Case C-509/25, voestalpine Stahl: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 25 July 2025 – voestalpine Stahl GmbH and PIWAG Entsorger GmbH
Date: 2025-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, export of waste, free movement of goods, waste management








C_202505931EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5931


17.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 25 July 2025 – voestalpine Stahl GmbH and PIWAG Entsorger GmbH


(Case C-509/25, voestalpine Stahl)

(C/2025/5931)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: voestalpine Stahl GmbH, PIWAG Entsorger GmbH

Defendant authority: Landeshauptmann von Oberösterreich

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (‘the EC Waste Shipment Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that there is ‘notified waste’ within the meaning of that provision where waste was notified to the competent authority in the country of dispatch in advance in writing in accordance with Chapter 1 of Title II of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation?










2.


Must Article 28(2) of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the legal consequence provided for therein – according to which the waste is to be regarded as waste listed in Annex IV to the EC Waste Shipment Regulation (legal consequence) – can apply to individual (notified) waste or also to entire flows of waste?










3.


Must Article 28(2) of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation, in conjunction with requirements under primary law, in particular the free movement of goods under Article 34 et seq. TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), be interpreted as meaning that the legal consequence, for the person affected by it, arises at the time at which the authorities fail to reach agreement or at another time, in particular after the expiry of a reasonable period after the time at which the authorities fail to reach agreement?










4.


Must Article 28(2) of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation, in conjunction with requirements under primary law, in particular the free movement of goods under Article 34 et seq. TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that the application of the legal consequence presupposes the adoption of a national implementing measure with regard to notified waste?
If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:










5.


Does Article 28(2) of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, require the adoption of a national legal act by the competent authority of dispatch or the competent authority of destination or the competent authorities of dispatch and destination, in respect of which (in each case) the person affected by the legal consequence has an effective legal remedy enabling that person to challenge that act?










6.


In a procedure to determine whether a particular shipped substance is subject to the procedure of prior written notification and consent in accordance with Chapter 1 of Title II of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation, does Article 28(2) of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation preclude an authority of dispatch from examining the compatibility with EU law of a national act by the competent authority of destination which relates to the application of the legal consequence under Article 28(2) of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation?






(1)  
            OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5931/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)