Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-481/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger v Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Right of cancellation — Agreement to grant credit secured by charge on immovable property)
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, contract, door-to-door selling, interpretation of the law, real estate credit

C 44/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.2.2002

of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ
1993 L 30, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, N. Colneric (President of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), L. Sevo´ n,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. Where a national measure generally prohibiting exports of
waste for disposal is justified by the principles of proximity,
priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with
Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of
1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments
of waste within, into and out of the European Community, it is
not necessary for that national measure to be subject to a further
and separate review of its compatibility with Articles 34 and 36
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29 EC and
30 EC).

2. Article 4(3) of Regulation No 259/93 does not authorise a
Member State which has adopted legislation introducing an
obligation to offer waste for disposal to an approved body to
provide that, where the waste is not allocated to a treatment
centre for which that body is responsible,
its shipment to
treatment installations in other Member States is authorised
only on condition that
satisfy the
requirements of the environmental protection legislation of that
Member State.

the intended disposal

3. Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 259/93 preclude a Member
State from applying to shipments between Member States of
waste for disposal, before the implementation of the notification
procedure laid down in the regulation, its own procedure in
relation to the offer and allocation of the waste.

(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 13 December 2001

in Case C-481/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Georg Heininger and Helga
Heininger v Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (1)

(Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Right of
cancellation — Agreement to grant credit secured by charge
on immovable property)

(2002/C 44/03)

(Language of the case: German)

for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger and
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the interpretation
of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31), and Council
Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approxi-
mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987
L 42, p. 48) as amended by Council Directive 90/88/EEC of
22 February 1990 (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14), the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
J.P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given
a judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:

1.

Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
from business premises is to be interpreted as applying to a
secured-credit agreement such as that in point in the main
proceedings, with the result
the right of cancellation
provided for in Article 5 of that directive is available to a
consumer who has entered into a contract of that type in one of
the cases specified in Article 1.

that

2. Directive 85/577 precludes the national

legislature from
imposing a time-limit of one year from the conclusion of the
contract within which the right of cancellation provided for in
Article 5 of that directive may be exercised, where the consumer
has not received the information specified in Article 4.

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 December 2001

in Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Refusal
to end the ban on British beef and veal)

(2002/C 44/04)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-481/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Republic of Germany)

In Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Booss and G. Berscheid), supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
(Agent:
J.E. Collins, assisted by D. Anderson QC and M. Hoskins) v
French Republic (Agents:
initially K. Rispal-Bellanger and
J.-F. Dobelle, subsequently R. Loosli-Surrans and J.-F. Dobelle,