CELEX: 62002CC0472
Language: en
Date: 2004-07-15 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 15 July 2004. # Siomab SA v Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l'environnement. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Bruxelles - Belgium. # Environment - Waste - Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste - Competence of the authority of dispatch to verify the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment based on an incorrect classification - Objection procedure. # Case C-472/02.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
      LÉGER
      delivered on 15 July 2004 (1)
      
      Case C-472/02
      Siomab SA
      v
      Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l’environnement (IBGE)
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium))
      (Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on the shipment of waste – Articles 3(8) and 6(8) – Transmission by the competent authority of dispatch of the notification of the proposed shipment to the other competent authorities
         – Incorrect classification of the shipment by the notifier – Right of the competent authority of dispatch to refuse to effect transmission of the shipment proposal or to change the classification
         on its own initiative – No such right – Obligation on the competent authority of dispatch to effect transmission of the shipment proposal and to lodge an objection
         to the execution of the shipment within the time‑limits prescribed by Articles 4(2)(b) and 7(2) of the regulation)
      1.        This case concerns the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) which lays down the procedural rules to which shipments of waste between Member States are subject. These rules differ according
         to whether the waste is for disposal or recovery. They are less onerous in the case of recovery than for disposal. The terms
         ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ are defined by Directive 75/442/EEC, (3) to which the Regulation expressly refers. (4)
      
      2.        The Regulation provides that a natural or legal person, called ‘the notifier’, who intends to ship waste for disposal or recovery
         from one Member State to another must give notice of the proposed shipment to the competent national authorities of the countries
         concerned – namely the competent authority of the country of destination, (5) that of the country from which the shipment is to be made (6) and, where appropriate, that of the country through which the waste is to pass in transit (7) – and to the consignee of the waste. The Regulation also states that the national legislation of each Member State may provide
         that it is the competent authority of dispatch which must transmit the proposal, which it has received from the notifier,
         to the other competent authorities and to the consignee. 
      
      3.        In the present case the Court is asked to clarify the powers of a competent authority of dispatch whose national legislation
         makes it responsible for the transmission of the shipment proposal, where that authority disagrees with the classification
         of the proposal. The question is whether the authority, where it considers that a proposal classified as a ‘shipment of waste
         for recovery’ is in reality a shipment for purposes of disposal, is entitled to reclassify the shipment on its own initiative,
         whether it may return the file to the notifier, or whether it has an obligation to transmit the proposal as classified while
         retaining the power to object to the carrying out of the operation on the ground of the incorrect classification. 
      
      4.        Before giving a brief account of the factual context in which the question has been referred to the Court, I shall set out
         the relevant provisions of the Regulation and also the judgment in ASA, (8) which is referred to in the order for reference and in which the Court provided some guidance that is relevant to the reply
         which I propose to give in the present case. 
      
      I –  The Regulation 
      5.        The aim of the Regulation is to provide a harmonised set of procedures whereby movements of waste can be limited in order
         to secure protection of the environment. (9) The preamble to the Regulation states that ‘shipments of waste must be subject to prior notification to the competent authorities
         enabling them to be duly informed in particular of the type, movement and disposal or recovery of the waste, so that these
         authorities may take all necessary measures for the protection of human health and the environment, including the possibility
         of raising reasoned objections to the shipment’. (10)
      
      6.        The notifier, who must give this notification, is defined in Article 2(g) of the Regulation as the original producer of the
         waste or, failing him, the collector or the holder of the waste who proposes to ship it or have it shipped. 
      
      7.        The procedure for shipments of waste between Member States is laid down in Title II of the Regulation, of which Chapter A,
         comprising Articles 3 to 5, covers waste for disposal and Chapter B, comprising Articles 6 to 11, covers waste for recovery.
         
