C-292/99

I - 4099

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-292/99

particular, Article 5, in the original version, The plan or plans may, for example, cover: provided for Member States to establish or designate 'the competent authority or auth­ orities to be responsible, in a given zone, for the planning, organisation, authori­ sation and supervision of waste disposal operations'. — the natural or legal persons empowered to carry out the disposal of waste,

4. More specifically, Article 6, in the orig­ inal version, went on to provide that: — the estimated costs of the disposal operations,

'The competent authority or authorities referred to in Article 5 shall be required — appropriate measures to encourage to draw up as soon as possible one or rationalisation, of the collection, sort­ several plans relating to, in particular: ing and treatment of waste.'

— the type and quantity of waste to be disposed of, 5. As regards the time-limit for the trans­ position of Directive 75/442, Article 13, in the original version, provided:

Such plans may, for example, cover: 'Member States shall establish or designate the competent authority or authorities to be responsible for the implementation of this Directive.'

— the natural or legal persons empowered to carry out the management of waste,

8. In its turn, Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, in the text amended by Directive 91/156, now provides:

— the estimated costs of the recovery and disposal operations,

'In order to attain the objectives referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5, the competent authority or authorities referred to in Article 6 shall be required to draw up as soon as possible one or more waste man­ — appropriate measures to encourage agement plans. Such plans shall relate in rationalisation of the collection, sorting particular to: and treatment of waste'.

— the type, quantity and origin of waste 9. As regards the time-limit for the trans­ to be recovered or disposed of, position of Directive 91/156, the first paragraph of Article 2(1) provides that:

The Commission... will draw up, not later than 1 April 1993, a list of wastes belong­ 13. Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Directive ing to the categories listed in Annex I. This 91/689, as replaced by Council Directive list will be periodically reviewed and, if 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, necessary, revised by the same procedure.' p. 28):

11. On the basis of that provision, on 'The Member States shall bring into force 20 December 1993 the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative adopted Decision 94/3/EC establishing a provisions necessary to comply with the list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive before 27 June 1995. They shall Council Directive 75/442 on waste forthwith inform the Commission thereof.' (OJ 1993 L 5, p. 15). That list is called the 'European Waste Catalogue'.

14. It should be added that, pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689, on 22 December 1994, the Council adopted 2. Directive 91/689 Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste items (OJ 1994 L 356, p. 14).

12. The object of Directive 91/689 is to approximate the laws of the Member States 15. I would recall, next, that Directive on the controlled management of hazard­ 91/689 replaced, by repealing it, Council

I - 4102

COMMISSION v FRANCE

18. Directive 94/62 aims 'to harmonise national measures concerning the manage­ ment of packaging waste in order, on the — suitable disposal sites. one hand, to prevent any impact thereof on the environment of all Member States as well as of third countries or to reduce such impact, thus providing a high level of environmental protection, and, on the other hand, to ensure the functioning of The competent authorities of the Member the internal market and to avoid obstacles States may include other specific aspects, in to trade and distortion and restriction of particular the estimated cost of the disposal competition within the Community' (see operations.' Article 1(1)).

I - 4103

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-292/99

19. Article 14 of Directive 94/62, entitled de la République française (JORF) of 'Management Plans', provides: 16 July 1975, p. 7279], as subsequently amended and supplemented by Law No 92-646 of 13 July 1992 on the waste disposal and registered environmental pro­ tection centres (loi relative à l'élimination 'In pursuance of the objectives and meas­ des déchets ainsi qu'aux installations clas­ ures referred to in this Directive, Member sées pour la protection de l'environnement; States shall include in the waste manage­ JORF of 14 July 1992, p. 9461) and Law ment plans required pursuant to Article 7 No 95-101 on increasing environmental of Directive 75/442/EEC, a specific chapter protection (loi relative au renforcement de on the management of packaging and la protection de l'environnement; JORF of packaging waste... .' 3 February 1995, p. 1840; hereinafter 'Law No 75-633').

