Case C-69/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 February 2015 — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
Date: 2015-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, environmental protection, export of waste, local government, waste management








C_2015138EN.01003901.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/39





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 February 2015 — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
(Case C-69/15)
(2015/C 138/53)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L.

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

Questions referred







1)


Must a shipment of waste be considered to be effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1), when the person who arranges the shipment completes the boxes corresponding to the importer/consignee, the recovery facility and the countries/States concerned — in entries 2, 7 and 11 respectively of the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation — in a manner whereby those entries conflict with one another, even though the information relating to those entries is clearly apparent from the international consignment note and other documents available?










2)


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can a fine imposed on that ground, equal in amount to that imposed on a person infringing the obligation to complete the document set out in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, be considered proportionate?










3)


In order for a shipment of waste to be declared illegal, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, must the person completing the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation deliberately mislead the authorities?










4)


Is the fact that the information or data not actually specified is significant as regards environmental protection a relevant factor in order to declare that a shipment of waste, effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, is illegal? If the answer is in the affirmative, what information or data of the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation must be considered significant as regards environmental protection?










5)


Can a transfer of waste be found to be effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, where the authority does not carry out the procedure laid down in Article 24 of that regulation, does not inform the authorities concerned and does not order the illegally shipped waste to be taken back?










6)


How must jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 be understood and examined?










7)


How must the expression in paragraph 15 of Part IV of Annex IC to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, which states that in order for dealers or brokers to be consignees they must be under the jurisdiction of the country of destination, be interpreted?






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