericht (Regional Labour Court) Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
traffic on those part sections, significantly, there has mern by order of that court of 16 April 1998 in the case of
not even been an adjustment for inflation. Silke-Karin Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
(Case C-207/98)

(98/C 234/40)
There is also an indirect difference of treatment on
grounds of the nationality of the carrier in the fact
that the two toll increases together apply only to
goods vehicles of more than three axles, whereas for
goods vehicles of up to three axles no toll increases Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
have been introduced even for the whole Brenner European Communities by an order of the Landesarbeits-
motorway route, since in the latter category vehicles of gericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern of 16 April 1998,
Austrian registration are clearly dominant. The which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1998,
different treatment cannot be justified on the basis of for a preliminary ruling in the case of Silke-Karin
greater wear on the roads, since not only the number Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on the
of axles but also factors such as the total tonnage in following question:
proportion to the number of axles, the axle load and
the suspension system of the driving axles play a
decisive role in this respect.
Is there unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex within
the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC of
9 February 1976 (1) where an employer does not employ
Finally, the Brenner motorway toll system also an applicant in a vacant post, which she is qualified to
indirectly differentiates according to the origin and hold, because she is pregnant and cannot from the outset
destination of goods vehicles. The imposition of quite and for the duration of her pregnancy be employed in the
disproportionately high tolls on the whole route as post, which is intended to be occupied permanently,
opposed to the part sections affects especially transit because of a prohibition on employment under the
traffic, that is, traffic whose origin and destination are Mutterschutzgesetz (Maternity Law)?
both outside Austria. The converse applies to the
exemption from the toll increase of goods vehicles of
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
not more than three axles.

Ð Infringement of Article 7(h) of the directive: Under
Article 7(h) of the directive, toll increases must be
related to increased costs of the toll roads themselves.
In the present case this is quite evidently the case only
to a very limited extent. The operating company's Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
expenditure on the Brenner motorway, according to Potsdam by order of that court of 27 April 1998 in the
information from the Austrian Government, has partly case of Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG against Andreas
fallen considerably in recent years, yet in the same Siepert
period markedly higher toll income has been received.
(Case C-208/98)
The Austrian Government wrongly adduces
expenditure by the financing company ASFINAG for (98/C 234/41)
other motorways and expressways in Austria. The
term network' in Article 7(h) of the directive, in the
context of the provisions relating to tolls, can only
mean those roads for whose use tolls are lawfully
charged. Since Austria levies a general user charge for Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
motor vehicles with a maximum permitted weight of European Communities by order of the Landgericht
not less than 12 tonnes (fourth indent of Article 2 of Potsdam (Regional Court, Potsdam) of 27 April 1998,
the directive), that means in the present case only the received at the Court registry on 2 June 1998, for a
Brenner motorway itself, in so far as it is to be preliminary ruling in the case of Berliner Kindl Brauerei
regarded as a series of bridges, tunnels and mountain AG v Andreas Siepert on the following question:
passes'.

(1) OJ L 279 of 12.11.1993, p. 32. Does a contract of guarantee concluded by a natural
(2) [1995] ECR I-1827. person not acting in the course of a trade or profession
fall within the scope of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States concerning consumer credit (OJ L 42 of 12.2.1987,
C 234/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.7.98

p. 48) if it serves to secure the repayment of a debt which system as described in Question 1(a) to be
the principal debtor did not incur in the course of a trade established, where that system and the obligation
or profession already being pursued by him? for waste producers to use the system are based
on the interest in promoting recovery of the waste
covered by the system, including the interest in
ensuring necessary treatment capacity?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the éstre Landsret 2. Must Article 10 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended
by order of 27 May 1998 in the case of FFAD Ð by Directive 91/156/EEC (see Articles 13 and 2(j) of
Entreprenùrforeningens Affalds/Miljùsektion, acting on Regulation (EEC) No 259/93), be construed as
behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune meaning that public authorities are under an
of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority obligation to treat equally undertakings which have
Ð Environmental Control obtained a permit as described in that provision in
(Case C-209/98) relation to the conclusion of agreements concerning
the receipt and recovery of environmentally non-
(98/C 234/42) hazardous building waste?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 May 1998 from 3. (a) Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
the éstre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, be construed
received at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a as meaning that that provision and the power it
preliminary ruling in the case of FFAD Ð grants to prevent movements of waste allow a
Entreprenùrforeningens Affalds/Miljùsektion, acting on communal system such as that described in
behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune Question 1(a) and thereby allow the commune to
of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority prevent the movement of environmentally non-
Ð Environmental Control on the following questions: hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if
such movement is contrary to the waste plan
1. (a) Disregarding possible application of Article 36 of drawn up by the commune?
the Treaty or any other valid considerations (see
Question 1(c)), must Article 90 of the Treaty, in
(b) Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
conjunction with Articles 34 and 86 thereof, be
amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, be construed
construed as precluding the establishment of a
as meaning that measures which a Member State
communal system which Ð with a view to
or a competent authority in that Member State
ensuring that specially selected undertakings will
has adopted, and which are necessary to prevent
have sufficiently large access to environmentally
movements of waste not in accordance with the
non-hazardous building waste destined for
waste plans of the authority, are valid and
recovery from private builders to enable those
enforceable against individuals or undertakings to
undertakings to exploit that waste on an
which the measures are relevant only if the EC
economically justifiable and rational basis Ð
Commission has been notified of those measures?
excludes other undertakings from collecting and
receiving the same type of waste from building
work within the area of the commune in question, (1) Council Directive of 75/442/EEC 15 July 1975 on waste
even though these other undertakings have (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39).
obtained a permit to treat the type of waste in (2) Council Directive of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991,
p. 32).
question in accordance with Article 10 of
Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
91/156/EEC (2)?

(b) (If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative):

Would a system such as that described in
Question 1(a) be contrary to Article 90 of the EC Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the
Treaty, in conjunction with Articles 34 and 86 European Communities against Ireland
thereof, if the communal provision forming the
(Case C-212/98)
basis of that system provides that waste which is
exported or imported is not covered by the (98/C 234/43)
communal system mentioned in Question 1(a)?

(c) (If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative):
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Does Article 36 of the Treaty or any other valid Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998
considerations, such as the concern that by the Commission of the European Communities,
environmental damage should be rectified at represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
source and the establishment of any necessary Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
treatment and disposal facilities (see office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its
Article 130r(2) of the Treaty), allow a communal Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.