Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-114/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy, formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy (Approximation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Meaning of "waste" — Production residue — Mine — Use — Storage — Article 2(1)(b) — Meaning of "other legislation" — National legislation outside the framework of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC)
Date: 2003-11-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: earths and stones, interpretation of the law, terminology, waste management, waste recycling

1.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 11 September 2003

mentioned in that provision, if it relates to the management of
that waste as such within the meaning of Article 1(d) of
Directive 75/442, and if it results in a level of protection of the
environment at
least equivalent to that aimed at by that
directive, whatever the date of its entry into force.

(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.

in Case C-114/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy,
formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy (1)

(Approximation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/
156/EEC — Meaning of ‘waste’ — Production residue —
Mine — Use — Storage — Article 2(1)(b) — Meaning
of ‘other legislation’ — National legislation outside the
framework of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC)

(2003/C 264/10)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

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

In Case C-114/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy, formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy,
on the interpretation of Articles 1(a) and 2(1)(b) 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),
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,
Jacobs, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it has
ruled:

Judges; F.G.

1.

2.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the
holder of leftover rock and residual sand from ore-dressing
operations from the operation of a mine discards or intends to
discard those substances, which must consequently be classified
as waste 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, unless he uses them lawfully
for the necessary filling in of the galleries of that mine and
provides sufficient guarantees as to the identification and actual
use of the substances to be used for that purpose.

In so far as it does not constitute a measure of application of
Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and in
particular Article 11 of that directive, national legislation must
be regarded as
legislation’ within the meaning of
Article 2(1)(b) of that directive covering a category of waste

‘other

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 September 2003

in Case C-125/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Peter Pflücke v Bundesanstalt
für Arbeit (1)

(Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer —
Guarantee of payment of outstanding salary — National
provision laying down a two-month time-limit for lodging
applications for payment and providing for an extension of
that time-limit)

(2003/C 264/11)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-125/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Peter Pflücke and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpret-
ation of Article 9 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 Octo-
ber 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the protection of employees in the event of
the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
J. Mischo, Advocate
teur), P.
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Sep-
tember 2003, in which it has ruled:

Jann and A. Rosas,

Judges;

1.

Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer does not preclude the application of a time-limit laid
down by national law for the lodging of an application by an
employee seeking to obtain, in accordance with the detailed
rules laid down in that directive, a compensation payment in
respect of outstanding salary
resulting from his
employer’s insolvency, provided that the time-limit is no less
favourable than those governing similar domestic applications
(principle of equivalence) and is not framed in such a way as to
render impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by
Community law (principle of effectiveness);

claims