      
      8.        Articles 3 and 6 of the Regulation require, in identical terms, a notifier who intends to ship waste for disposal or for recovery
         respectively from one Member State to another to notify the competent authority of destination and to send a copy of the notification
         to the competent authorities of dispatch and of transit and to the consignee. (11) Notification is to be effected by means of the consignment note issued by the competent authority of dispatch. (12) The notifier must complete the consignment note and, if requested by the competent authorities, supply additional information
         and documentation. (13) In particular, he must provide information concerning disposal operations as referred to in Annex IIA to Directive 75/442 (14) where the waste is to be disposed of, or recovery operations as referred to in Annex IIB to the Directive (15) where the shipment is for recovery purposes. The notifier must also conclude a contract with the consignee for the disposal
         or the recovery of the waste, and the contract must meet the requirements set out in the Regulation. (16)
      
      9.        Under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation, ‘a competent authority of dispatch may, in accordance with national legislation,
         decide to transmit the notification itself instead of the notifier to the competent authority of destination, with copies
         to the consignee and to the competent authority of transit’. 
      
      10.      Unlike Article 6(8), Article 3(8) has a second subparagraph which provides as follows. Where national legislation makes it
         responsible for giving notification of the consignment note, ‘the competent authority of dispatch may decide not to proceed
         with notification if it has itself immediate objections to raise against the shipment in accordance with Article 4(3). It
         shall immediately inform the notifier of these objections.’ (17)
      
      11.      On receipt of the notification of a proposed shipment for the purposes of disposal or recovery, the competent authority of
         destination must, within three working days, send an acknowledgment to the notifier and copies thereof to the other competent
         authorities concerned and to the consignee. (18) The dispatch of the acknowledgment marks the starting point of the periods allowed to the authorities for adopting a position
         on the disposal or recovery operation. 
      
      12.      With regard to disposal operations, Article 4 of the Regulation provides that they must be authorised by the authority of
         destination. Authorisation may be given only in the absence of objections on the part of the competent authorities of dispatch
         and transit. The competent authorities of dispatch and transit may raise objections or impose conditions on the shipment within
         20 days following the dispatch of the acknowledgment. The authority of destination must take its decision to authorise the
         proposed shipment, with or without conditions, or to refuse it, not earlier than 21 days and not later than 30 days following
         the dispatch of the acknowledgment. (19)
      
      13.      The objections which may be raised and the conditions which may be imposed by the competent authorities are set out in Article
         4(3). Under Article 4(3)(a), Member States may, in order to implement the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and
         self-sufficiency at Community and national levels in accordance with Directive 75/442, take measures to prohibit generally
         or partially or to object systematically to shipments of waste. Under Article 4(3)(b), the competent authorities of dispatch
         and destination may also raise reasoned objections to planned shipments if they are not in accordance with the Directive (i)
         in order to implement the principle of self-sufficiency at Community and national levels, (ii) in cases where the installation
         has to dispose of waste from a nearer source and the competent authority has given priority to this waste or (iii) in order
         to ensure that shipments are in accordance with waste management plans. Furthermore, under Article 4(3)(c), the competent
         authorities may raise reasoned objections to the planned shipment if (i) it is not in accordance with national legislation
         relating to environmental protection, public order, public safety or health protection, (ii) the notifier or the consignee
         has previously been guilty of illegal trafficking or (iii) the shipment conflicts with obligations resulting from international
         conventions concluded by the Member State or Member States concerned. 
      
      14.      With regard to waste for recovery, Article 7 of the Regulation provides that the competent authorities of destination, dispatch
         and transit have 30 days following dispatch of the acknowledgment to object to the shipment (20) and 20 days following the dispatch of the acknowledgment in which to lay down conditions in respect of the transport of waste
         within their jurisdiction. (21) The grounds on which objections may be based are listed in Article 7(4) and are fewer in number than those in relation to
         waste for disposal. If no objection is lodged within the 30-day period, shipment may be effected within one year of that date. (22) However, the written consent of the competent authorities is required prior to shipment if the waste for recovery is listed
         in Annex IV to the Regulation, entitled ‘Red List of Wastes’ because such waste is considered particularly dangerous, or where
         the waste in question has not yet been assigned to one of the annexes to the Regulation. (23)
      
      15.      Article 26 of the Regulation, which is also referred to in the question from the national court, defines ‘illegal traffic’
         and sets out the consequences thereof, depending on whether it must be attributed to the notifier or the consignee. 
      