24. The first paragraph of Article 10-2 of III— Analysis Law No 75-633 provides:

'A departmental or inter-departmental plan 27. By the present action, the Commission for the disposal of domestic waste and complains that the French Republic has other waste referred to in Article L.373-3 failed to comply with Directives 75/442 (as of the Communal Code governing com­ amended), 91/689 and 94/62 in view of the mues shall be drawn up for every depart­ continuing failure to complete the waste ment.' disposal plans in terms of their geographi­ cal and material coverage, and in view of the failure to include in those plans a specific chapter on packaging waste. I will analyse the three complaints one at a time 25. Those legislative provisions were sub­ in sequence. sequently specified by Decree No 93-139 of 3 February 1993 on plans for the disposal of domestic and similar waste (décret relatif aux plans d'élimination des déchets ménagers et assimilés; JORF of 4 February 1993, p. 1874) and Decree No 93-140 of 3 February 1993 on plans for the disposal of waste other than domestic and similar waste (décret relatif aux plans d'élimi­ A — On the incomplete geographical nation de déchets autre que les déchets coverage of the management plans ménagers et assimilés; JORF of 4 February 1993, p. 1875).

29. For its part, the French Government arily implying total coverage of the recognises the merits of the complaint, at national territory within the prescribed least as regards 10 of the departments and 4 time-limit. For the directives in question of the regions. However, it objects that the to be able to be regarded as implemented absence of a plan does not constitute an within the prescribed time-limits, it could infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive thus be sufficient for the national auth­ 75/442 (as amended by Directive 91/156) orities to furnish proof of having acted, and Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689 for a within the prescribed time-limit, with the number of reasons related to the rather diligence necessary for the preparation of 'flexible' nature of the time-limit imposed the tasks necessary to obtain the result on the Member States to comply with those intended by the directives: that is to say directives, the difficulties encountered by that they have established a relevant legal the French authorities in drawing up those framework, have embarked upon work of a plans and the fact that, in the process of technical nature and made the necessary transposition, the national legislature set provisions for the subsequent drafting of out more ambitious objectives than those the plans. provided for by the directives in question.

I - 4106

COMMISSION v FRANCE

tation of a directive; the national auth­ qualification, precisely as in the directives orities remained obliged, however, to intro­ in question. 4 duce provisions at the earliest opportunity in keeping with the directive's intention. In any event, the Commission concludes, not even a wide interpretation of that phrase could justify a failure to act such as that of France which continues to this day despite the long period of time that has elapsed since the expiry of the time-limit for the 34. Obviously, that only accentuates the transposition of the directives in question. intrinsic ambiguity of the phrase in the context of those directives and its apparent contradiction with the provisions which lay down precise time-limits for their trans­ position, an ambiguity to be traced, in all probability, to one of those compromises that not infrequently mark, in the Commu­ nity authorities' negotiations for the imple­ mentation of such complex directives, as appears to be borne out by comparison with the Commission's proposal leading to Directive 75/442 in which, in fact, that 5 phrase does not appear at all. It is also for 33. For my part, I note at the outset that that reason that I consider it in any event the contested phrase is not only not par­ advisable to avoid any pretext for devel­ ticularly clear, but is not even one of the oping a general analysis of that point and most frequently employed in Community to limit instead the interpretation of the acts and is even less so couched in the terms phrase to its specific context, as suggested, in which it is employed by the directives in moreover, by the Commission. question. Where, in fact, the already limited number of Community provisions employ that phrase (for the most part in respect of obligations to forward data and information) it is usually followed by an 3 unequivocal 'and not later than...'. Even more rare are the cases in which the phrase appears completely by itself without further 35. That said, and returning to the two arguments at issue, I must say that both of

I - 4107

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-292/99

cance. Moreover, the Commission itself has factorily concluded in the Commission's acknowledged that that phrase implies a favour, 8have all been resolved with judg 9 certain degree of tolerance towards dif ments against the State concerned. While ficulties that may be encountered by it is true that in all the proceedings taken so national authorities, even if in the examples far no question of interpretation of the it has given and above all in the general phrase 'as soon as possible' has been raised, approach it has adopted it has gone too far as in the present case, it is nevertheless also in limiting its scope of application. In its true that in those cases the Court has turn, the French argument seems to me to consistently judged the delays by the go too far in the opposite direction because, Member States severely without ever at least for the present purposes, it com raising any doubt that that phrase could pletely negates the provision concerning the in some way influence the manner in which time-limit for the transposition of the such delays are assessed. On the contrary, it directives either by making that time-limit has very clearly ruled that respect for 'the flexible and uncertain, replacing it by an more specific obligations of drawing up a indefinite expiry date, or by making it vary waste disposal plan and drawing up, and from State to State thereby undermining the keeping up to date, plans for the disposal of uniform application of the directives. toxic and dangerous waste, imposed by Article 6 [now Article 7(1)] of Directive 75/442 and Article 12 of Directive 78/319 [equivalent to Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689] respectively.

