Article 8
This Decision is addressed to: Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland AG Frankfurter Straße 720-726 D - 51145 Cologne Done at Brussels, 20 April 2001 For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62. (2) OJ L 148, 15.6.1999, p. 5. (3) OJ L 354, 30.12.1998, p. 18. (4) OJ C 100, 27.3.1997, p. 4. (5) See Cologne Regional Court judgment of 13 January 2000, ref. 31 0 991/99. (6) See Section 6(3) and Section 3(1), point 2, and (10), and the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Annex I to the Packaging Ordinance. (7) (Question put by the Commission:) "Does the Packaging Ordinance allow a range of packaging to be uniformly marked despite its being partially disposed of under Section 6(3) of the Packaging Ordinance (e.g. in the circumstances provided for in the ninth sentence of Section 6(1) of the Ordinance), bearing in mind that the distributor cannot foresee which specific packaging will be disposed of in the vicinity of the shop and which will be disposed of in the vicinity of the home?" (Answer given by Germany:) "The marking of packaging with the system mark pursuant to paragraph 2 of point 4 of Annex I in the absence of membership of the system is not punishable by a fine under the Packaging Ordinance. It may, however, be caught by other legal provisions, such as trade mark law." (8) (Question put by the Commission:) "Is it correct to say that, pursuant to the Packaging Ordinance, the final consumer is free to decide whether to leave the packaging in the shop or to bring it back there, or to take it to a disposal point near his home?" (Answer given by Germany:) "The Packaging Ordinance does not contain any express provision requiring the final consumer to return the packaging. The assumption contained in the question is therefore correct." (9) Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, at paragraph 41. (10) Case C-62/86 Akzo v Commission [1991] ECR I-3439, at paragraph 60. (11) Case T-30/89, Hilti v Commission [1991] ECR II-1439, at paragraph 92 (upheld on appeal by the Court of Justice in Case C-53/92-P [1994] ECR I-667). (12) Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461, at paragraph 57. (13) See footnote 9. (14) This Decision merely comments on those cases in which all of the uniformly designed sales packaging put into circulation is accessible to the DSD system. Cases in which only some of the uniformly designed packaging is collected by DSD or in which some of the packaging is, for legal reasons, not accessible to the DSD system (see recitals 55, 56 and 57) are not dealt with in this Decision. (15) Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, at paragraph 190. (16) See footnote 9. (17) Case C-202/88 France v Commission [1991] ECR I-1271, at paragraph 51. (18) Commission Decision 95/489/EC of 4.10.1995 in GSM-Italia (OJ L 280, 23.11.1995, p. 49, at paragraph 15). (19) Commission Decision 98/531/EC of 11.3.1998 in Van den Bergh Foods Limited (OJ L 246, 4.9.1998, p. 1, at paragraph 262). (20) Case 53/87 CICRA and another v Renault [1988] ECR 6039, at paragraph 16; Case 238/87 Volvo v Veng [1988] ECR 6211, at paragraph 9; Case T-70/89 BBC v Commission [1991] ECR II-535, at paragraph 59; Case T-198/98 Micro Leader v Commission [1999] ECR II-3989. (21) See footnote 20 (BBC v Commission), at paragraph 61. (22) Berlin Higher Regional Court, judgment of 14 June 1994, BB 1994, 2299.