Case C-291/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in the appeal by Rethmann Photo Recycling GmbH
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: energy use, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, waste disposal, waste incineration, waste management, waste recycling

C 261/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.10.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in the
appeal by Rethmann Photo Recycling GmbH

(Case C-291/02)

(2002/C 261/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof of 25 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
12 August 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal by
Rethmann Photo Recycling GmbH on the following questions:

1. Do the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) on
the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
into and out of the European Community and Council
Directive 75/442/EEC (2) of 15 July 1975 on waste
display, with respect to the question whether a planned
shipment of waste is to be assigned to recovery operation
R1 in Annex II B or disposal operation D10 in Annex
II A to Directive 75/442, sufficient clarity and definiteness
to allow the person concerned (private parties as well as
Member States) to assess the respective legal conse-
quences of their conduct, or are those provisions invalid
because of a lack of certainty and the resulting unen-
forceability?

2.

3.

Is the sole criterion,
in assigning a waste treatment
measure to recovery operation R1 (use principally as a
fuel or other means to generate energy) in Annex II B to
that the waste is used entirely to
Directive 75/442,
generate energy (energy use) and the energy generated is
also in fact used?

Is it permissible for the competent authority of desti-
nation to proceed on the basis of the following criteria in
deciding whether a planned waste shipment is to be
assigned to recovery operation R1 or disposal operation
D10:

(a) Risk reduction

(b) Conservation of natural resources

(c) Conservation of energy resources

(d) Conservation of landfill space

(e)

Ecological appropriateness of the operation

(f)

Economic appropriateness of the operation?

4.

Is the following statement correct:

to the use of

Not all incineration with energy use constitutes recovery
for the purposes of operation R1. Operation R1 does not
relate just
the heat released through
incineration but also requires use as a fuel. A fuel is
characterised by the fact that it satisfies certain criteria
relating to thermal value, concentration of pollutants and
combustion rate and is sufficiently homogeneous with
regard to those characteristics for the process of incin-
eration to be able to be controlled. Waste which cannot
meet those criteria — that is to say, which possesses
insufficient
thermal value, whose composition is so
variable that incineration (in a conventional incinerator)
cannot be satisfactorily controlled or whose level of
pollutants is such that their incineration gives rise to
impermissible emissions — per se cannot be recovered in
accordance with R1.

(1) OJ L 030 [1993], p. 1.
(2) OJ L 194 [1975], p. 39.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that Court of 6 August 2002 in
the case of Meiland Azewijn B.V. against Hauptzollamt
Duisburg

(Case C-292/02)

(2002/C 261/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
dorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 6 August 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 13 August 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Meiland Azewijn B.V. against Hauptzoll-
amt Duisburg (Principal Customs Office, Duisburg) on the
following questions:

1.

2.

Is Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC (1) to be construed
as quite simply exempting mineral oil intended to be used
as motor fuel from excise duty in the Member State to
which it is brought in a standard tank of a commercial
motor vehicle after it has been released for consumption
in another Member State?

If the answer to the first question should be in the
affirmative,
is Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC
directly applicable in relation to the claimant having
regard to the rule in Paragraph 19(2) of the Mineralöl-
steuergesetz (Law on Excise Duty on Mineral Oils)?