Case C-242/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Belgian Shell NV
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: commercial contract, diesel fuel, export of waste, marketing








C_2012243EN.01000601.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Belgian Shell NV
(Case C-242/12)
2012/C 243/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Belgian Shell NV

Questions referred







1.


Must a consignment of diesel be categorised as waste within the meaning of the (former (1) and new (2)) WSR (Waste Shipment Regulation) in the following circumstances:






(a)


the consignment consists of Ultra Light Sulphur Diesel, which has been unintentionally mixed with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether;










(b)


after the consignment is delivered to a buyer, it transpires that — because of the mix — it does not satisfy the specifications agreed between the buyer and the vendor and is therefore ‘off-spec’;










(c)


the consignment — following a complaint by the buyer — is taken back by the vendor in accordance with the purchase agreement, and the vendor refunds the purchase price;










(d)


the vendor has the intention — whether or not after mixing it with another product — of placing the consignment back on the market?














2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:






(a)


is it possible to specify a point in time in the abovementioned factual circumstances from which this is the case;










(b)


does the status of the consignment change to a non-waste product at any point in time between the delivery to the buyer and a new blending carried out by or on behalf of the vendor and, if so, at what point?














3.


Is it relevant to the answer to question 1:






(a)


whether the consignment could be used as fuel in the same way as pure ULSD, but because of its lower flashpoint it no longer satisfied the (safety) requirements;










(b)


whether, as result of the new composition, the consignment could not be stored by the buyer pursuant to an environmental permit;










(c)


whether the consignment could not be used by the buyer for the purpose for which it had been bought, namely for sale as diesel fuel from the pump;










(d)


whether or not the buyer intended to return the consignment to the vendor pursuant to the purchase agreement;










(e)


whether the vendor did in fact intend to take back the consignment with a view to processing it through blending it and to place it back on the market;










(f)


whether or not the consignment can be restored either to the state originally intended or processed into a product that is marketable for a price approaching that of the market value of the original ULSD consignment;










(g)


whether that restoration/processing is a common production process;










(h)


whether the market value of the consignment in the state that it is in at the time that it is taken back by the vendor is (virtually) the same as the price of a product that does satisfy the agreed specifications;










(i)


whether the consignment taken back can be sold on the market in the state that it is in at the time that is taken back without being processed;










(j)


whether trade in products such as the consignment is common and is not regarded in relevant trade circles as trade in waste?










(1)  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 Community (former WSR) (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (new WSR) (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1)