      II –  The ASA judgment 
      16.      In ASA, cited above, the Court was confronted with a situation in which the competent authority of dispatch had lodged an objection
         to a proposed shipment classified by the notifier as a recovery operation, because, according to that authority, it was a
         disposal operation. (24) In that case, Article 6(8) of the Regulation was not applicable and the applicant itself had to give notice of its proposal
         to all the competent authorities and to the consignee. The Court was asked whether the competent authority of dispatch is
         competent to verify whether a proposed shipment classified in the notification as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ does
         in fact correspond to that classification, whether, if that is the case, it may oppose the shipment if the notifier’s classification
         is incorrect, and upon which provision of Community law the authority must then rely. 
      
      17.      The Court observed that it follows from the system established by the Regulation that all the competent authorities to which
         the notification is addressed must check that the classification by the notifier is consistent with the Regulation and object
         to a shipment which is incorrectly classified. (25) The Court concluded therefrom that if the competent authority of dispatch considers that the purpose of the shipment has
         been incorrectly classified in the notification, the ground for its objection to the shipment must be the classification error
         itself, without reference to one of the specific provisions of the Regulation setting out the objections which the Member
         States may raise against a shipment of waste. (26)
      
      18.      The Court set out the effects of such an objection. Like the other objections provided for in the Regulation, it has the effect
         of preventing the shipment. (27) The notifier may then abstain from shipping the waste to another Member State, submit a new notification, or institute any
         appropriate proceedings to challenge the decision of the competent authority of dispatch objecting to the shipment. However,
         the Court made it clear that, in any event, it is not for a competent authority to reclassify on its own initiative the purpose
         of the shipment of waste, since such a unilateral reclassification would result in one and the same shipment being examined
         by different competent authorities in the light of provisions falling under different chapters of the Regulation, which would
         be incompatible with the system established by the Regulation. (28)
      
      19.      Moreover, the Court pointed out that in DaimlerChrysler (29) it had held that the procedure laid down by the Regulation provides the notifier with a guarantee that the proposed shipment
         will be examined within the periods prescribed by the Regulation and that he will be informed, upon the expiry of those periods
         at the latest, whether, and on what conditions, if any, the shipment can be carried out. (30) The Court concluded therefrom that any objection by the competent authority of dispatch founded on the incorrect classification
         of a shipment as a shipment of waste for recovery, when, according to the authority, the waste is for disposal, must be raised
         within the period prescribed by Article 7(2) of the Regulation. (31)
      
      III –  Facts 
      20.      Siomab SA (32) operates an incineration plant for household waste and similar products in Brussels. The plant produces residues, mainly
         ash and salts. In November 2001 Siomab concluded a contract with a German company for burying the salts in the galleries of
         salt mines at Teutschenthal, Germany. It gave notice of its proposed shipment on 4 December 2001 to the Institut bruxellois
         pour la gestion de l’environnement, (33) in its capacity as the competent authority of dispatch. In accordance with Article 6(8) of the Regulation, the Order of 7
         July 1994 of the Government of the Brussels Capital Region relating to the import and export of waste confers upon the IBGE
         the task of transmitting the notification to the other competent authorities and to the consignee. 
      
      21.      Siomab classified the planned operation as a recovery operation. The IBGE took the view that it was a disposal operation and
         on its own initiative reclassified the proposed shipment before notifying it to the competent authority of destination in
         Germany. The latter objected to the shipment on the ground that, under German mining law, recovery only, and not disposal,
         was permissible in the Teutschenthal mine. 
      
      22.      Siomab sent its file to the IBGE once again on 9 April 2002, retaining the original classification of the operation. It contended
         that, in accordance with the judgment in ASA, the IBGE had to transmit the notification to the competent authority of destination, and was unable to reclassify the purpose
         of the shipment. On 29 April 2002 the IBGE, adhering to its assessment, returned the file to Siomab on the ground that the
         classification of the operation was incorrect. 
      
      23.      Siomab then brought proceedings before the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) for the annulment of the IBGE’s decision
         refusing to transmit the notification of the proposed waste shipment to the competent authority of destination. On 14 May
         2002 Siomab also applied for interim relief to require the IBGE to transmit the notification, without amendment, to the competent
         authority of destination. By order of 8 July 2002, the President of the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court
         of First Instance, Brussels) (Belgium) dismissed Siomab’s application. Siomab lodged an appeal against the order with the
         Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels). 
      
