← Späť na vyhľadávanie
Súdny dvor Európskej únie·3.2.1993

C-366/89

ECLI:EU:C:1993:42

Súd
Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS
61989CC0366

O P I N I O N O F MR D A R M O N — CASE C-366/89

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on 3 February 1993

Mr President, 4. Following the abovementioned judgment Members of the Court, of the Court, Italy adopted Decree N o 691 of 23 August 1982 4 (hereinafter 1. In its judgment of 17 December 1981 ' the 'DPR N o 691') designed to transfer the Court held that by failing to adopt within Directive into national law. the prescribed period the provisions needed in order to comply with a number of Direc­ 5. By formal notice of 13 November 1986, tives concerning the protection of the envi­ the Commission informed the Italian Gov­ ronment, including Council Directive ernment that it considered that that Decree 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils 2 did not completely satisfy the requirements (hereinafter 'the Directive'), the Italian of the Directive and, furthermore, that it Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations hindered intra-Community trade. under the Treaty.

2. By its originating application of 6. The Italian Government replied on 28 November 1989 the Commission has 16 March 1987 that the Decree, and other brought before the Court, this time on the relevant legislative provisions existing or basis of Article 171 of the Treaty, a new adopted in the matter, ensured the confor­ action for failure to fulfil obligations, the mity of the Italian legislation both with the Member State in question still not having rules of the Treaty and the requirements of taken, according to the Commission, all the the Directive. measures necessary to implement the Direc­ tive in its entirety, since it has left Articles 4, 6, 12 and 15 thereof partially unapplied. 7. By reasoned opinion of 15 June 1988, the Moreover, the legislation introduced by Italy Commission maintained its position. is said to be contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty. 8. Italy again disputed that position by letter of 22 December 1988. 3. The Directive pursues a double objective. First, it seeks to bring about equal conditions of competition with respect to the disposal 9. At the hearing, that is to say, three years of waste oils. Secondly, it seeks to protect the after the lodging of the application to the environment against the harmful effects Court (the hearing having been postponed caused by the discharge, deposit or process­ on a number of occasions in view of a possi­ ing of these oils. 3 ble discontinuance of the action), the Com­ mission stated that it would limit its com­ plaints to failure to comply with Articles 6, 12 and 15 of the Directive. There is therefore * Original language: French. 1 — Joined Cases 30/81 to 34/81 Commission ν Italy [1981] ECR 3379. 2 — OJ 1981 L 194, p. 23. 3 — Sec recitals 1 and 3 in the preamble to the Directive. 4 _ Gazzetta Ufficiale N o 270 of 30 September 1982, p. 7081.

I - 4208

COMMISSION ν ITALY

no longer any need to consider the other The Commission shall send an overall sum­ grounds of complaint initially formulated. mary of such information to the Member State.'

10. Let me say at once that the Decree of 13. The Commission complains that the 5 27 January 1992 concerning the implemen­ defendant has not fulfilled that obligation of tation of Directives 75/439/EEC and notification. 87/101/EEC 6 on the disposal of waste oils, even though its effect was to prompt the Commission to withdraw certain of its com­ plaints, cannot be relied on to any purpose in 14. Italy does not deny this. Its reply to the this case. The Court has always been con­ questionnaire drawn up by the Commission cerned to confine its examination exclusively and sent to all the Member States as one of a to the legislation applicable at the time when series of steps concerning the transposition the action was brought. Any legislative pro­ of the Directive may not be treated as equiv­ vision adopted subsequently may not there­ alent to the periodic conveying of infor­ fore be taken into consideration. 7 mation on the experience gained or the tech­ niques used in relation to the disposal of waste oils. 8

11. It must therefore be considered whether, at the time when the action was brought, 15. The failure to fulfil obligations is there­ Italy had or had not taken the measures nec­ fore established on that point. essary to comply with Articles 6, 12 and 15 of the Directive. 16. Let us now consider Articles 6 and 12 of the Directive jointly.

12. Let me dispose at once of the case of Article 15 which provides: 17. Article 6 requires all undertakings dis­ posing of waste oils to obtain a permit. In order to obtain it, those undertakings must satisfy the conditions required by the state of 'Each Member State shall periodically con­ technical development. The permit is vey to the Commission information con­ granted, in so far as is necessary, after exam­ cerning its technical expertise and the experi­ ination of their installations. ence gained and results obtained through the application of measures taken pursuant to this Directive. 18. Article 12 sets up a system of periodic inspection of the 'undertakings referred to in Article 6 ..., particularly as regards their 5 Gazzella Ufficiale of 15 February 1992, No 38. compliance with the conditions of their per­ 6 — Council Directive of 22 December 1986. amending Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1987 L 42, mits.' p. 43). 7 Sec, to thai effect, paragraph 13 of the judgment in Case 291/84 Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands 11987] ECR 3483; sec also the judgment in Case 7/61 Commission v Italy [1961] ECR 317. 8 — Sec p. 8 of the reasoned opinion (Frcnch translation).

I - 4209

O P I N I O N O F MR D A R M O N — CASE C-366/89

19. The Court clearly described, in its judg- provisions concerning either permits or ment in Procureur de la République ν Adb- inspections. hu, 9 the structure of those two articles when it held that:

23. In its first answers to the formal notice and to the reasoned opinion, Italy first main­ '... the Directive requires Member States to tains that Article 20 of Law N o 615 of prohibit any form of waste oil disposal 13 July 1966 concerning atmospheric pollu­ which has harmful effects on the environ­ tion 1 3 leaves it open to a regional committee ment. It is to that end that the Directive to carry out 'inspections on the premises of compels Member States to set up an effective industrial establishments' and goes on to system of prior approval and subsequent state that Articles 4 and 6 of Decree-Law N o inspections'. 1 0 1741 of 2 November 1933 14 satisfies, in any event, the requirements of Articles 6 and 12 of the Directive.

