Case C– 215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 14 May 2004 in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, export of waste, interpretation of the law, waste management, waste recycling

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/7

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Commission claims that the derogations referred to in the
Decree of 3 October 2001 of the Ministry of the Environment
and Protection of the Territory apply to various cases which
are not covered by the derogation laid down in Regulation No
2037/2000 and that therefore the field of application of those
derogations is considerably wider than is permitted under the
regulation itself. In so far as the Italian provisions authorise the
in fire protection
use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
installations
under Regulation
2037/2000, those provisions are inconsistent with Community
law.

in cases not permitted

(1) OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by order of 14 May 2004 in the case of Marius Pedersen
A/S v Miljøstyrelsen

(Case C– 215/04)

(2004/C 190/12)

there are so many waste producers,

May the criterion be that the waste producer is unknown or
that
the individual
contribution of each of which is so modest that it would be
unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify
the exportation of the waste?

2. Does Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93, in conjunction
with Article 7(4)(a), first and second indents in particular,
provide a possibility for the competent authorities of the
country of dispatch to raise an objection against a specific
request for authorisation to export waste for the purpose of
recycling if there is no information from the notifier that
the recipient plant's treatment of the waste in question will,
from the environmental point of view, be of the same stand-
ard as is required under national rules in the country of
dispatch?

3. Must the first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/
93 be construed as meaning that the requirement as to
information on the composition of
the waste may be
regarded as being satisfied if the notifier indicates that the
waste in question is of only one specific kind, for example,
‘electronic scrap’?

4. Must Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 259/93 be
construed as meaning that the period in Article 7(2) begins
to run when the competent authority of destination has sent
the
the acknowledgement,
competent authority of dispatch does not consider that it
has received all of the information set out in Article 6(5)?

irrespective of

the fact

that

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of 14 May 2004 of the Østre
Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was received at the
Court Registry on 21 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen on the following
questions:

If the answer is in the negative: what information must a
notification contain before the 30-day period indicated in
Article 7(2) can begin to run?

1. Must the expression ‘where this is not possible’ in Article
2(g)(ii) of Regulation No 259/93 (1) be understood as
meaning that an approved collection undertaking cannot
automatically be the notifier of exports of waste for recy-
cling?

If the answer is in the affirmative: which criteria determine
whether an approved collection undertaking can be the
notifier of exports of waste for recycling?

Does the fact of having exceeded the 30-day period for
reply have the effect in law that the authority cannot raise
further objections or request further information?

(1) 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 (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1).