Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and use of incineration residues as raw material in cement manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cement, energy production, environmental monitoring, fuel, interpretation of the law, transport of dangerous goods, waste disposal, waste management

24.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 3 April 2003

2.

The heading of Article 13A of that directive does not, of itself,
entail restrictions on the possibilities of exemption provided for
by that provision.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann (1)

(VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services
performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a
soloist)

(2003/C 124/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-144/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against
Matthias Hoffmann, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(n)
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment,
is to be
interpreted to the effect that the expression ‘other [recognised]
cultural bodies’ does not exclude soloists performing individu-
ally.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 3 April 2003

in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
en Milieu-
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening

beheer (1)

(Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
use of incineration residues as raw material
in cement
manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

(2003/C 124/02)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening

C 124/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2003

en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of 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 Commission Decision 96/350/EC
of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32),
the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
for the purpose
Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996,
of implementing 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January
1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;

2.

The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a
relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by
Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that
purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
down in the Directive.

( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 3 April 2003

in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio
Samper (1)

(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-
sideration of comparative merits)

(2003/C 124/03)

(Language of the case: French)

Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
in Madrid (Spain),
(represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May

2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;

2.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998
the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;

3.

Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-70/03)

(2003/C 124/04)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national
law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC (1) of
5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Treaty and under that directive;