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. (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)
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), animal product, pharmaceutical industry, regulation (EU), veterinary drug

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;

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/7

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, the Commission of the European Communities, the
Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the
Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) to bear
their own costs.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

26 February 2002

in Case C-32/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
munities v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)

(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Partial annul-
ment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 in so far
as, in fixing the maximum residue limits for clenbuterol
chlorhydrate, it further specifies the permissible therapeutic
indications for that substance — Possibility for the Com-
mission, in fixing the maximum residue limits of veterinary
medicinal products, to take into account Directive 96/22/EC
concerning the prohibition on the use of certain substances)

(2002/C 109/10)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-32/00 P, Commission of the European Communities
(agent: X. Lewis): 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 Vetme-
dica GmbH, C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim
am Rheim (Germany) (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard),
Council of the European Union, Fédération européenne de la
Santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium)
(agents: A. Vandencasteele and D. Brinckman), Stichting
Kwaliteistsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in
La Haye (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret)
and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
J.-P. 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:

1.

Sets aside points 2 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined
Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council and
Commission;

2. Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
against Commission Regulation No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996
amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90
laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
foodstuffs of animal origin;

3. Orders Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.
Boehringer Sohn, both in the proceedings before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-152/96 and in those before the Court
of Justice, to bear their own costs and to pay the whole of the
costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear the costs
which it has incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-152/96;

5. Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
and the Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
to bear
the costs which they have incurred both in the
proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/96
and in those before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

27 February 2002

in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v
Universal Ogden Services Ltd (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place
of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an
installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to
a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another
Contracting State)

(2002/C 109/11)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-37/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of