You are on page 1of 2

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.
25.7.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 234/23

The Applicant claims that the Court should: Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

a) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
rules concerning copyright and rights related to down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable 1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
retransmission (1) and/or by failing to inform the necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
Commission thereof; conclusions of the Commission and/or informing the
Commission thereof.
and

b) order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure. (1) OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the former officials, retired officials of the Commission of the
judicial year 1997/1998 European Communities, residing in Germany, represented
(98/C 234/44) by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
At its Plenary Conference held on 1 July 1998 the Court
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
of First Instance took formal note of the fact that, owing
Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by Council of the European
to the judicial vacation, the oath-taking ceremony before
Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, Antonio Lucidi and
the Court of Justice for new members of the Court of First
Diego Canga Fano and, subsequently, Mr Lucidi and Mr
Instance could not take place until after the judicial
Canga Fano alone), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
vacation and that consequently, in accordance with the
Sabine Maass, Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and
third paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
Court of Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the
Johannes van den Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for
EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, and the third
annulment of the applicants' pension statements for
paragraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Statute of the Court
December 1994, inasmuch as those statements are drawn
of Justice, the decisions of 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271 of
up on the basis of Council Regulation (ECSC, EC,
6.9.1997) and 10 March 1998 (OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998)
Euratom) No 3161/94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting,
on the designation of the Presidents of Chambers, the
with effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and
composition of the Chambers and the assignment of cases
pensions of officials (OJ L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and,
to them would continue to apply and that the President of
second, for reinstatement of the applicants' pension rights
the Court, Mr Bo Vesterdorf, would continue to exercise
in full, weighted, with effect from 3 October 1990, at the
the presidency of the Court of First Instance.
rate fixed by reference to the cost of living in Berlin, and
for default interest at the annual rate of 10 % Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June
1998, in which it:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of 9 June 1998
in Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 Others and Franz Becker and 6 Others v Commission 1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
of the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð 2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Act adversely affecting an official)
(98/C 234/45)
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
(Language of the case: French)

In Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 other former officials and Franz Becker and 6 other