I - 4108

COMMISSION v FRANCE

national territory. In that perspective, then, it could be maintained that the insertion of the phrase into the directives in question stems from the awareness of the possibility, and perhaps even the probability, that such difficulties are particularly pertinent and 38. However, if it is accepted that such mean that Member States must have may be the meaning and scope of the greater leeway with regard to time. If, phrase 'as soon as possible', then in my however, despite that, the directives make opinion it is truly difficult to conclude that no provision for derogations from the the abovementioned conditions apply in the time-limits for their transposition, it must present case. No matter how major the

over and above the various amendments made to Directives 75/442 and 78/319, the time-limits for complying with the clear 12 — Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraphs 69 and 70. obligations still imposed by those directives 13 — Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece, cited above. expired on 18 July 1977 and 22 March

39. For that reason, I cannot associate myself with the charge of irrationality levelled at the Commission by the French 40. As noted above, the French Govern­ Government on the grounds that all the ment also maintains that the infringement French territory was already covered by with which it is charged may be justified on waste management plans when the present the ground that it has encountered a procedure was initiated and that the Com­ number of difficulties, such as the decision mission did not appreciate the diligence by the Midi-Pyrénées region to make shown by the national authorities in ensur­ provision itself for drawing up the regional ing that 85-90% of the departments and plan instead of leaving it to central govern­ regions had waste management plans after ment or the particular technical complexity years of effort expended to transpose involved in drawing up plans for the islands Directives 75/442 and 91/689. It is even (Corsica and Guadeloupe) or for overseas more difficult for me to associate myself territories (Guyana) compared to plans for with that charge if account is taken of the rigorous positions taken in the Community 15 — The Court has ruled as 'considerable' an infringement of case-law on the requirements that the those obligations that lasted for three years (see Case directives in question and the motives that C-387/97 Commission v Greece, cited above, paragraphs 26 and 98, with reference to the period which had elapsed between the entry into force of the EU Treaty and the Commission's reasoned opinion). 1 note that the Court, in an equally strict ruling, held as insufficient the mere adoption of a genera! provision whereby a Member 14 — Nor should it be forgotten, for the purposes of a better State entrusted to the regions the task of drawing up waste appreciation of the basis of the French argument concern­ management plans, without those regions subsequently ing the alleged restrictive nature of the time-limits for the taking any concrete steps to adopt those plans within the transposition of the directives in question, that the Court time-limit prescribed for transposition (see Case C-33/90 has consistently held that 'the governments of the Member Commission v Italy, cited above, paragraphs 22 to 25, States participate in the preparatory work for directives with reference to the previous Article 6 of Directive 75/442 and must therefore be in a position to prepare within the and Article 12(1) of Directive 78/319, now repealed). period prescribed the legislative provisions necessary for their implementation' (Case C-301/81 Commission v 16 — Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy, cited above, Belgium [1983] ECR 467, paragraph 11). paragraph 70.

