You are on page 1of 1

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.