You are on page 1of 2

18.12.

1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 366/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 1999
(Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-440/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): GIE Groupe Concorde and Others
v The Master of the vessel ‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and
Others (1) of 29 September 1999

(Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in contractual matters


— Place of performance of the obligation)
in Case C-231/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1999/C 366/17) the Nederlandse Raad van State): A.M.L. van Rooij v
Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel (1)

(Language of the case: French)


(Environment — Directive 76/464/EEC — ‘Discharge’ —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published Possibility for a Member State to adopt a wider definition of
in the European Court Reports) ‘discharge’ than that in the directive)

In Case C-440/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol


of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the (1999/C 366/18)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour de Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between GIE
Groupe Concorde and Others and The Master of the vessel
‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and Others — on the interpretation of (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Sep-
tember 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
and — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of in the European Court Reports)
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed In Case C-231/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents Raad van State, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur- proceedings pending before that court between A.M.L. van
ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet Rooij and Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel,
and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate third party: Gebr. Van Aarle BV — on the interpretation of
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 Sep- Article 1(2) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976
tember 1999, in which it has ruled: on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
charged into the aquatic environment of the Community
On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg- sed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26 May
1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese 1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
Republic, the place of performance of the obligation, within the 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
meaning of that provision, is to be determined in accordance with the dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
law governing the obligation in question according to the conflict the Community must be interpreted as covering the emission of
rules of the court seized. contaminated steam which is precipitated on to surface water.
The distance between those waters and the place of emission of
the contaminated steam is relevant only for the purpose of
(1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
determining whether the pollution of the waters cannot be
regarded as foreseeable according to general experience, so that
the pollution is not attributable to the person causing the steam.
C 366/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 18.12.1999

2. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 must to Directive 76/464 (OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16) — the Court (Sixth
be interpreted as covering the emission of contaminated steam Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
which is first precipitated on to land and roofs and then reaches Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges;
the surface water via a storm water drain. It is not material in A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
this respect whether the drain in question belongs to the the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 September 1999, in
establishment concerned or to a third party. which it has ruled:

(1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997. 1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
the Community must be interpreted as not including the pollution
from significant sources, including multiple and diffuse sources,
referred to in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 86/280/EEC of
12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for
discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of
the Annex to Directive 76/464.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber) 2. The expression ‘significant sources ... (including multiple and
diffuse sources)’ in Article 5(1) of Directive 86/280 must be
interpreted as not including the escape of creosote from wooden
of 29 September 1999 posts placed in surface water, where the pollution caused by that
substance is attributable to a person.
in Case C-232/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Nederlandse Raad van State): L. Nederhoff & Zn. v
Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraad- 3. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 must
schap Rijnland (1) be interpreted as including the placing by a person in surface
water of wooden posts treated with creosote.
(Environment — Directives 76/464/EEC, 76/769/EEC and
86/280/EEC — ‘Discharge’ — Possibility for a Member
4. Directive 76/464 permits Member States to make the authoris-
State to adopt more stringent measures than those provided
ation for a discharge subject to additional requirements not
for in Directive 76/464/EEC — Effect of Directive
provided for in that directive, in order to protect the aquatic
76/769/EEC on such a measure)
environment of the Community against pollution caused by
certain dangerous substances. The obligation to investigate or
(1999/C 366/19) choose alternative solutions which have less impact on the
environment constitutes such a requirement, even if it may have
the effect of making the grant of authorisation impossible or
(Language of the case: Dutch) altogether exceptional.

5. The limitative conditions for the use of creosote laid down in


(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published point 32 of Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC of
in the European Court Reports) 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
In Case C-232/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse substances and preparations, as amended by European Parlia-
Raad van State for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings ment and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994,
pending before that court between L. Nederhoff & Zn. and do not preclude an authority of a Member State, when considering
Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap applications for authorisation concerning the introduction into
Rijnland — on the interpretation of Council Directive surface water by professional users of wood treated with that
76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain substance, from establishing criteria of assessment such that its
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment use is impossible or altogether exceptional.
of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), Council Directive
76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ 1976 (1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997.
L 262, p. 201), as amended by European Parliament and
Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994 (OJ 1994
L 365, p. 1), and Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June
1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex