CELEX: C2000/335/50
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-311/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of N.V. Sturing Afvalverwĳdering Noord-Brabant, N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland, UTR Umwelt Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

C 335/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse                  4.b )If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of                      such a prohibition on export solely on the basis of the
N.V.      Sturing      Afvalverwijdering       Noord-Brabant,                principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland, UTR Umwelt                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke                          Community?
                   Ordening en Milieubeheer
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                        (Case C-311/00)                                (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                        (2000/C 335/50)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August
                                                                       Action brought on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Repub-
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Sturing
                                                                       lic of Germany against the Commission of the European
Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant, N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid
                                                                                                 Communities
Nederland, UTR Umwelt Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:                                                                                  (Case C-321/00)
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-                                   (2000/C 335/51)
     ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the
     Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     work Directive?                                                   Communities on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the          Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurheindorfer Strasse 108,
     above question? For the operation referred to therein to          D-53117 Bonn, and Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Charlot-
     exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a        tenstrasse 65, D-10117 Berlin, acting as Agents.
     treatment, can be used several times or can be taken
     back?                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned               1.    Annul Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000
     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly               amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
     ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of              Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
     operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework                    visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
     Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,               action relating to medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139 of
     and if so which one?                                                    10 June 2000, p. 28);
3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether         2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
     an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery                   ings.
     within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
     Directive?
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
     operation and a recovery operation, must priority be              —     Infringement of the Council’s legislative competence
     given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying                through circumvention of the prescribed legislative pro-
     that operation or does neither of the two lists take                    cedure: the contested directive contains a series of amend-
     precedence over the other?                                              ments which do not in any way relate to the adaptation
                                                                             of existing provisions governing pharmacovigilance to
4.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a                    ‘scientific and technical progress’ (Article 29i of Directive
     shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                     75/319) but alter specific legal obligations of undertak-
     raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(1) of                ings having a duty to notify within the context of
     Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on                    pharmacovigilance. In addition, the efficacy of hitherto
     the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,               existing national notification procedures is adversely
     into and out of the European Community to the shipment                  affected inasmuch as they have to be replaced by a system
     solely on account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency               based on a European data-processing network which will
     at national level without showing that self-sufficiency at              still not be available for that purpose on 5 December
     national level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at              2001, the date by which the contested directive must be
     Community level?                                                        transposed.