Case C-1/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, by judgment of that Court of 3 December 2002 in the case of Ministère public and the civil party: La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul Van de Walle, 2. Daniel Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and the civil defendant: SA Texaco Belgium
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, interpretation of the law, oil pollution, waste

C 44/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

(b) or, on the contrary, that the competent authority of
dispatch is required to send the notification as classified
by the notifier to the competent authority of destination,
while retaining the power, if it considers that the purpose
of the shipment has been incorrectly classified, also to
raise a reasoned objection on the basis of that erroneous
classification, at the same time or subsequently?

Or, must it be considered that the legal definition of waste
within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions applies
only if the polluted earth has been excavated?

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

( 1) OJ L 30 of 6.2.1993, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
de Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, by judgment of that Court of
3 December 2002 in the case of Ministère public and the
civil party: La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul
Van de Walle, 2. Daniel Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and
the civil defendant: SA Texaco Belgium

(Case C-1/03)

(2003/C 44/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de
Bruxelles, 11e Chambre,
(The Court of Appeal, Brussels,
11th Chamber) of 3 December 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 3 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ministère public and the civil party: La Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul Van de Walle, 2. Daniel
Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and the civil defendant: SA Texaco
Belgium on the following questions:

Are Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
1975 (1) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991 (2), which defines waste as meaning ‘any
substance or object which the holder disposes of or is required
to dispose of pursuant to the provisions of national law in
force’, and Article 1(b) and (c) of that directive which define
‘producer of waste’ as ‘anyone whose activities produce waste
(“original producer”) and/or anyone who carries out pre-
processing, mixing or other operations resulting in a change
in the nature or composition of this waste’, and ‘holder’ as ‘the
producer of the waste or the natural or legal person who is in
possession of it’, to be interpreted as being capable of applying
to a petroleum company which produces hydrocarbons and
sells them to a manager operating one of its service stations
under a contract of
independent management excluding
any relationship of subordination to that company, if such
hydrocarbons percolate into the ground, thus causing pol-
lution of the earth and subterranean waters?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Première Instance de Bruxelles by order of that Court of
24 December 2002 in the case of Banque Bruxelles
Lambert S.A. (‘BBL’) against the Belgian State, Minister of
Finance, Department of administration of value added
tax, registration and public property

(Case C-8/03)

(2003/C 44/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Première
Instance de Bruxelles (Regional Court, Brussels) of 24 Decem-
ber 2002, received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Bruxelles
Lambert S.A.
(‘BBL’) against the Belgian State, Minister of
Finance, Department of administration of value added tax,
registration and public property, on the following questions:

Are Sociétés d’investissement à capital variable [open-end
investment companies] (SICAVs) established in a Member State
which have as their sole object the collective investment in
transferable securities of capital raised from the public in
accordance with Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 Decem-
ber 1985 on the coordination of
laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collec-
tive investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), taxable
persons for value-added-tax purposes within the meaning of
Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), so that the services referred
to in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive supplied to them are
deemed to be provided at the place where the said SICAVs
have established their seat?

If the answer to that question is in the negative, the resolution
of the case entails determining what types of services provided
to the SICAVs may benefit
from the exemption under
Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive: Is it necessary in this
context to distinguish between services which comprise the
giving of assistance and management advice, on the one hand,
and management services in the strict sense, on the other, the
latter being said to differ from the former in that they imply a
power on the manager’s part to take decisions relating to the
administration and disposal of the assets under management?

(1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1985, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.