42. Finally, while still attempting to justify the delay in question, the French Govern­ ment stresses that the national legislature has set out objectives which are more ambitious than those pursued by Directives 41. In light of what I have said a little 75/442 and 91/689 with a view, in par­ earlier, however, I am of the opinion that ticular, to the early transposition of Direc­ 19 such arguments cannot justify such con­ tive 1999/31 in relation to the official sistent delays. On the other hand, I must time-limit of 16 July 2001 (see point to the settled case-law of the Court, Article 16(1)). repeated on several occasions also in relation to the implementation of the direc­ tives in question here, according to which 'a Member State may not plead domestic difficulties, such as difficulties of imple­ mentation which emerge at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect, to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down by Community 43. However, not even that argument 17 law'. According to well-known case- strikes me as convincing. If it is true that 18 law, the French authorities would have there are numerous directives requiring been able to justify their failure to comply partial harmonisation which explicitly per­ or late compliance only if they had demon­ mit Member States to adopt national strated that it was objectively impossible to provisions that are more comprehensive fulfil the specific obligations imposed by or stricter than those that are to be trans­ Directives 75/442 and 91/689. However, in posed, that does not of course justify any the present case it does not appear to me delays in pursuing the intended result of that the difficulties complained of amount those directives. The Court's case-law has to cases of objective impossibility, nor have not only confirmed with clarity and preci­ those authorities involved them as such. sion the well-known principles regarding the obligation to implement a directive within the prescribed time-limit, but has 17 — Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece, cited above, also clearly established that, when the paragraph 21, dealing specifically with the obligations to Community institutions subsequently make provision for the waste management plans laid down in Article 6 of Directive 75/442, in its original version, and amend a directive, Member States may Article 12(1) of Directive 78/319; see also Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece, cited above, paragraph 70 and, in not delay transposing that directive in order relation to the 'technical difficulties' ofimplementing a directive, Case C-71/97 Commission v Spain [19981 ECR 1-5991, paragraph 15. 18 — To that effect, see, for all, Case C-307/98 Commission v 19 — Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on waste Belgium [20001 ECR I-3933, paragraph 54 in which disposal (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1; hereinafter 'Directive further citations appear. 99/31').

B — On the incomplete material coverage 46. However, I must point out that first to of the management plans complain of a lack of information was the Commission when it complained that the information forwarded by the French Gov­ ernment during the pre-litigation procedure had not helped it in its task of ascertaining whether all the waste referred to in the 1. On the inadequacy of the facts on which directives in question had effectively been the Court has been asked to give judgment covered by the management plans already drawn up by the French Republic. In particular, the Commission objected that the national provisions communicated to it referred to concepts of waste as laid down 45. Turning now to the substance of the in French law, concepts whose material complaints raised by the Commission scope had not even been defined. Con­ against France in the present proceedings, sequently, the Commission had not been it is necessary to take as a starting point the able to make a comparison with the remarks concerning the incomplete corresponding concepts embodied in the material coverage of the management directives and, in particular, had not been able to ascertain whether and which cat­ egories of waste continued to be excluded 20 —See Case C-182/94 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-1465, paragraph 6. In the same vein, see Case C-152/98 from the national management plans, Commission v Netherlands ECR 3463, paragraph 21, referring to a change of Community policy concerning measures to tackle water pollution introducea in directives subsequent to the directive which the Commission was complaining had not been transposed within the prescribed 21 — Case C-52/90 Commission v Denmark [19921 ECR time-limits. I-2187, paragraph 17, in which further citations appear.

although covered by the Community legis­ 2. On the substance of the complaint: lation. That was why the choice was made introduction to charge the French Republic with the incomplete material coverage of the plans, and to support the charge with arguments relating only to certain categories of waste, whilst expressing reservations as to whether they could be extended to other 48. As already noted, in order to contest situations. the incomplete nature of the material coverage of the management plans, in breach of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, and Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689, the Commission makes reference to three categories of waste: polychlor- 47. In my opinion the Commission's com­ inated biphenyls (hereinafter 'PCBs'), medi­ plaint is well founded, and not merely cal waste and special domestic waste. because there have been undeniable delays on the part of France in informing the Commission of the implementing provi­ sions for Directives 75/442 and 91/689, some of which, as we shall see, were only communicated in the course of the present proceedings. The fact is that, in reality both in the reasoned opinion and in the appli­ 49. In reply the French Government cation initiating the present proceedings, initially makes a point of a general nature. the reservations expressed by the Commis­ It maintains that it had complied with the sion did not exhaust the grounds of the provisions of the directives in question by complaints made against the French Gov­ specifying different categories of waste ernment, but rather, were intended, to which fully cover all the waste referred to serve a premiss for the Commission's in the Community directives, even though choice to select, as proof of that infringe­ the method chosen was somewhat idiosyn­ ment, just three categories of waste for cratic in that that Government proceeded which the particulars available made it as follows: possible to proceed with an adequate supply of information. Accordingly, the fact that the Commission, faced with information deemed inadequate when judged against the obligations imposed by 22 the directives, limited itself to expressing the fear that those three cases were not isolated in no way prejudices, in my — for certain waste, such as 'domestic opinion, the admissibility of these proceed­ and related waste' and 'special indus­ ings. trial waste', a definition was supplied in a ministerial circular of 1 March 1994 (but submitted only in the course of the present proceedings) which also 22 — As regards the obligation to communicate the measures for transposing the directives in question, see Articles 7(2) and covered certain directives relating to 16(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, Article 2(2) of the drawing up of regional or depart­ Directive 91/156 and Articles 8(1) and 10(1) and (3) of Directive 91/689. mental management plans,