      IV –  The question referred 
      24.      In support of its appeal, Siomab argued that, in accordance with the judgment in ASA, it was not for the IBGE to reclassify on its own initiative the purpose of the waste shipment and that, in the context of
         the specific procedure provided for in Article 6(8) of the Regulation concerning recovery operations, the Regulation does
         not empower the competent authority of dispatch to refuse to transmit the notification of the proposed shipment. 
      
      25.      The IBGE contended that, on the contrary, it had the duty to verify the classification of the proposal and that therefore
         it was not required to transmit the notification in the case of abuse of the Regulation. 
      
      26.      Since the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles took the view that interpretation of the Regulation was required in order to dispose of
         the case, it decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court: 
      
      ‘Where a Member State has recourse to the mechanism by which the competent authority of dispatch gives notice of a consignment
         note under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of [the] Regulation … , must Articles 3(8), 4(3), 6(8), 7(4) and 26 of the Regulation be
         interpreted as meaning: 
      
      (a)      that the competent authority of dispatch within the meaning of the Regulation, which is empowered to verify whether a planned
         shipment classified in the notification as a “shipment of waste for recovery” actually fits that classification, may, when
         it considers that the classification is incorrect, 
      
      (i)      refuse to transmit the consignment note because of that incorrect classification and ask the notifier to transmit a new consignment
         note to it, 
      
      (ii)      transmit the consignment note after reclassifying the planned shipment as a “shipment of waste for disposal”, 
      (iii) transmit the consignment note containing the incorrect classification, immediately accompanying its transmission with an objection
         based on that incorrect classification, 
      
      (b)      or, on the contrary, that the competent authority of dispatch is required to send the notification as classified by the notifier
         to the competent authority of destination, while retaining the power, if it considers that the purpose of the shipment has
         been incorrectly classified, also to raise a reasoned objection on the basis of that erroneous classification, at the same
         time or subsequently?’ 
      
      V –  Appraisal 
      27.      In substance, the question from the national court asks whether the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, where
         a Member State has recourse to the mechanism by which the competent authority of dispatch gives notice of a consignment note
         under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation, that authority, if it considers that the classification is incorrect, 
      
      –        may refuse to effect the notification because of the incorrect classification of the proposed shipment and ask the notifier
         to transmit a new consignment note to it, 
      
      –        may reclassify the proposed shipment on its own initiative before giving notification thereof, or
      –        must give the notification and at the same time or subsequently raise a reasoned objection on the basis of the erroneous classification.
         
      
      28.      In ASA, we saw that the Court held that if the competent authority of dispatch considers that the classification of the proposed
         shipment as being for the purpose of recovery is incorrect, the authority in question cannot amend on its own initiative the
         classification of the purpose of the waste shipment and must raise an objection within the period prescribed by Article 7(2)
         of the Regulation. In the present case, the question is whether that ruling can be applied where the legislation of a Member
         State provides that, pursuant to Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation, the competent authority of dispatch must itself,
         instead of the notifier, transmit the notification of the proposed shipment to the other competent authorities and to the
         consignee. 
      
      29.      Like the Commission, the Italian and Netherlands Governments and Siomab, and contrary to the other interveners, I consider
         that the replies given in ASA are certainly applicable in a situation of that kind, so that the competent authority of dispatch is, in my view, not authorised
         to reclassify the proposed operation on its own initiative or to return the file to the notifier, but must transmit the consignment
         note and raise an objection within the period allowed for that purpose. My analysis is based on the wording of Articles 3(8)
         and 6(8) of the Regulation. 
      
