Luxembourg, 19/12/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Court of Justice focused on three rulings at the end of the year:
Heininger/Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank. The Court ruled that a consumer who signs a credit agreement following doorstep selling and is not informed about their right of cancellation does not lose that right. The right of cancellation can also apply to credit secured on immovable property during doorstep selling.
A German couple, Mr and Mrs Heininger, claimed that an estate agent called uninvited at their home and induced them to enter into a loan agreement based on that flat with the Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank. Five years later, the Heiningers challenged the validity of the contract because they did not know they had the right to cancel it. The Bundesgerichtshof relayed the appeal case to the Court of Justice to decide whether the EU Directive on doorstep selling also applies to secured-credit agreements. The Court ruled that only secured credit agreements signed as a result of doorstep selling are covered by the directive in question. The fact that a credit agreement is secured by a charge on an immovable property does not mean it is one of the rights to immovable property that are excluded under the Directive on doorstep selling. "The fact that the credit agreement is secured by a charge on immovable property does not render any less necessary the protection which is accorded to the consumer who has entered into such an agreement away from the trader's business premises", stipulates the Court in a press release, pointing out that the right of cancellation under the EU directive holds for a "minimum period of seven days".
Telefonica de Espana and administracion general del Estado. In a press release, the Court of Justice notes that it has no comments to make on Spanish regulation in terms of interconnection and access to the public networks since it is compatible with Community law. Member States may require an operator dominant on the public telecommunications network to provide access to the subscriber loop and offer interconnection to local and higher-level switching centres. Telefonica sought the setting aside of certain provisions of the Spanish royal decree transposing a key telecommunications directive (of 30 June 1997 on telecommunications interconnection with view to providing universal service, Ed) on the ground that the Spanish government had acted ultra vires its regulatory competence. The press release explains "It was true that, under the directive, the national authorities had to encourage coverage in interconnection agreements of certain issues, such as the location of points of interconnection. However, it would not… be compatible with the subject-matter of the directive to preclude the Member States from laying down prior conditions or obligations relating to such matters, even when to do so appears necessary in order to facilitate the introduction of competition and to further the interests of users".
DaimlerChrysler. When waste is shipped to another Member State for disposal, the Member State from which it is shipped cannot require that the waste be disposed of in accordance with its own environment protection legislation, states a Court press release. A decree of the Land of Baden-Württemberg stipulates that holders of waste produced in that land must offer it to one of two treatment centres in Germany - a discharge centre in Billigheim or an incinerator in Hamburg. Waste that cannot be treated in those treatment centres is sent to the establishment suggested by the holder of the waste, if the waste can be treated there in accordance with the German environment protection legislation.
Daimler-Chrysler applied to have the decree annulled because it prevented the company from having the waste incinerated more cheaply abroad, especially in Belgium. Shipping the waste to Hamburg (between 600 and 700 km from its factories) incurred additional costs of EUR 1.1 million a year. The Court observed that Community regulation defines in a harmonised manner at EU level the rules applicable to shipments of waste in order to ensure the protection of the environment. Accordingly, any national measure relating to shipments of waste must be assessed in the light of the provisions of the regulation and not of the articles of the Treaty on free movement of goods. According to the Court, the Community regulation does not authorise a Member State to impose such conditions as laid down by the Land of Baden-Württemberg.