Opinion of Mr Advocate General

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. By order of 9 October 1984, the Pretore di Turino [Magistrates' Court, Turin] asks the Court to rule under Article 177 of the Treaty on the question:

2. The facts submitted to the national court are fairly simple. Fina Italiana SpA, whose legal representative is Mr Caldana, manufactures and distributes fuels and oils. In the course of an inspection, inspectors from the Italian Environmental Protection Service removed containers of mineral oil marketed by Fina Italiana for use in motor vehicles. Tests carried out on the oil showed that it contained polychlorinated byphenyls (hereinafter referred to as PCB) in percentages which did not exceed the legal maxima for the marketing of such products.

3. The national court found that administrative and judicial practice in Italy vary in this matter.

4. Mr Caldana, the Commission and the Italian Government submitted observations which arrive at the same conclusion.

5. The Community rules were very extensively set out by the Commission. Let me refer to its observations for the purpose of providing an outline of those rules.

6. Mineral oils are undoubtedly preparations within the meaning of Article 2 (1) (b) of Directive 67/548/EEC, as amended by Directive 79/831/EEC (Art. 1), inasmuch as they are mixtures or solutions composed of two or more substances. It is not disputed that their polychlorinated biphenyl content does not exceed 0.1% and that consequently, in accordance with the provisions of the annex to Council Directive 76/769/EEC, they may be marketed. It remains to be determined by which method they may be marketed: in other words, whether the polychlorinated biphenyls which they contain must be mentioned on the labels affixed to the containers in which they are marketed.

7. However, as the national court pointed out, certain articles of the directive in question refer to substances and preparations.

8. The Commission also addressed itself to the question of the freedom which the Member States, the manufacturer or the importer might have in labelling on their own initiative packages containing preparations which might be dangerous. I will not deal with that question since, on the one hand, it appears from the file that the Italian legislation contains no provision of that type and on the other, the national court did not ask the Court of Justice to rule on that point.

9. Consequently, I propose that the Court reply to the Pretore di Torino as follows :

1 Translated from the French.