      30.      Those provisions enable Member States to entrust the competent authority of dispatch, instead of the notifier, with the task
         of transmitting the shipment proposal to the other competent authorities and to the consignee of the waste. It must be borne
         in mind that these provisions aim to harmonise at Community level the procedural rules applying to the shipment of waste.
         In no way do the provisions give the Member States the right to confer on the competent authority of dispatch power to reclassify
         on its own initiative the purpose of the shipment before transmitting the notification. Such reclassification would have the
         consequence that the proposal would be scrutinised by the other competent authorities as reclassified and no longer as presented
         by the notifier. However, Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation do not derogate from the rules laid down respectively in
         Articles 3(1) to (5) and 6(1) to (5) of the Regulation, which show that it is incumbent on the notifier, and him alone, to
         classify the proposed shipment and to complete the consignment note to that effect. 
      
      31.      It seems to me that a power for the competent authority of dispatch to refuse to transmit the notification and to return the
         file to the notifier if it considers that the classification of the proposal is incorrect is precluded by the very wording
         of the provisions in question. 
      
      32.      As stated by the interveners whose view I share, only the second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of the Regulation enables the
         competent authority of dispatch to refuse to transmit the notification of the proposal, so that such a possibility exists
         only in the case of notification of a shipment of waste that, according to the consignment note, is for disposal. This possibility
         is nevertheless available only for the reasons set out in Article 4(3) of the Regulation, whose content is noted in point
         13 above. Specifically, it is Article 4(3)(b) and (c) which lay down the reasons for which Member States may raise objections
         to a specific shipment of waste. (34) However, in my opinion, none of those reasons covers an error in the classification of the proposed shipment. (35) Furthermore, the Court has held that this list of cases in which a Member State may object to a shipment of waste for disposal
         is exhaustive, (36) so that it cannot be construed broadly in order to include an error in the classification of the proposal when that ground
         of objection is not expressly provided for therein. This reasoning is confirmed by the Court’s analysis of the Regulation
         in ASA. It follows from that judgment that the duty of all the competent authorities to check that the classification by the notifier
         is consistent with the provisions of the Regulation follows not from the specific provisions setting out the objections which
         the Member States may raise to waste shipments, namely Articles 4(3) and 7(4) of the Regulation, but from the system established
         by the Regulation. (37) In other words, misclassification is a separate ground of objection from those referred to in Articles 4(3) and 7(4) of the
         Regulation. (38)
      
      33.      We may therefore draw the following conclusions from these observations. First, it is only in the case of notification of
         a shipment of waste for disposal that the competent authority of dispatch may, under the specific procedure in Article 3(8)
         of the Regulation, refuse to effect transmission of the notification. Secondly, it may refuse to do so only on one of the
         grounds exhaustively set out in Article 4(3) of the Regulation, and that provision does not cover a situation where the competent
         authority of dispatch considers that the notifier’s classification of the proposal is incorrect. I infer from this that the
         competent authority of dispatch has no right to refuse to transmit the notification where it considers that the classification
         of the proposal in question is incorrect. A refusal to do so, where the shipment has been classified by the notifier as a
         disposal operation, would go beyond what is laid down by the Community legislature in the second subparagraph of Article 3(8)
         and in Article 4(3) of the Regulation. Where the shipment has been classified as a recovery operation, as in the present case,
         there would likewise be no legal basis at all for such refusal and the effect of allowing such a refusal would be to render
         the said provisions partially ineffective because there would be created, in the case of a shipment for recovery purposes,
         a possibility of refusal which, on a combined application of those provisions, is specifically prohibited in the context of
         the procedure for a shipment for disposal purposes, although that procedure is more onerous. 
      
      34.      In my view, therefore, the effect of Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation, which give the competent authority of dispatch
         the power to transmit the notification of the proposed shipment itself, instead of the notifier, to the other competent authorities
         and to the consignee, is that the competent authority of dispatch cannot reclassify the shipment on its own initiative or
         refuse to transmit the notification if it considers that the notifier’s classification of the shipment is incorrect. In such
         a case, the competent authority of dispatch must object to the shipment in question under the same conditions that would apply
         to that authority if the notification had to be transmitted by the notifier, that is to say, by lodging an objection within
         the period allowed for that purpose by Article 4 of the Regulation when faced with a shipment classified as a disposal operation,
         or by Article 7 in the case of a shipment proposed, according to the consignment note, for recovery purposes, as the Court
         has stated in ASA. In my opinion, this is confirmed by an examination of the system established by the Regulation. 
      