20. Those obligations of authorization and inspection concern undertakings responsible for disposing of waste oils. That disposal can 24. In its defence, the Member State adds be carried out by means of two techniques: that the prior examination with respect to either straightforward destruction, or regen­ the conditions required by the state of tech­ eration " which enables the oils to be reused; nical development constitutes a requirement the latter method has been chosen by the which has already been integrated into Directive. 1 2 administrative practice because it is deemed to form part of the rules of good manage­ ment of the authority responsible for issuing the permit. 1 5 21. Let us look at two cases in turn and see whether the Member State has discharged its obligations regarding permits and inspec­ tions with respect, first, to undertakings 25. It certainly cannot be denied that full which regenerate oils and, secondly, those implementation of a directive may be which dispose of them by incineration. achieved where the Member State has, in its domestic legal system, provisions making it possible to attain the desired result, even where those provisions are scattered among a 22. As regards the undertakings which number of statutes. It is then not necessary regenerate waste oils, the Commission points for that Member State to take specific mea­ out that DPR N o 691 does not contain any sures. But it is still necessary for the Direc­ tive to be applied in its entirety; administra­ tive circulars, and a fortiori mere

9 — Case 240/83 [1985] ECR 531. 10 — Paragraph 29. 11 — On the concept of regeneration, 'a complex chemical pro­ cess which restores to used mineral oils all the properties 13 — Gazzetta Ufficiale della Republica Italiana N o 201 of they had before they were used', sec the judgment in 13 August 1966, p. 4091. Case 21/79 Commission ν Italy [1980] ECR 1. 14 — Gazzetta Ufficiale del Regno d'Italia N o 301, p. 5995. 12 — See Article 3 of the Directive. 15 — P. 7 of the French translation.

I-4210

COMMISSION ν ITALY

administrative practices, cannot constitute systematic and periodic nature of those sufficient implementing provisions. inspections the conduct of which will not necessarily be in accordance with Article 12 of the Directive, since the conditions of the permits defined in Article 6 are not required to be satisfied.

26. However, in view of the non-mandatory and incomplete nature of the legislation referred to by Italy, the requirements of the Directive cannot be satisfied. The Law of 13 July 1966 only relates to atmospheric pol­ 28. The existing national provisions there­ lution, whilst the Directive is designed, more fore do not ensure the full application of generally, to protect waters and soil, and the Articles 6 and 12 concerning regeneration of inspection provided for by that law is uncer­ used oils. tain since it depends on the discretion of a regional committee. Likewise, the provisions of the Decree-Law of 1933 prove to be inad­ equate in two respects. First, they do not, as regards the undertaking, make the granting 29. As regards disposal by incineration of of the permit dependant on the existence of those oils, the Commission, in relation to 'conditions required by the state of technical industrial incineration installations, considers development'. Still less do they require a the provisions of DPR No 203 of 24 May subsequent inspection of the installations. 1988 17 to be adequate.

27. Admittedly, Article 4 of the Decree-Law 30. But it complains of the inadequacy, in requires 'any person intending to process, relation to Articles 6 and 12, of Article 3(3) rectify or treat in any way whatsoever the of DPR No 691 which provides: oils, minerals and residues derived from the refining of those oils' to apply for a 'conces­ sion'. But the granting of the concession is not made subject to the prior checks referred to in the Directive. Article 6 of the Decree- Law may seem more relevant, because it pro­ 'The Minister for Industry, Trade and Crafts vides for 'a permanent inspection from the may, as regards certain stocks, permit under­ technical and fiscal points of view', carried takings to use in their own installations, for out by officials of the competent ministries, the purposes of incineration, used oils that who may 'at any time' enter the offices, they obtained following production or utili depots and premises used for processing. zation cycles, subject to Law No 615 of However, nothing is specified as to the 13 July 1966 and the subsequent provisions concerning atmospheric pollution.'

16 - Sec. in particular, Case 169/87 Commission ν France[1988] ECR 4093. paragraph 12 17 - Gazzetta Ufficiale No 140 of 16 June 1988.

I-4211

OPINION OF MR DARMON — CASE C-366/89

31. That provision is silent as regards the ensure the full application of Articles 6 and technical conformity of the installations and 12 of the Directive as regards non industrial the subsequent inspections which the instal­ undertakings disposing of waste oils by lations must undergo. incineration.

32. As a result, it appears that the national provisions in force are also inadequate to

33. I therefore p r o p o s e that the C o u r t :

(1) declare t h a t b y persisting, despite t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e C o u r t of 17 D e c e m b e r 1981 in Case 30/81 t o 34/81 Commission ν Italy, in n o t taking all t h e measures necessary t o i m p l e m e n t Articles 6, 12 and 15 of C o u n c i l Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 J u n e 1975, t h e Italian Republic has failed t o fulfil its obli­ gations u n d e r Article 171 of t h e Treaty;

(2) order, p u r s u a n t t o Article 69(2) of t h e Rules of Procedure, t h a t t h e costs be b o r n e b y t h e Italian Republic.

I - 4212

Text rozhodnutia bol prevzatý z verejne dostupných úradných zdrojov. Rozhodnutie je úradným dokumentom.
Navrhy_ga C-366/89 – Súdny dvor Európskej únie | AI Pravnik