— next, in more general terms, by Decree of waste referred to in the existing manage­ No 97-157 of 15 May 1997 on the ment plans effectively guarantee the cover­ classification of hazardous waste (dé­ age intended by the Community legislation. cret relatif à la classification des déchets dangereux: JORF of 23 May 1997, p. 7764; hereinafter 'Decree No 97-157', also submitted only in the course of the proceedings) provi­ sion was made to establish a complete classification of hazardous waste, albeit in the form of a simple nomen­ clature of such waste (Annex II to Decree 97-157) and thus without any specific provision relating to its man­ agement. In this way, however, if I have understood correctly, the French Government claims to have established 52. Even leaving aside the serious delay in a specific point of reference for draw­ communicating the aforementioned French ing up the management plans without provisions, their content does not appear any specific indications as regards such as to allay the Commission's reserva­ hazardous waste so that such plans tions. But apart from that, it seems to me could be extended to all the waste that the technique chosen by the French specified by the directives in question. Government for transposing the directives is open to question. As the Commission itself points out, the decision to implement the directives in question by a mere minis­ terial circular is rather perplexing, particu­ larly in the light of the Court's settled case-law that the Member States, in trans­ 50. The French Republic therefore con­ posing a directive, must establish in the cludes that there are no residual categories area concerned a specific legislative frame­ of waste not covered by the provisions of work that makes the national law com­ the management plans, with the result that patible with the provisions of the direc­ the obligations imposed by the directives tive 23 in terms that do not give rise to have been complied with in full. doubts or ambiguities not only as regards the contents of the relevant national legis­ lation and its compliance with the directive, but also as regards its format value and its suitability to operate as an appropriate legal basis for regulating the area. Accord­ ingly, a mere practice or administrative 51. The Commission limits itself to point­ circular, for example, are not sufficient for ing out that the French Government has the purposes of correctly transposing a only now supplied it with a definition of certain categories of waste and, despite that information, the legislative technique 23 — See, for example, Cases C-339/87 Commission v Nether- chosen by the French Government does lands [1990] ECR I-851, paragraph 25; C-59/89 Commis- not enable the Commission to establish sion v Germany [19911 ECR I-2607, paragraph 28 and C-340/96 Commission v United Kingdom [1999] ECR with any certainty whether the categories I-2023, paragraph 27.

