C-35/00

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-35/00

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TIZZANO delivered on 11 September 2001 1

1. In this action, which it brought on 3. It is however established that, at the 8 February 2000 under Article 226 EC, expiry of the period set by the Commis- the European Commission seeks a declar- sion's reasoned opinion of 23 April 1999, ation that, by not adopting all the measures the United Kingdom had not complied with necessary to establish waste management its obligations under the directives in ques- plans and/or by not notifying them to the tion. That is sufficient, according to the Commission, the United Kingdom has settled case-law of the Court, to hold that failed to fulfil its obligations under the Commission's action is well founded. Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10). 4. The parties have agreed, however, that it is appropriate to exclude from these pro- ceedings the question of the application of Directive 94/62 to Gibraltar, because that matter is the subject of another case.

2. The United Kingdom does not contest the Commission's complaint, but assures 5. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of the Court that the competent authorities Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be are currently engaged on the measures ordered to pay the costs, if they have been necessary for full transposition of the direc- applied for in the successful party's plead- tives in question. ings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the United Kingdom has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the 1 — Original language: Italian. costs.

I-955