Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste in a disused mine)
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: international transport, interpretation of the law, transport document, waste disposal, waste management

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/5

(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 March 1999, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

Salzburg, on the interpretation of Articles 56 EC to 60 EC, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Chamber, C. Gulmann,
(Rapporteur),
J.-P.
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:

Puissochet

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Articles 56 EC to 60 EC:

(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

5 March 2002

in Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to
C-540/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans Reisch
e.a. v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,
Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg, Grund-
verkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg (1)

(Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Prior
notification and authorisation procedure for the acquisition
of building plots — Absence of purely internal situation)

(2002/C 109/07)

(Language of the case: German)

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

— do not preclude a prior notification procedure such as that laid
down by the scheme for the acquisition of land established by
the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz 1997;

— preclude a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down

by that scheme.

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

27 February 2002

in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v
Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1)

(Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of
dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a
shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment
on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive
75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste
in a disused mine)

(2002/C 109/08)

(Language of the case: German)

In Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and
C-526/99 to C-540/99: Reference to the Court under
Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salz-
burg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Hans Reisch (C-515/99),
Walter Riedl
(C-528/99),
(C-527/99), Alexander Hacker
Gerhard Eckert (C-529/99), Franz Gstöttenbauer (C-530/99),
Helmut Hechwarter (C-531/99), Alois Bixner (C-532/99), Geza
Aumüller (C-533/99), Berthold Garstenauer (C-534/99 and
C-536/99), Robert Eder
(C-535/99), Hartmut Ramsauer
(C-537/99 and C-538/99), Harald Kronberger (C-539/99),
Erich Morianz (C-540/99) and Bürgermeister der Landes-
hauptstadt Salzburg, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes

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

In Case C-6/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Abfall Service AG (ASA) and Bundesminister für Umwelt,
Jugend und Familie, on the interpretation of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the

C 109/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), as amended by
Commission Decision No 98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 (OJ
1998 L 165, p. 20), and Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of
24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in
which it has ruled:

1.

It follows from the system established by 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, as amended by Commission Decision
98/368/EC of 18 May 1998,

— that

the competent authority of dispatch, within the
meaning of Article 2(c) thereof, is competent to verify
whether a proposed shipment classified in the notification
as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ does in fact correspond
to that classification, ssssand

— that, if that classification is incorrect, the authority must
oppose the shipment by raising an objection founded on
that misclassification within the period prescribed by
Article 7(2) of the Regulation.

2.

The deposit of waste in a disused mine does not necessarily
constitute a disposal operation for the purposes of D 12 of
Annex II A to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991 and Commission Decision 96/350/EC of
24 May 1996.

The deposit must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether the operation is a disposal or a recovery
operation within the meaning of that Directive.

Such a deposit constitutes a recovery if its principal objective is
that the waste serve a useful purpose in replacing other materials
which would have had to be used for that purpose.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

26 February 2002

in Case C-23/00 P: Council of the European Union v
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)

(Appeal — Admissibility — Application to set aside a
judgment of the Court of First Instance to the extent to
which that Court declared that there was no need to rule on
an objection of inadmissibility raised against an application
dismissed by it as unfounded)

(2002/C 109/09)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-23/00 P, Council of the European Union (agents:
M. Sims-Robertson and I. Dı´ez Parra): Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 1 December 1999 in
Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council
and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427, seeking to have that
judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the proceedings
being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH, C.H. Boehrin-
ger Sohn, established in Ingelheim am Rhein (Germany),
(agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard), Commission of
the European Communities (agent: X. Lewis), Fédération
européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels
(Belgium), (agent: A. Vandencasteele), Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
rantie Vleeskalverensector
(SKV), established in La Haye
(Netherlands)
(agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret) and
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent:
G. Amodeo, assisted by D. Lloyd Jones, QC), the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, P.
Jann,
F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
Pergola
Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 26 February 2002, in which it:

(Rapporteur),

J.-P.

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and

incurred by Boehringer
C.H. Boehringer Sohn;