53. On the other hand, I also consider as 55. The Commission points out that 22 of unsatisfactory the method of transposition the 26 French regions do not have a which consists in the adoption of a minis­ management plan for PCBs. The French terial decree containing a mere nomencla­ Republic does not deny that that was the ture of hazardous waste to be used sub­ situation in October 1998, that is to say at sequently for the purpose of drawing up the the expiry of the time-limit indicated in the management plans that make no explicit reasoned opinion. However, after noting reference to that category of waste. That is that by November 1999 the number of because, as the Commission points out in regions without plans had fallen to 12, the its reply, it is precisely in the management French Government objects that the con­ plans that must be found all the infor­ tinued omission does not constitute an mation needed to specify the types of waste infringement of Directive 91/689 on the to which such plans apply so that the ground that these must be regarded as Commission can verify the completeness of applicable to the regional plans which do 25 their material coverage. not make explicit reference to PCBs should be regarded as covered by the provisions of Decree No 95-157 containing a complete 26 24 — Inter alia, see Case C-239/85 Commission v Belgium list of hazardous waste. However, in its [1986] ECR 3645 , paragraph 7; C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983, paragraph 13; C-306/89 opinion it would be pointless now to Commission v Greece [1991] ECR I-5863, paragraph 19 and C-96/95 Commission v Germany [1997] ECR I-1653, review the remaining regional management paragraph 38. plans given that it is in the process of 25 — I note that Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 as amended provides that: drawing up a national plan for the decon­ '... the competent authorities shall be required to draw up tamination and/or disposal of equipment waste management plans. Such plans shall relate in particular to: containing PCBs in compliance with Coun­ — the type, quality and origin of waste to be recovered or disposed of, cil Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September — general technical requirements, 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated — any special arrangements for particular wastes, — suitable disposal sites or installations. biphenyls and polychlorinated triphenyls Such plans may, for example, cover: — the natural or legal persons empowered to carry out the management of waste, — the estimated costs of the recovery and disposal operations, 26 — That PCBs should be considered hazardous waste is — appropriate measures to encourage rationalisation of beyond doubt seeing that they are explicitly referred to the collection, sorting and treatment of waste'. in Annex I.A., point 10, to Directive 91 / 689 .

58. Next, as regards the alleged pointless¬ ness of transposing Directive 91/689 fol­ lowing the adoption of Directive 96/59, I must point out along with the Commission that Directive 91/689 refers explicitly to PCBs and therefore they cannot be excluded when transposing that directive; 56. I could limit myself to noting that the that the two directives lay down separate French Government itself admits that, even time-limits for transposition and the Com­ today, not all regions have a management mission has still not received from the plan for PCBs and conclude from that fact French Government any notification con­ alone, that the Commission's complaint cerning the transposition of Directive concerning that category of waste should 96/59; that Directive 96/59 does not auth­ be regarded as well founded. However, for orise any derogation with regard to the the sake of completeness, I will now briefly transposition of Directive 91/689; that the deal with the other arguments raised by the fact that Article 11 of Directive 96/59 French Government. provides that the Member States must make provision for programmes and plans for the decontamination, collection and/or disposal of equipment containing PCBs cannot justify the lack of management plans for substances containing PCBs; and, finally, that in any case a delay in trans­ posing a directive (Directive 91/689 should have been transposed by 27 June 1995) cannot be justified by relying on the work 57. As regards the argument that regional under way to implement a different direc­ plans which make no explicit reference to tive (in the present case, Directive 96/59). PCBs are covered by the provisions of Decree No 97-157 containing a list of hazardous waste (including PCBs), I have already said that this legislative technique cannot be regarded as satisfactory because it is essentially limited to a general refer­ ence, whereas Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 (referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689) requires that the manage­ 59. Accordingly, I consider the complaint ment plans themselves provide quite on PCBs to be well founded.

4. Medical waste for transposing that directive does not entail a failure to comply with it. As regards the six regions covered by the 'regional schemes for the disposal of hos­ pital waste', the French Government main­ 60. According to the Commission, the tains that, under the terms of the above- French Government itself accepts that there mentioned circular, those schemes are are still five regions, among those that equivalent to management plans already already have a waste management plan, drawn up for other regions in compliance whose plans do not cover medical waste. A with Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 and further six regions are covered by 'regional Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689. In any schemes for the disposal of hospital waste' event, and whilst acknowledging that it has which was the subject of a ministerial not communicated those 'schemes' within circular of 21 September 1990 calling on the prescribed time-limit, the French Gov­ the regions to make provision for the ernment does not consider a complaint disposal of hospital waste and supply concerning the merits of the scheme general information regarding the methods admissible before the Commission has and instruments to be employed for that examined them. purpose. However, the Commission notes that those 'schemes' have still not been communicated to it by the French auth­ orities and therefore it is not in a position to assess whether they comply with the requirements of the Community legislation, particularly as the same French authorities were supposed to have replaced the afore­ mentioned 'schemes' by 'plans'. Fur­ thermore, the Commission has strong res­ 62. I do not think that there is any need for ervations concerning the guarantees that me to dwell on the complaints concerning can be offered by the ministerial circular as the first five regions as the French Govern­ regards compliance with the requirements ment itself admits the delay, nor does it of Directive 75/442. Accordingly, it con­ seem to me that such delay can be justified cludes that the French Republic has not by reliance on the phrase 'as soon as fulfilled the obligations imposed on it by possible' in view of what I have already the directives in question even in the case of said on that matter (see above, points 33 to the six regions affected by the aforemen­ 39). However, as regards the six regions tioned 'schemes'. said to be covered by 'regional schemes for the disposal of hospital waste', I reiterate the reservations expressed earlier, and shared by the Commission, on recourse to a mere ministerial circular to provide the regions with instructions concerning the 61. The French Government does not dis­ future adoption of those 'schemes'. While pute the fact that in five regions there is still accepting that such instructions do in fact no management plan for the category of exist, even though they have never been waste in question, but it again stresses, communicated to the Commission, I note referring to the use of the phrase 'as soon as that the circular in question contains no possible' in Article 7(1) of Directive indication of the time-limits within which 75/442, that the expiry of the time-limit they are to be carried out; it merely