      35.      As I have already said, in the system under the Regulation, it is the notifier who must complete the consignment note that
         must be transmitted to all the competent authorities and to the consignee of the waste. It is also the notifier who must conclude
         a contract with the consignee for the disposal or recovery of the waste. Consequently it is also the notifier, logically,
         who must classify the proposed shipment operation because the subject of the contract between him and the consignee depends
         on that classification. I have also explained that the competent authority of destination must acknowledge receipt of the
         notification of the proposal within three days and that it is the dispatch of the acknowledgment to the other competent authorities
         which causes the periods to start running for them to raise objections, request additional information or lay down conditions
         for carrying out the operation. I have thus explained that, under Article 4(2)(b) of the Regulation, the competent authority
         of dispatch may, within 20 days following the dispatch of the acknowledgment of receipt of notification of the shipment by
         the authority of destination, raise objections to a shipment of waste for disposal. Likewise, under Article 7(2) of the Regulation,
         the competent authority of dispatch may, within 30 days following the dispatch of the acknowledgment, raise an objection to
         a proposed shipment of waste for recovery. 
      
      36.      In my opinion, therefore, the proper functioning of this system requires that the proposal as classified by the applicant
         actually be transmitted to the competent authorities concerned so that, first, the time‑limits laid down by the Regulation
         can begin to run and, second, all those authorities are put in a position to assess the proposal in question, particularly
         its classification. To accept that the competent authority of dispatch has the power to change the classification of the proposed
         shipment on its own initiative or to refuse to effect transmission would have the effect of depriving the notifier of his
         right under the Regulation to be able to ascertain, within the very brief periods allowed by the Regulation, the position
         of all the competent authorities regarding his proposed shipment. (39) It would also deprive the competent authorities of destination and transit of their right under the Regulation, as indicated
         in the ninth recital in the preamble, to be duly informed of the proposed shipment and to be able to raise their own objections
         to it, irrespective of the opinion of the competent authority of dispatch regarding the classification of the operation. (40)
      
      37.      No doubt such notification may entail a risk of divergent classifications of one and the same proposed shipment by the various
         competent authorities. However, as the Court held in ASA, this risk is inherent in the system established by the Regulation. (41) Above all, as the applicant made very clear at the hearing, it may be of advantage to the notifier in a case where, like
         the present one, the competent authority of dispatch disagrees with the notifier regarding the classification of the proposal
         in question. In such a case, the notifier has a definite interest in ascertaining the position of all the competent authorities
         regarding his proposal. In the present case, Siomab would certainly be in a better position to defend its interests in the
         context of its dispute with the IBGE concerning the classification of its proposed shipment if the authority of destination
         had also been able to state its views on the classification of the proposal. If the authority of destination had taken the
         view, like the IBGE, that the shipment in question was an operation for the purpose of disposal and if disposal operations
         were not authorised in the Teutschenthal mine, Siomab would have been able to abandon its shipment proposal and save bringing
         legal proceedings. Conversely, if the authority of destination had taken the view, contrary to the IBGE, that the disputed
         shipment was correctly classified by the notifier as a recovery operation, Siomab would be able to rely on this in its action
         before the Belgian court because, it should be remembered, ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ are concepts of Community law which must
         therefore not be defined differently from one Member State to another. (42) The risk of different classifications of one and the same shipment, inherent in the system established by the Regulation,
         may therefore, in the event of a dispute between the notifier and a competent authority, present an advantage to the notifier.
         As the Commission (correctly, in my opinion) observed, the system set up by the Regulation requires there to be an opportunity
         for dialogue, within the time‑limits allowed by the Regulation, between all the competent authorities and the notifier concerning
         the classification of the proposed shipment. 
      
      38.      In addition, this approach in no way compromises the powers of the competent authority of dispatch to check the classification
         of the proposal in question and to object to its being carried out if it considers that the classification is incorrect. Thus
         where, as in the present case, the proposed shipment has been classified as a recovery operation, it follows from Article
         8 of the Regulation that the shipment cannot take place if that authority has raised an objection within the period allowed
         by Article 7(2) of the Regulation. The conclusion must be the same where the shipment has been classified as a disposal operation
         because, under Article 4(2)(a), such a shipment is to be authorised by the competent authority of destination within 30 days
         following the dispatch of the acknowledgment of receipt and such authorisation can be granted only if there have been no objections
         from the other competent authorities. 
      
