Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2005:478
Date: 2005-07-14
Language of the case: Danish
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste (Council Regulation No 259/93, Art. 2(g)(ii)) 2. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste (Council Regulation No 259/93, Art. 7(2) and (4)(a), first indent) 3. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste (Council Regulation No 259/93, Art. 6(5), first indent) 4. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste (Council Regulation No 259/93, Arts 6(5), and 7(2)) 1. The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that the simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery. However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown or that the number of waste producers is so great and the individual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery. (see para. 19, operative part 1) 2. The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article 7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of information on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that required by the rules in the State of dispatch. On the contrary, if the competent authority of dispatch wishes, pursuant to the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of that regulation, to object to a shipment on the basis of its national standards for recovery, it is for it to show the risks to human health and the environment which recovery in the State of destination would entail. (see paras 33-34, operative part 2) 3. The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that, when the transfer is notified, the obligation to supply information relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic scrap’. The mention of ‘electronic scrap’ does not meet that condition, given its abstract and imprecise nature and because of the lack of details giving the competent authority information on the specific characteristics of the waste in question. (see paras 38-39, operative part 3) 4. The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community begins to run when the competent authorities of the State of destination have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irrespective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the information set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional information from the notifier. (see para. 52, operative part 4)