Case C-472/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 20 December 2002 in the case of Siomab against Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l'Environnement ("IBGE")
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, transport of dangerous goods, waste management

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/17

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that by making the granting and payment of a
benefit under the career-break benefit scheme subject to
the condition that the person concerned is habitually
resident in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
to fulfil its duties under Article 39 of the EC Treaty,
Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council
of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
for
workers within the Community (1), and specifically, so far
as concerns career breaks in the context of parental leave,
Article 73 of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June
1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons and their families moving within the
Community (2);

— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(The residence clause) The Belgian authorities announced the
removal of the clause relating to residence acknowledging
thereby that the Commission’s arguments were well founded.
However, work on compliance has not been completed.

(The clauses relating to payment in Belgium) The requirement
that the persons affected by the benefit should have a bank
in certain cases, such as to call in
account in Belgium is,
question the effects of the amendments to the legislation at
issue. Indeed, there are instances where, in order to open a
bank account or to maintain it, certain banks require a
certificate of residence.

(Procedure for dealing with previous refusals) It is essential, for
the purpose of legal certainty, that the real rights of the
individual are protected from the harmful consequences of
conduct by the public authorities which is based on rules
which are incompatible with Community law. Failure of a
Member State to fulfil its obligations should not, in any event,
result in a financial advantage for itself. However, although the
Belgian authorities state that anyone whose career-break
benefit was refused on the basis of the former rules may make
a fresh application on the basis of the new rules, the cases
concerned will be routinely re-examined; neither is there any
information as to the dissemination of information or on the
procedures which will be put in place for back-payment of the
benefits to persons who have been denied them on the ground
that they were not resident in Belgium.

( 1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 475.
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p 159.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 20 December
2002 in the case of Siomab against Institut Bruxellois
pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (‘IBGE’)

(Case C-472/02)

(2003/C 44/31)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’appel de
Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 20 December 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Siomab against Institut
Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (‘IBGE’) on the
following questions:

Where a Member State has recourse to the mechanism by
which the competent authority of dispatch gives notice of a
consignment note under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of Council
Regulation No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
European Community (1), must Articles 3(8), 4(3), 6(8), 7(4)
and 26 of the regulation be interpreted as meaning:

(a)

that the competent authority of dispatch within the
meaning of the regulation, which is empowered to verify
whether a planned shipment classified in the notification
as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ actually fits that
classification, may, when it considers that the classifi-
cation is incorrect,

(1)

refuse to transmit the consignment note because of
that incorrect classification and ask the notifier to
transmit a new consignment note to it,

(2)

transmit the consignment note after reclassifying
the planned shipment as a ‘shipment of waste for
disposal’,

(3)

transmit the consignment note containing the incor-
immediately accompanying its
rect classification,
transmission with an objection based on that incor-
rect classification?

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.