      39.      Accordingly, I am inclined to take the view that Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation confer on the competent authority
         of dispatch a circumscribed power by virtue of which it must transmit notification of the planned shipment as classified by
         the notifier to the other competent authorities and to the consignee. (43) If the competent authority of dispatch considers that the classification of the shipment is incorrect, it must raise an objection
         to the shipment. As regards the formal conditions for making such objection, I consider that the rules laid down by Article
         4(2)(b) and the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the Regulation are applicable, so that the objection must be ‘conveyed
         in writing to the notifier, with copies to the other competent authorities concerned’. Regarding the question whether, as
         the national court asks, the objection must be sent simultaneously with the notification of the shipment proposal or later,
         both options appear to be authorised. What is important, in my view, is that the objection of the competent authority of dispatch
         must be made before the expiry of the time‑limit laid down in Article 4(2)(b) if the proposal is classified by the notifier
         as a transfer of waste for disposal, or in Article 7(2) if it is classified by him as a transfer of waste for recovery. 
      
      40.      I shall therefore propose that the Court reply to the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles that the Regulation must be interpreted as
         meaning that, where a Member State has recourse to the mechanism by which the competent authority of dispatch gives notification
         of a consignment note under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of the Regulation, the competent authority of dispatch, if it considers
         that the classification is incorrect, may neither refuse to effect that notification because of the incorrect classification
         of the proposed shipment and ask the notifier to transmit a new consignment note to it nor reclassify the proposed shipment
         on its own initiative before giving notification thereof. The competent authority of dispatch must effect the notification
         and make an objection on the ground of the incorrect classification. The objection must be conveyed in writing to the notifier
         with copies to the other authorities concerned within the time‑limit laid down in Article 4(2)(b) if the proposal is classified
         as a shipment of waste for disposal, or in Article 7(2) if it is classified as a shipment of waste for recovery. 
      
      VI –  Conclusion 
      41.      In view of the foregoing observations, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the question referred for a preliminary
         ruling by the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles: 
      
      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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has recourse to the mechanism by which
         the competent authority of dispatch gives notification of a consignment note under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of Regulation No
         259/93, the competent authority of dispatch, if it considers that the classification is incorrect, may neither refuse to effect
         that notification because of the incorrect classification of the proposed shipment and ask the notifier to transmit a new
         consignment note to it nor reclassify the proposed shipment on its own initiative before giving notification thereof. The
         competent authority of dispatch must effect the notification and make an objection on the ground of the incorrect classification.
         The objection must be conveyed in writing to the notifier with copies to the other authorities concerned within the time‑limit
         laid down in Article 4(2)(b) if the proposal is classified as a shipment of waste for disposal, or in Article 7(2) if it is
         classified as a shipment of waste for recovery.
      
      1 –	Original language: French.
      
      2 –	Council Regulation of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
         European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), as amended by Commission Decision 1999/816/EC of 24 November 1999 adapting, pursuant
         to Articles 16(1) and 42(3), Annexes II, III, IV and V to Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on the supervision and control
         of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1999 L 316, p. 45) (‘the Regulation’).
      
      3 –	Council Directive of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
         1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32) (‘the Directive’).
      
      4 –	Article 2(i) and (k).
      
      5 –	‘The competent authority of destination’.
      
      6 –	‘The competent authority of dispatch’.
      
      7 –	‘The competent authority of transit’.
      
      8 –	Case C-6/00 [2002] ECR I-1961.
      
      9 –	Case C-187/93 Parliament  v Council [1994] ECR I-2857, paragraph 26.
      
      10 –	Ninth recital.
      
      11 –	Articles 3(1) and 6(1).
      
      12 –	Articles 3(3) and 6(3).
      
      13 –	Articles 3(4) and 6(4).
      
      14 –	Article 3(5).
      
      15 –	Fifth indent of Article 6(5).
      