provides that, should the region not be the 5. Special domestic waste most appropriate administrative unit, the regional prefects may decide, in cooper­ ation with the departmental prefects, that preparatory work on the schemes in ques­ tion be carried out, at least in part, at departmental level, which only provides further confirmation of the unsuitability of 65. Finally, as regards special domestic a circular for ensuring that directives are waste, the Commission considers as unsat­ implemented in full. isfactory the method of transposition chosen by the French legislature which has provided that the category in question may be omitted from regional management plans and included in departmental plans or, alternatively, that special domestic waste may be included simultaneously in a regional plan and a departmental plan. The Commission notes that 18 departments 63. Finally, as regards the French Govern­ still do not have management plans either ment's objection to the Commission's com­ at regional or departmental level. plaint that the aforementioned schemes are not equivalent to the waste management plans as provided for in the Community directives in question, I simply note that the ministerial circular refers only to 'hospital wastes', whilst Annex I.A. of Directive 91/689 refers to broader categories of medical waste including (in addition to 66. In reply, the French Government con­ the specific mention of 'hospital wastes') tends that the present complaint is in part a 'other clinical wastes' (point 1) and 'phar­ repetition of the first complaint in that 15 maceuticals, medicines and veterinary com­ of the aforementioned 18 departments were pounds' (point 2). Essentially, at least from already referred to by the Commission to the point of view of their range of material demonstrate the incomplete geographical coverage, the schemes (if they exist) would coverage of the management plans. As for not appear to have the same scope as the the remaining 3, namely the departments of management plans referred to in Directive l'Oise, l'Haute-Loire and le Puy de Dôme, 91/689. the French Government notes that the draft management plan for the first department was adopted by the prefect on 19 October 1999 (and therefore, in any event, after the expiry of the time-limit laid down in the Commission's reasoned opinion of 5 August 1998), whilst the remaining plans were under review. However, once again the French Government justifies its own delay 64. The Commission's complaint concern­ by reference to the phrase 'as soon as ing the category of medical waste must possible' in Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 therefore be regarded as well founded. and Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689.

C — Non-inclusion of a specific chapter on packaging waste in the management plans already drawn up 71. I do not think that I have to spend much time on that point. Given that the French Government itself accepts that not all the waste management plans already drawn up contain a specific chapter on packaging waste, and in view of my earlier 69. Finally, the Commission complains comments on the phrase 'as soon as poss­ that the waste management plans already ible' (see paragraphs 33 to 39), I consider drawn up by the French Republic do not that the Commission's third complaint is contain a specific chapter on packaging also well founded.

I-4119

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-292/99

72. In conclusion I propose that the Court IV — Costs declare that, by failing to draw up waste management plans for the whole of its territory or all its waste and by failing to 73. Pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules include in all existing management plans a of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be specific chapter on packaging waste, that ordered to pay the costs if they have been the French Republic has failed to fulfil its applied for. As the Commission has applied obligations under the relevant Community for costs and in view of what I have just directives. said concerning the outcome of the pro­ ceedings, I consider that that application should be upheld.

V — Conclusion

74. In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court declare as follows: