Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2011:821
Date: 2011-12-08
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment — Waste — Shipments — Information required to accompany shipments of certain waste — Information regarding the waste producer (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, Art. 18(1) and (4), and Annex VII) 2. Environment — Waste — Shipments — Information required to accompany shipments of certain waste — Information regarding the waste producer (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, Art. 18(1), and Annex VII) 1. Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, must be interpreted as not permitting an intermediary dealer arranging a shipment of waste not to disclose the name of the waste producer to the consignee of the shipment, as provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006 in conjunction with Annex VII to that regulation, even though such non-disclosure might be necessary in order to protect the business secrets of that intermediary dealer. (see para. 40, operative part 1) 2. Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, must be interpreted as requiring an intermediary dealer, in the context of a shipment of waste covered by that provision, to complete Field 6 of the document contained in Annex VII to that regulation, in which he must state the name of the waste producer, and transmit it to the consignee, without any possibility of the scope of that requirement’s being restricted by a right to protection of business secrets. In that regard, even if the obligation to disclose the name of the waste producer to the consignee of a shipment of waste were to constitute a breach of the protection of the business secrets of intermediary dealers, that could not have the consequence of restricting the scope of a provision of secondary law that is clear and unconditional. (see paras 34, 44, 47, operative part 2)