Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:216
Date: 1997-04-24
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Provisions governing the Institutions;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Approximation of laws;Waste
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the J u d g m e n t 
1. Approximation of laws — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Definition — Substance forming an 
integral part of an industrial production process 
(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a)) 
2. Environment — Waste disposal — Directive 91/156 — Obligations of the Member States 
during the period prescribed for transposition — Obligation not to adopt measures liable to 
compromise the result prescribed by the directive — Assessment by the national court — Cri­
teria 
(EC Treaty, Art. 5, second para., and Art 189, third para.; Council Directive 91/156) 
I -7411 
SUMMARY — CASE C-129/96 
1. A substance is not excluded from the 
definition of waste in Article 1(a) of 
Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by 
Directive 91/156, merely because it 
directly or indirectly forms an integral 
part of an industrial production process. 
That conclusion does not undermine the 
distinction which must be drawn between 
waste recovery within the meaning of 
that directive and normal industrial treat­
ment of products which are not waste. 
2. The second paragraph of Article 5 and 
the third paragraph of Article 189 of the 
Treaty, and Directive 91/156 amending 
Directive 75/442 on waste, require the 
Member States to which that directive is 
addressed to refrain, during the period 
laid down therein for its implementation, 
from adopting measures liable seriously 
to compromise the result prescribed. It is 
for the national court to assess whether 
that is the case as regards the national 
provisions whose legality it is called upon 
to consider. 
In making that assessment, the national 
court must consider, in particular, 
whether the provisions in issue purport 
to constitute full transposition of the 
directive, as well as the effects in practice 
of applying those incompatible provisions 
and of their duration in time. More par­
ticularly, if the provisions in issue are 
intended to constitute full and definitive 
transposition of the directive, their 
incompatibility with the directive might 
give rise to the presumption that the 
result prescribed by the directive will not 
be achieved within the period prescribed 
if it is impossible to amend them in time. 
Conversely, the national court could take 
into account the right of a Member State 
to adopt transitional measures or to 
implement the directive in stages, where 
the incompatibility of the transitional 
national measures with the directive, or 
the non-transposition of certain of its 
provisions, would not necessarily com­
promise the result prescribed. 
I - 7412