Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004 in Case C-309/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co., and S. Spitz KG v Land Baden-Württemberg (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)
Date: 2005-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: beverage, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, packaging, waste management, waste recycling

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.

C 45/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.2.2005

3. Article 28 EC precludes national rules, such as those laid down in
Paragraphs 8(1) and 9(2) of the Verordnung über die Vermeidung
und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfällen (Regulation on the
Avoidance and Recovery of Packaging Waste), when they
announce that a global packaging-waste collection system is to be
replaced by a deposit and return system without the producers and
distributors concerned having a reasonable transitional period to
adapt thereto and being assured that, at the time when the packa-
ging-waste management system changes, they can actually partici-
pate in an operational system.

(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.

2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5
June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture,
presentation and sale of tobacco products.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 December 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

in Case C-460/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Italian Republic (1)

(Grand Chamber)

of 14 December 2004

in Case C-434/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Minden): Arnold André GmbH &
Co. KG v Landrat des Kreises Herford (1)

(Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
sale of tobacco products — Article 8 — Prohibition of
placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use —
Validity)

(2005/C 45/06)

(Language of the case: German)

the Court on 29 November 2002,

In Case C-434/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article
234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden
(Germany), made by decision of 14 November 2002, received
at
in the proceedings
between Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and Landrat des
Kreises Herford – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of:
V. Skouris, President, P.
Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and K.
Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rappor-
teur),
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and subsequently M.-F. Contet, Prin-
cipal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 December 2004, in which it has ruled:

Consideration of the question referred has not disclosed any factor of
the validity of Article 8 of Directive
such a kind as to affect

(Air transport — Groundhandling — Directive 96/67/EC)

(2005/C 45/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

the European Communities

In Case C-460/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 19 December 2002, between
(Agents:
Commission of
A. Aresu and M. Huttunen) and Italian Republic (Agents: I.M.
(First Chamber),
Braguglia and O. Fiumara) – the Court
composed
Chamber,
the
of
R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and
K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica
Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,
the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

President

Jann,

for

of

P.

1. Declares that in so far as Legislative Decree No 18 of 13 January
1999 applying Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhand-
ling market at Community airports incorporates, at Article 14, a
social measure which is incompatible with Article 18 of Council
Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 and sets out, at Article
20, interim provisions which are not authorised under the direc-
tive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.