You are on page 1of 2

7.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale tion into groundwater of substances in list II of Directive
Ordinario di Milano by order of that Court of 21 February 80/68/EEC so as to avoid pollution of that water by these
2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by substances, by not subjecting to prior investigation any
Andrea Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of the
and AGEA (Agency for Agricultural subsidies) dangerous substances in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC,
which might lead to indirect discharge, and by not
subjecting to prior investigation all direct discharge of
(Case C-162/03) substances in list II of Directive 80/68/EEC and the
disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of those
substances which might lead to indirect discharge, the
(2003/C 135/27)
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
17 December 1979 ( 1) on the protection of groundwater
against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
— declare that, by failing to failing to take the necessary
Milano (Milan District Court) of 21 February 2003, received at
measures to record and identify hazardous waste in the
the Court Registry on 7 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
Thriasio Pedio area, where tipping (discharge) of such
in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by Andrea
waste takes place, and, by failing to draw up, either
Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy and AGEA
separately or in the framework of their general waste
(Agency for Agricultural subsidies) on the following question:
management plans, plans for the management of hazard-
ous waste in the Thriasio Pedio area, the Hellenic Republic
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 6(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the 1991 on hazardous waste ( 2);
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

( 1) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 10.
Pleas in law and main arguments
( 2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.

— Infringement of Directive 80/68/EEC

— Infringement of Directive 91/689/EEC.

(1 ) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.


Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Commission of (2 ) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-163/03)

(2003/C 135/28)

Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of


An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the European Communities against the French Republic
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by V. Jordana and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal (Case C-166/03)
Service.
(2003/C 135/29)
The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to take the necessary steps to


prevent the introduction into groundwater of substances An action against the French Republic was brought before the
in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC and to limit the introduc- Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
C 135/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.6.2003

2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, 27 August 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent. its obligations under Articles 10 and 249 EC and
Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/655/EEC ( 1) of
30 November 1989, amended by Directive 95/63/EC (2)
The applicant claims that the Court should: of 5 December 1995 Council Directive 95/63/EC of
5 December 1995 amending Directive 89/655/EEC con-
— Declare that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ to items stamped cerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
as being of a fineness of 750/000 parts of gold while the use of work equipment by workers at work.
items stamped with a fineness of 375 or 585/000 parts
of gold are to be termed ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic 2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC of
the EC Treaty

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments


Article 1(1) of the Disposición Transitoria Única of the royal
decree grants a period of 12 months from the entry into force
The requirement at issue prohibits the marketing under the thereof for any equipment already in use in undertakings to be
name of ‘gold’ of items containing 585 or 375 thousandths brought into conformity with the requirements set down in
parts of gold which may be termed such in their Member State Annex I thereto (which corresponds to Annex I to the
of origin, thus rendering marketing of such items more directive). Since the royal decree entered into force on
difficult. 27 August 1997, that period allowed Spanish businesses a
transitional period which is much longer than that provided
for in Article 4(1)(b) of the directive.
That prohibition cannot be justified by the requirements of
consumer protection and fair trading, since adequate labelling
is sufficient.
Articles 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Disposición Transitoria Única
provide that, when for specific objective reasons it is impossible
in certain sectors for work equipment to be brought into
conformity within the 12-month period, the employment
authorities, upon the reasoned request of the most representa-
tive associations of employers in the sector and after consulting
the most representative unions in that sector, may exception-
ally authorise a plan to bring work equipment into conformity
Action brought on 11 April 2003 by the Commission of
with Annex I to the royal decree (which corresponds to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Annex I to the directive) of a duration not greater than
five years having regard to the seriousness, importance and
(Case C-168/03) significance of the objective circumstances relied on. Appli-
cations for approval of such a plan were to be submitted, in
accordance with that provision, within nine months from the
(2003/C 135/30) entry into force of the royal decree (that is to say, by 27 June
1998), and the competent employment authority was to take
a decision thereon within the ensuing three months.

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before


the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, The Commission takes the view that that additional transitional
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral, of it Legal Service, period is incompatible with the requirements of Article 4(1)(b)
acting as Agent. of the directive and is entirely unjustified.

The applicant claims that the Court should: (1 ) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning
the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work
1. Declare that, by providing in Article 1 of the Disposición equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within
Transitoria Única (single transitional provision) of Real the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC — OJ
Decreto (Royal Decree) No 1215/1997 of 18 July 1997, 1989 L 393, p. 13.
laying down minimum health and safety requirements (2 ) Council Directive — OJ 1995 L 335, p. 28.
for the use of work equipment by workers, an additional
adjustment period for work equipment already available
to workers at the undertaking and/or plant prior to