You are on page 1of 2

12.8.

2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
Permesaen v Office national des pensions time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest
due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?
(Case C-233/06)

(2006/C 190/18) (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progres-
sive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the


European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

Parties to the main proceedings (Case C-247/06)

Applicant: Noëlle Permesaen (2006/C 190/19)

Defendant: Office national des pensions


Language of the case: German

Questions referred
Parties
1. With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of
the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be inter- sented by: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
ticular sex, originally discriminated against, to become
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment
(a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions Form of order sought
recovery of which would be time-barred under the legisla-
tion applicable in that State in the case of the latter category
of persons? — Declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has
infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex I, point 9,
If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the projects on the environment by authorising the construc-
Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that tion and operation of a wood gas firing plant on the
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the premises of Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche
applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions GmbH in Herzogenrath without first carrying out an assess-
which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of ment of the effects on the environment;
that legislation?
— Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
2. With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the
Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third sub-
paragraph of Article 16b(4)) Pleas in law and main arguments
Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to The subject-matter of the application is an authorisation given
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par- for a wood gas firing plant for obtaining process heat and elec-
ticular sex, originally discriminated against, to become trical current for sand mining and sand reclamation. According
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of to the application for authorisation, only such wood chips
persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large were to be used as did not constitute dangerous waste.
amount of late payment interest recovery of which would However, after the report on environmental effects was drawn
be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State up in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC, the application for
in the case of the latter category of persons? authorisation was amended so as to include the use of wood
chips that were classifiable as dangerous waste. The authorisa-
If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be tion for the construction and operation of the plant was issued
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation on 7 November 2002 without any new assessment of the
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the environmental effects on the basis of the amended application.
C 190/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 12.8.2006

In this case, therefore, the possible environmental impact has Form of order sought
not been sufficiently investigated, and the Commission has no
information that the effects of burning dangerous waste have The Commission claims that the Court should:
been investigated. The defendant should have carried out
renewed full public participation after the change in the appli- — declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringe-
cation for authorisation, but failed to do so. ments of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
The Commission takes the view that the Federal Republic of tion under Article 16(3) of that regulation;
Germany has thereby infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with
Annex I, point 9, of Directive 85/37/EEC. — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

The Commission does not accept the defendant's argument Pleas in law and main arguments
that, under the current version of the directive, an environ-
mental assessment is not compulsory even where dangerous Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides: ‘The
waste is burned, on the ground that, in this case, the main sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this
purpose of the plant's operation is not waste disposal but the Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’.
utilisation of waste. Even if Annex I of the current version does Under Article 19, the regulation entered into force on 17
refer only to ‘disposal’, it would be irreconcilable with the February 2005. According to the information available to the
essential purpose to exclude projects with obvious environ- Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet met
mental effect from systematic examination. Waste utilisation the obligation to lay down sanctions, in the event of infringe-
procedures are not necessarily less environmentally threatening ment of the regulation, which are effective, proportionate and
than disposal procedures; as is apparent in this case, it depends dissuasive.
on the particular type of treatment. The Commission takes the
view that the term 'waste-disposal' in point 9 of Annex I to the
regulation covers both the utilisation and disposal of waste.
The contrary legal interpretation of the defendant would lead (1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
to a decisive step backwards in relation to the present legal compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
situation, as installations for the utilisation of waste fall entirely boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing
outside the scope of the directive. Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against


the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02
Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the Council of the European Union
Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-266/06 P)

(2006/C 190/21)
(Case C-264/06)
Language of the case: German
(2006/C 190/20)

Parties
Language of the case: French

Appellant: Degussa AG (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl


and C. Steinle, lawyers,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European


Communities, Council of the European Union
Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre- Forms of order sought


sented by: D. Maidani and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)
1. Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the
Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg appellant.