Case C-188/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA, Total International Ltd (Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste management — Concept of waste — Polluter pays principle — Holder — Previous holders — Producer of the product from which the waste came — Hydrocarbons and heavy fuel oil — Shipwreck — International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage — International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund)
Date: 2008-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, fuel oil, interpretation of the law, storage of waste, transport accident, waste management

C 209/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Efetio Athinon, Greece) — Motosykletistiki Omospondia
Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio

cations for authorisation to organise such competitions, without that
power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review.

(Case C-49/07) (1)

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

(Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Concept of ‘undertaking’ —
Non-profit-making association representing,
the
International Motorcycling Federation — Concept of ‘economic
activity’ — Special legal right to give consent to applications
for authorisation to organise motorcycling events — Exercise
in parallel of activities such as the organisation of motorcy-
cling events and the conclusion of sponsorship, advertising
and insurance contracts)

in Greece,

(2008/C 209/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece

Parties to the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation, France) — Commune de Mesquer v Total France
SA, Total International Ltd

(Case C-188/07) (1)

(Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste management — Concept of
waste — ‘Polluter pays’ principle — Holder — Previous
holders — Producer of the product from which the waste came
— Hydrocarbons and heavy fuel oil — Shipwreck — Interna-
tional Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage
— International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund)

(2008/C 209/14)

Language of the case: French

Applicant: Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE)

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Re:

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Athinon
— Interpretation of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Concept of
‘undertaking’ — Non-profit-making automobile
association
(ELPA) representing the Fédération internationale de motocy-
clisme (the International Motorcycling Federation) in Greece and
having the exclusive right to authorise events in the field of
motor sport — Association engaging, in parallel, in economic
activities such as advertising,
the conclusion of sponsorship
agreements and the financing of prizes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commune de Mesquer

Defendants: Total France SA, Total International Ltd

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

A legal person whose activities consist not only in taking part in
administrative decisions authorising the organisation of motorcycling
events, but also in organising such events itself and in entering, in that
connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, falls
within the scope of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC. Those articles preclude
a national rule which confers on a legal person, which organises motor-
cycling competitions and enters, in that connection, into sponsorship,
advertising and insurance contracts, the power to give consent to appli-

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France)
— Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC
of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended
by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78,
p. 32) and of Category Q4 of Annex 1 and of Article 1(b) and
(c) and Article 15 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European
Parliament and of
the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste
(OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) — Definition of waste — Inclusion of
hydrocarbons and heavy fuel oil, by itself or mixed with water
and sand? — Responsibility of the producer and/or holder of
the waste where it is transported by a third party

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/11

Operative part of the judgment

1. A substance such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely
heavy fuel oil sold as a combustible fuel, does not constitute waste
within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
1975 on waste, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC
of 24 May 1996, where it is exploited or marketed on economic-
ally advantageous terms and is capable of actually being used as a
fuel without requiring prior processing.

2. Hydrocarbons accidentally spilled at sea following a shipwreck,
mixed with water and sediment and drifting along the coast of a
Member State until being washed up on that coast, constitute
waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as
amended by Decision 96/350, where they are no longer capable of
being exploited or marketed without prior processing.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
State van België (Belgium)) — Nationale Raad van
Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers VZW, Andibel VZW v
Belgische Staat

(Case C-219/07) (1)

(Article 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 — Protection
of species of wild fauna and flora — Prohibition on holding
mammals of certain species referred to by that regulation or
not covered by it — Holding permitted in other Member
States)

(2008/C 209/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

3. For the purposes of applying Article 15 of Directive 75/442, as
amended by Decision 96/350, to the accidental spillage of hydro-
carbons at sea causing pollution of the coastline of a Member
State:

Referring court

Raad van State van België

— the national court may regard the seller of those hydrocarbons
and charterer of the ship carrying them as a producer of that
waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 75/442,
as amended by Decision 96/350, and thereby as a ‘previous
holder’ for the purposes of applying the first part of the second
indent of Article 15 of that directive, if that court, in the light
of the elements which it alone is in a position to assess, reaches
the conclusion that that seller-charterer contributed to the risk
that the pollution caused by the shipwreck would occur, in par-
ticular if he failed to take measures to prevent such an incident,
such as measures concerning the choice of ship;

— if it happens that the cost of disposing of the waste produced
by an accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea is not borne by
the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, or cannot
be borne because the ceiling for compensation for that accident
has been reached, and that, in accordance with the limitations
and/or exemptions of liability laid down, the national law of a
Member State,
including the law derived from international
agreements, prevents that cost from being borne by the ship-
owner and/or the charterer, even though they are to be regarded
as ‘holders’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive
75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, such a national
law will then, in order to ensure that Article 15 of that direc-
tive is correctly transposed, have to make provision for that cost
to be borne by the producer of the product from which the
waste thus spread came. In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’
principle, however, such a producer cannot be liable to bear
that cost unless he has contributed by his conduct to the risk
that the pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers
VZW, Andibel VZW

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België
(Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 30 EC and of Council
Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protec-
tion of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade
therein (OJ 1996 L 61, p. 1) — National legislation providing a
list of
species which may be held in the Member State
concerned, whose effect is to rule out the holding of the species
referred to in Annexes B, C or D to the regulation and of those
not covered by the regulation — Holding authorised in other
Member States whose legislation complies with the regulation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, read separately or in conjunction with
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the
protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade
therein, do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in
the main proceedings, under which a prohibition on importing,
holding or trading in mammals belonging to species other than those
expressly referred to in that legislation applies to species of mammals
which are not included in Annex A to that regulation, if the protection
of or compliance with the interests and requirements referred to in
paragraphs 27 to 29 of this judgment cannot be secured just as effec-
tively by measures which obstruct intra-Community trade to a lesser
extent.