BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just ÂŁ1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Germany v Commission (Approximation of laws) [2003] EUECJ C-512/99 (21 January 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C51299.html Cite as: [2003] ECR I-845, [2003] EUECJ C-512/99 |
[New search] [Help]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
21 January 2003 (1)
(Approximation of laws - Directive 97/69/EC - Dangerous substances - More stringent national provisions - Application ratione temporis of Article 95 EC - Duty of cooperation - Conditions for the approval of new national provisions)
In Case C-512/99,
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön, acting as Agents,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. zur Hausen, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
supported by
Republic of Finland, represented by T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/836/EC of 26 October 1999 on the national provisions concerning mineral wool notified by Germany derogating from Directive 97/69/EC adapting to technical progress for the 23rd time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1999 L 329, p. 100),
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges,
Advocate General: A. Tizzano,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 May 2002,
gives the following
Legal framework
EC Treaty
'If, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the Council acting by a qualified majority, a Member State deems it necessary to apply national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions.
The Commission shall confirm the provisions involved after having verified that they are not a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in Articles 169 and 170, the Commission or any Member State may bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice if it considers that another Member State is making improper use of the powers provided for in this article.'
'4. If, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 30, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.
5. Moreover, without prejudice to paragraph 4, if, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption ofthe harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.
6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.
In the absence of a decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be deemed to have been approved.
When justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.'
Directive 67/548/EEC
Directive 97/69/EC
- a general entry on mineral wool into the list of dangerous substances contained in Annex I to Directive 67/548,
- a Note Q specifically relating to mineral wool into the foreword to Annex I.
- Category 3 carcinogens. In accordance with the definition set out in point 3.2 in Annex VI to Directive 67/548, they are '[s]ubstances which cause concern for man owing to possible carcinogenic effects but in respect of which the available information is not adequate for making a satisfactory assessment. There is some evidence from appropriate animal studies, but this is insufficient to place the substance in category 2.'
- Irritants. These are MMF which, according to Note Q in the foreword to Annex I, need not be classified as carcinogens if the result of an animal test is negative. Note Q offers four types of test. A mineral wool which fulfils that criterion need not be classified as a carcinogen, but classification and labelling as an irritant are maintained.
Background to the dispute
Application by the German Government
- those classified as Category 3 carcinogens,
- those classified as Category 2 carcinogens. According to point 3.2 of Annex VI to Directive 67/548, those are '[s]ubstances which should be regarded as if they are carcinogenic to man. There is sufficient evidence to provide astrong presumption that human exposure to a substance may result in the development of cancer, generally on the basis of appropriate long-term animal studies and other relevant information.'
The contested decision
Application for annulment
The first plea
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The second plea
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The third plea
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Costs
93. Under the second subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Republic of Finland, which intervened in these proceedings, is to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
Rodríguez Iglesias
Schintgen Timmermans Gulmann EdwardLa Pergola
Jann
Colneric von Bahr Cunha RodriguesRosas
|
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 21 January 2003.
R. Grass G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias
Registrar President
1: Language of the case: German.