Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

13.7.

2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 169/17

The applicant claims that the Court should: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
22 March 2002 in the case of Rieser Internationale
— declare that by:
Transporte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und
Schnellstraßen Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft
(1) not fully transposing into Austrian law by 1 January
1995, contrary to Article 166 of the Act of
Accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the
European Union, Council Directive 89/369/EEC of (Case C-157/02)
8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from
new municipal waste incineration plants (1) and
Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on
(2002/C 169/31)
the reduction of air pollution from existing munici-
pal waste-incineration plants (2), in so far as it has
not transposed those directives as required into
the Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Federal law on waste
management), the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Austrian
Trade Code of 1994) and the laws of the federal
states, or, in any event, not informing the Com- Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
mission of any such transposition, and European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 22 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a
(2) not correctly or not fully transposing Article 4(1) of preliminary ruling in the case of Rieser Internationale Trans-
Directive 89/369/EEC into the Luftreinhaltegesetz porte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und Schnellstraß-
für Kesselanlagen (Law on control of air pollution en Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft on the following ques-
from boiler plants) and the Luftreinhalteverordnung tions:
für Kesselanlagen (Decree on control of air pollution
from boiler plants), the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
1.1. Is the effect of the case-law of the Court of Justice on
— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. the ‘functional concept of the State’ that, when concluding
contracts with road users, the defendant is required to observe
the directly effective provisions of Council Directive 93/89/
EEC of 25 October 1993(1) on the application by Member
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
Pleas in law and main arguments goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
infrastructures and of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European
— Incomplete transposition of Directives 89/369/EEC and Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 (2) on the
89/429/EEC: charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain
infrastructures, such that the defendant cannot charge a higher
toll than those provisions allow?
The Republic of Austria does not dispute that, with the
exception of the legislative provisions notified to the
Commission as transposing those directives (the Law and
Decree on control of air pollution from boiler plants), the 1.2. If question 1.1 is answered in the affirmative:
directives have not been transposed into Austrian law
and, in particular, they have not been transposed into the
Federal law on management of waste, the Austrian Trade
Code of 1994, the Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 1.2.1. Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89 and
(Law on environmental impact assessments) and the laws Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62 have direct effect
of the federal states on waste management. according to the case-law of the Court of Justice such that if
the Directives have not been transposed, or have been
transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they may be relied
— Incorrect transposition of Article 4(1) of Directive 89/
on in calculating a toll that complies with the Directives for
369/EEC in the Decree on control of air pollution from
vehicles with more than three axles used for the carriage of
boiler plants: that decree does not contain any of the
goods on the full itinerary of the Austrian Brenner motorway?
technical requirements laid down in Article 4(1) of
Directive 89/369/EEC.

1.2.2. If question 1.2.1 is answered in the affirmative:


(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50.
1.2.2.1. How and by reference to what parameters is the
authorised toll for a single journey on the full itinerary to be
calculated in the individual case?
C 169/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.7.2002

1.2.2.2. Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries 26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
of that motorway? Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft

1.3. If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative: (Case C-160/02)

1.3.1. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/ (2002/C 169/33)
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or, European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired? Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
1.3.2. If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
following question:
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed? Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
Council on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32. of their families moving within the Community, as amended
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42. and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827. 2 December 1996 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
of that benefit?
(Case C-159/02)
(1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
(2002/C 169/32) (2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the


European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question: the European Communities against the French Republic

‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the (Case C-161/02)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently (2002/C 169/34)
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent An action against the French Republic was brought before the
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
before the English courts?’ 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.