Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  16 February 2006  in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery operations — Concept of  notifier  — Notifier's obligations)
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, export of waste, interpretation of the law, waste management, waste recycling

C 86/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

1. Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on
the approximation of
the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
products, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product is put
into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process
operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the
form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or
consumed.

2. When an action is brought against a company mistakenly consid-
ered to be the producer of a product whereas, in reality, it was
manufactured by another company, it is as a rule for national law
to determine the conditions in accordance with which one party
may be substituted for another in the context of such an action. A
national court examining the conditions governing such a substi-
tution must, however, ensure that due regard is had to the personal
scope of Directive 85/374, as established by Articles 1 and 3
thereof.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 16 February 2006

in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyr-
elsen (1)

(Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery
operations — Concept of ‘notifier’ — Notifier's obligations)

(2006/C 86/10)

(Language of the case: Danish)

In Case C-215/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by
decision of 14 May 2004, received at the Court on 21 May
2004, in the proceedings between Marius Pedersen A/S and
Miljøstyrelsen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P.

Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N.
Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a
judgment on 16 February 2006, the operative part of which is
as follows:

1. The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the super-
vision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of
the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that the
simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on
him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery.
However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown
or that the number of waste producers is so great and the indivi-
dual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unrea-
sonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport
of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as
the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery;

2. The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article
7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No
259/93, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of infor-
mation on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of
destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that
the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that
required by the rules in the State of dispatch;

3. The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 must be
interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply information
relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the
notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic
scrap’;

4. The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 begins to
run when the competent authorities of the State of destination
have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irre-
spective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of
dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the informa-
tion set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the
expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no
longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional infor-
mation from the notifier.

(1) OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.