Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-444/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC and Decision 96/350/EC — Directive 94/62/EC — Concept of waste — Concept of recycling — Processing of metal packaging waste)
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, fuel, interpretation of the law, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

C 184/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2.

interpretation would be no different

the concepts of
That
‘recycling’ and ‘waste’ referred to by Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste were taken into account.

if

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 June 2003

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2001.

in Case C-444/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environ-
ment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions (1)

(Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
and Decision 96/350/EC — Directive 94/62/EC — Concept
of waste — Concept of recycling — Processing of metal
packaging waste)

(2003/C 184/06)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 12 June 2003

in Case C-97/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Telecom-
munications — Rights of way — Failure to transpose Direc-
tive 90/388/EEC effectively)

(Language of the case: English)

(2003/C 184/07)

In Case C-444/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd and
Environment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions,
interveners: Corus (UK) Ltd and
Allied Steel and Wire Ltd (ASW), 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),
and of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P.
Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 June
2003, in which it has ruled:

Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,

1.

‘Recycling’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of European
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December
1994 on packaging and packaging waste is to be interpreted as
not including the reprocessing of metal packaging waste when it
is transformed into a secondary raw material such as material
meeting the specifications of Grade 3B, but as covering the
reprocessing of such waste when it is used to produce ingots,
sheets or coils of steel.

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-97/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier) v Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent:
J. Faltz): Applications for a declaration
that, by failing to ensure, in practice, the effective transposition
into Luxembourg law of Article 4d of Commission Directive
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), as
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
its obligations, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
has failed to fulfil
composed of:
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet, President of
C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rappor-
teur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure the effective transposition of
Article 4d of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June
1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications
services, as amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of
13 March 1996, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.2001.