# C_2023216EN.01002502.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Land Niedersachsen v Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS ‘MSC Flaminia’

(Case C-188/23, Conti 11. Container Schiffahrt)

(2023/C 216/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Land Niedersachsen

Applicant and respondent: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS ‘MSC Flaminia’

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the exemption from the obligation to notify, set out in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, invalid, as being contrary to the provisions of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, in so far as the exemption would also remove the obligation to notify hazardous waste that is attributable to damage incurred by a ship at sea and that is to be regarded as waste within the meaning of that exemption provision in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2019 in Case C-689/17? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the exemption from the obligation to notify, set out in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, invalid, as being contrary to the provisions of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, in so far as the exemption would also remove the obligation to notify hazardous waste that is attributable to damage incurred by a ship at sea and that is to be regarded as waste within the meaning of that exemption provision in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2019 in Case C-689/17? (2)

| 2. | In the event that Question (a) is answered in the negative, is the exemption provided for in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, to be interpreted, in the light of the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, restrictively as meaning that residues in the form of scrap metal and fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues such as those in the present case that are attributable to damage incurred at sea are not to be regarded as waste generated on board ships within the meaning of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Question (a) is answered in the negative, is the exemption provided for in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, to be interpreted, in the light of the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, restrictively as meaning that residues in the form of scrap metal and fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues such as those in the present case that are attributable to damage incurred at sea are not to be regarded as waste generated on board ships within the meaning of that provision?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2019:420.

---