Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-277/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht): EU-Wood-Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Waste intended for recovery — Objections — Powers of the authority of dispatch — Recovery contravening the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC or those of national provisions — Power of the authority of dispatch to raise such objections)
Date: 2005-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, public health, transport of dangerous goods, waste recycling

C 45/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.2.2005

by decision of 20 December 2001, received at the Court on
29 January 2002, in the proceedings between Viktor Hlozek
and Roche Austria Gesellschaft mbH Ä the Court
(First
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A.
Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and
S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 9 December 2004, in which it has ruled:

— to adopt

the appropriate implementing measures for using
availabilities allocated to it and to proceed with the inspections
and other control measures required by the applicable Com-
munity rules,

— to adopt all effective measures to prevent availabilities' being

exceeded,

the laws of

A bridging allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings
falls under the concept of ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC
and Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February
1975 on the approximation of
the Member States
relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
women. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, those
provisions do not preclude the application of a social plan providing
for a difference in the treatment of male and female workers in terms
of the age at which they are entitled to a bridging allowance, since,
under
statutory scheme governing early retirement
pensions, they are in different situations with regard to the factors
relevant to the grant of that allowance.

the national

— to take all administrative or penal measures which it was
required to impose against captains of vessels having violated
those rules or against any other person responsible for such a
violation,

the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 9(2) of Council Regulation No 3760/92 of 20 December
1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquacul-
ture, and Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

(1) OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.

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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

(Third Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-271/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Fishing — Conservation and
management of resources — Measures to control fishing
activity)

(2005/C 45/03)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

In Case C-271/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Tufvesson) against Kingdom
of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and A. Falk) – action for failure
to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 24 July
2002 – the Court of Justice (Third Chamber), composed of A.
Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing, for the years 1995 and 1996:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-277/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberverwaltungsgericht): EU-Wood-Trading GmbH v
Rheinland-Pfalz
Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft

mbH (1)

(Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
shipments of waste — Waste intended for recovery — Objec-
tions — Powers of the authority of dispatch — Recovery
contravening the requirements of Article 4 of Directive
75/442/EEC or those of national provisions — Power of the
authority of dispatch to raise such objections)

(2005/C 45/04)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-277/02:
ruling
under Article 234 EC from the Oberverwaltungsgericht

a preliminary

reference

for

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany), made by decision of 3 July 2002,
in the proceedings between EU-
received on 29 July 2002,
Wood-Trading GmbH and
Sonderabfall-Management-
(First
Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH Ä the Court
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A.
Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16
December 2004, in which it has ruled:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 14 December 2004

1. The first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of 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 Com-
munity, as amended by Commission Decisions 98/368/EC of 18
May 1998 and 1999/816/EC of 24 November 1999, is to be
interpreted as meaning that the objections to a shipment of waste
for recovery which the competent authorities of dispatch and of
destination are empowered to raise may be based on considerations
connected not only to the actual transport of the waste in each
competent authority's area of jurisdiction but also on the recovery
planned for that shipment.

2. The first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, as
amended by Decisions 98/368 and 1999/816, is to be inter-
preted as meaning that for the purposes of an objection to a ship-
ment of waste the competent authority of dispatch may, in asses-
sing the effects on health and the environment of the recovery envi-
saged at the destination, provided it complies with the principle of
proportionality, rely on the criteria to which, to avoid such effects,
the recovery of waste is subject in the State of dispatch, even where
those criteria are stricter than those in force in the State of destina-
tion.

3. The second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93,
as amended by Decisions 98/368 and 1999/816, is to be inter-
preted as meaning that a competent authority of dispatch may not
rely on those provisions to raise an objection to a shipment of
waste based on the fact that the planned recovery does not comply
with the national laws and regulations for protection of the envir-
onment, public order, public safety or health protection.

(1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

in Case C-309/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Radlberger Getränkege-
sellschaft mbH & Co., and S. Spitz KG v Land Baden-Würt-
temberg (1)

(Environment — Free movement of goods — Packaging and
packaging waste — Directive 94/62/EC — Deposit and
return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on
the overall percentage of reusable packaging)

(2005/C 45/05)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-309/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart
(Germany), made by order of 21 August 2002, received at the
Court on 29 August 2002, in the proceedings between Radl-
berger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co., and S. Spitz KG
and Land Baden-Württemberg – the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann and K. Lenaerts
(Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 1(2) of European Parliament and Council Directive
94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
waste does not preclude the Member States from introducing
measures designed to promote systems for the reuse of packaging.

2. While Article 7 of Directive 94/62 does not confer on the produ-
cers and distributors concerned any right to continue to participate
in a given packaging-waste management system, it precludes the
replacement of a global system for the collection of packaging
waste with a deposit and return system where the new system is
not equally appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objectives
of that directive or where the changeover to the new system does
not take place without a break and without jeopardising the ability
of economic operators in the sectors concerned actually to partici-
pate in the new system as soon as it enters into force.