Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2001 in Case C-324/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): DaimlerChrysler AG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Conditions justifying prohibitions or restrictions on the export of waste — National legislation imposing the obligation to offer waste to an approved body)
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental monitoring, export of waste, interpretation of the law, public health, trade restriction, waste management

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
2001, in which it has ruled:

(Sixth Chamber)

of 13 December 2001

in Case C-317/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven):
Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV v Minister van Landbouw,
Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional duties on
importation — Validity of Article 3 of Regulation (EC)
No 1484/95)

(2002/C 44/01)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-317/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV and Minister van
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on the validity of
Article 3(1)
and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for
import duties and
implementing the system of additional
fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg
sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation
No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47) and on the interpret-
ation of that provision and of Articles 65 and 220(2)(b) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-

import duties and fixing additional

Paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95
of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the
system of additional
import
duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and
repealing Regulation No 163/67/EC, are invalid, inasmuch as they
provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general
rule, established on the basis of the representative price laid down in
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1484/95 and that the duty is
established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
concerned only if the importer so requests.

(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 December 2001

in Case C-324/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): DaimlerChrysler AG v
Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

(Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
shipments of waste — Conditions justifying prohibitions or
restrictions on the export of waste — National legislation
imposing the obligation to offer waste to an approved body)

(2002/C 44/02)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-324/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
DaimlerChrysler AG and Land Baden-Württemberg, on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of
1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments

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,