      16 –	Articles 3(6) and 6(6) of the Regulation.
      
      17 –	As we shall see, Article 4(3) sets out the grounds upon which the competent authorities may object to the proposed disposal
         operation or impose certain conditions on it.
      
      18 –	Articles 4(1) and 7(1).
      
      19 –	Article 4(2)(a) and (b).
      
      20 –	Article 7(2).
      
      21 –	Article 7(3).
      
      22 –	Article 8.
      
      23 –	Article 10.
      
      24 –	An Austrian company wished to ship to Germany slag and ashes produced by a waste-treatment plant in Vienna (Austria) for
         the purpose of filling galleries in a former salt mine at Kochendorf (Germany).
      
      25 –	Paragraphs 39 and 40.
      
      26 –	Paragraph 47.
      
      27 –	Ibid.
      
      28 –	Paragraph 48.
      
      29 –	Case C-324/99 [2001] ECR I-9897.
      
      30 –	Paragraph 49.
      
      31 –	Paragraph 50.
      
      32 –	‘Siomab’.
      
      33 –	‘The IBGE’.
      
      34 –	Article 4(3)(a) refers to the cases where Member States may take measures to prohibit generally or partially or to object
         systematically to shipments (DaimlerChrysler, paragraph 51).
      
      35 –	Article 4(3)(b) provides for the possibility of objection in only three instances: in order to implement the principle
         of self-sufficiency at Community and national levels, in cases where the installation has to dispose of waste which is from
         a nearer source and has been given priority, and in order to ensure that shipments are in accordance with waste management
         plans. Article 4(3)(c) refers to the following three grounds of objection: where the shipment is not in accordance with national
         provisions relating to environmental protection, public order, public safety or health protection, if the notifier was previously
         guilty of illegal trafficking and if the shipment conflicts with obligations resulting from international conventions.
      
      36 –	DaimlerChrysler, paragraph 50.
      
      37 –	ASA, paragraphs 40 and 47. See also the order in Joined Cases C-307/00 to C‑311/00 Oliehandel Koeweit and Others [2003] ECR I-1821, paragraph 112. In ASA the Court found that this obligation on all the competent authorities derives, in particular, from Article 26 of the Regulation,
         which requires Member States to prohibit and punish any illegal traffic, and from Article 30(1), which expressly imposes a
         general duty on Member States to take the requisite measures to ensure that waste is shipped in accordance with the provisions
         of the Regulation.
      
      38 –	Chronologically, the error in classification must be raised before the grounds of objection referred to in Articles 4(3)
         and 7(4) of the Regulation. A competent authority can raise such a ground of objection only after verifying that the proposed
         shipment is correctly classified.
      
      39 –	DaimlerChrysler, paragraph 70. The intention, reflected in the Regulation, that the notifier should be able to hold the competent authorities
         to the time‑limits to be observed by them was very clearly expressed by the Economic and Social Committee in the preparatory
         work prior to the adoption of the Regulation (Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the supervision and
         control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community (91/C 269/03) (OJ 1991 C 269, p. 10, point 2.3.2)).
      
      40 –	See, to that effect, Oliehandel Koeweit and Others, paragraph 102.
      
      41 –	ASA, paragraph 44.
      
      42 –	See, to that effect, Case C-228/00 Commission v Germany [2003] ECR I-1439, paragraph 36.
      
      43 –	I also share the Commission’s view that this conclusion should not go so far as to preclude the competent authority of dispatch,
         in the course of sound administration, from returning the file to the notifier if the consignment note has a formal defect
         which would prevent the proposal from being scrutinised by the competent authorities, such as the absence of a signature or
         certain mandatory particulars.  Also, neither Article 3(8) or 6(8) nor any other provision of the Regulation specifies a period
         within which the competent authority of dispatch must effect such transmission. I would think that, in view of the procedure
         laid down by the Regulation, the authority in question must effect the transmission within a short period after receipt of
         the consignment note and that, in any case, the period should not be longer than the period allowed to the competent authority
         of destination by Articles 4(2)(a) and 7(2) of the Regulation for expressing an opinion regarding the proposed shipment.