Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-1/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): criminal proceedings against Paul Van de Walle and Others and Texaco Belgium SA (Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Meaning of ‘waste’, ‘producer of waste’ and ‘holder of waste’ — Soil infiltrated by leaked hydrocarbons — Independent operation of a service station belonging to a petroleum company)
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, interpretation of the law, oil pollution, waste

C 262/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

1. A person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main
proceedings, first, does not come under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC
and, second, can claim a right of residence as a worker within the
meaning of Article 39 EC only if the paid activity he carries out is
real and genuine. It is for the national court to carry out the
examinations of fact necessary to determine whether that is so in
the case pending before it.

is subject

that right

2. A citizen of the European Union who does not enjoy a right of
residence in the host Member State under Articles 39 EC, 43 EC
or 49 EC may, simply as a citizen of the Union, enjoy a right of
residence there by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exer-
cise of
to the limitations and conditions
referred to in that provision, but the competent authorities must
ensure that those limitations and conditions are applied in compli-
ance with the general principles of Community law, in particular
the principle of proportionality. However, once it is ascertained
that a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the
main proceedings is in possession of a residence permit, he may
rely on Article 12 EC in order to be granted a social assistance
benefit such as the minimex.

Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it:

in Belgium,

1. Declares that, by making the granting and payment of a benefit
under the career-break benefit scheme subject to the condition that
the person concerned is habitually resident
the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its duties under Article 39
EC, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community, Article 73 of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons and their families moving within the Com-
munity, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No
118/97 of 2 December 1996;

2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 September 2004

in Case C-469/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Career
break benefit — Residence condition — Indirect discrimina-
tion based on nationality — Article 39 EC — Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 73 of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 September 2004

in Case C-1/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): criminal proceedings against
Paul Van de Walle and Others and Texaco Belgium SA (1)

(Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and
91/156/EEC — Meaning of ‘waste’, ‘producer of waste’ and
‘holder of waste’ — Soil infiltrated by leaked hydrocarbons
— Independent operation of a service station belonging to a
petroleum company)

(2004/C 262/16)

(2004/C 262/15)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-469/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2002, Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: H. Michard) v Kingdom
of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, then by E. Dominkovits) — the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha
Judges; M.
Rodrigues ande R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,

In Case C-1/03: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
against Paul Van de Walle, Daniel Laurent, Thierry Mersch and
Texaco Belgium SA, intervener: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale —
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/9

Hydrocarbons which are unintentionally spilled and cause soil and
groundwater contamination are waste within the meaning of Article
1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991. The
same is true for soil contaminated by hydrocarbons, even if it has not
been excavated. In circumstances such as those in the main proceed-
ings, the petroleum undertaking which supplied the service station can
be considered to be the holder of that waste within the meaning of
Article 1(c) of Directive 75/442 only if the leak from the service
station's storage facilities which gave rise to the waste can be attrib-
uted to the conduct of that undertaking.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 September 2004

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-72/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione tributaria di Massa): Carbonati Apuani
Srl v Comune di Carrara (1)

in Case C-70/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Charges having effect equivalent to a customs duty — Tax
levied on marble excavated in the territory of a municipality
on its being transported across the boundaries of the muni-
cipal territory)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Rules
of interpretation — Rules concerning conflict of laws)

(2004/C 262/18)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2004/C 262/17)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-70/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations brought on 17 February 2003, Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and
M. França) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) —
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose into national law
Articles 5 and 6(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

In Case C-72/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria di Massa
Carrara (Italy), by decision of 11 December 2002, registered at
the Court on 18 February 2003, in the proceedings brought by
Carbonati Apuani Srl v Comune di Carrara — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A.
Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts
(Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L.
Hewlett, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 9
September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A tax proportionate to the weight of goods, levied in one munici-
pality of a Member State only and imposed on one class of goods
when those goods are transported beyond the territorial boundaries
of that municipality, constitutes a charge having effect equivalent
to a customs duty on exports within the meaning of Article 23
EC, despite the fact that it is imposed also on goods the final
destination of which is within the Member State concerned.