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: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cement, fuel, interpretation of the law, waste management, waste recycling

C 146/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

subject-matter, account should be taken only of the claims of the
respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions
raised by a defendant.

( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 3 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-113/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen): Paranova Oy (1)

(Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
the medicinal product of reference)

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 146/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(2003/C 146/12)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

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

In Case C-113/01: Reference to the Court under Article
234 EC by Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Finland)
for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court brought by Paranova Oy on the interpretation of
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of a marketing
authorisation of reference of itself entails the withdrawal of the
parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question.
However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel
imports of the medicinal product in question where there is in fact a
risk to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of
that medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State.

( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.

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
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
Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996,
for the purpose
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;

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

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

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets
— Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)

(2003/C 146/14)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-122/01 P, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
Hambourg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtwanwalt:
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February
2001 in Case T-1/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II-
465, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders T. Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam
Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne Gewerkschafter-
Innen/UG’ (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for
workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as
regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope —
Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers
from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)

(2003/C 146/15)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-171/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’, also represented: Bundesmi-
nister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Kammer für Arbeiter und
Angestellte für Vorarlberg, Wählergruppe ‘Vorarlberger Arbei-
ter- und Angestelltenbund (ÖAAB) — AK-Präsident Josef Fink’,
Wählergruppe ‘FSG — Walter Gelbmann — mit euch ins
nächste Jahrtausend/Liste 2’, Wählergruppe ‘Freiheitliche und
parteifreie Arbeitnehmer Vorarlberg — FPÖ’, Wählergruppe
‘Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock’, and Wählergruppe ‘NBZ —
Neue Bewegung für die Zukunft’, on the interpretation of
Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on
the development of the Association, adopted by the Associ-
ation Council established by the Association Agreement
between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
Jacobs,
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G.
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which
it has ruled:

Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
established by the Association Agreement between the European
Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as:

— having direct effect in the Member States, and