Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

23.6.2007

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/3

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obliga- tions under Article 1(e), (g) and (i), Article 6(1) and (2), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(1) and Article 22(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habi- tats and of wild fauna and flora;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) Queen's Bench Division (Admin- istrative Court) United Kingdom Thames Water Utilities Ltd, The Queen v South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates' Court

(Case C-252/05) ( 1 )

(Waste Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/EEC and 91/271/EEC Waste water which escapes from a sewerage network Classification Scope of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/271/EEC)

(2007/C 140/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales) Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thames Water Utilities Ltd, The Queen

Defendant: South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates' Court

Intervener in support of the applicant: Environment Agency

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) Interpretation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) and 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) Concept of waste Effluent from leaks in sewage pipes

Operative part of the judgment

1) Waste water which escapes from a sewerage network maintained by

a statutory sewerage undertaker pursuant to Council Directive

91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment and the legislation enacted to transpose that directive constitutes waste within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

2) Directive 91/271 is not other legislation within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156. It falls to the national court to ascertain whether, in accordance with the criteria set out in the present judgment, the national rules may be regarded as being other legislation within the meaning of that provision. Such is the case if those national rules contain precise provisions organising the management of the waste in question and if they are such as to ensure a level of protec- tion of the environment equivalent to that guaranteed by Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and, more particularly,

by Articles 4, 8 and 15.

3) Directive 91/271 cannot be considered, as regards the management

of waste water which escapes from a sewerage network, to be

special legislation (a lex specialis) vis-à-vis Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and cannot therefore be applied

pursuant to Article 2(2) of Directive 75/442.

( 1 ) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitragehof, Belgium) Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad

(Case C-303/05) ( 1 )

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters Articles 6(2) EU and 34(2)(b) EU Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States Approximation of national laws Removal of verification of double criminality Validity)

(2007/C 140/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbitragehof

C 140/4

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW

Defendant: Leden van de Ministerraad

Re:

Preliminary ruling Arbitragehof Interpretation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) Whether compatible with Article 34(2)(b) EU Removal of the requirement of double criminality in respect of the offences listed in Article 2 (2) of the Decision Whether compatible with Article 6(2) EU

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions submitted has revealed no factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

( 1 ) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-328/05 P) ( 1 )

(Appeals Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Guidelines on the method of setting fines Leniency Notice Principle non bis in idem)

(2007/C 140/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Schneider, W. Mölls and H. Gading, Agents,)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in SGL Carbon v Commission (Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03), in

which the Court of First Instance partially dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5083 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC Cartel in the specialty graphite market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs

( 1 ) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof Austria) Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-386/05) ( 1 )

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg- ments in civil and commercial matters Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Special jurisdiction First indent of Article 5(1) (b) Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question Sale of goods Goods delivered in different places within a single Member State)

(2007/C 140/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Color Drack GmbH

Defendant: Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling Oberster Gerichtshof Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recogni- tion and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) Special jurisdiction Place to which goods were delivered under a contract of sale Multiple places of delivery