CELEX: C2003/101/19
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2003 In Joined Cases C-307/00 to C-311/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Oliehandel Koeweit BV (C-307/00), Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant NV, Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH (C-308/00), PPG Industries Fiber Glass BV (C-309/00), Stork Veco BV (C-310/00), Sturing Afvalverwĳdering Noord-Brabant NV, Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland NV, Mineralplus Gesellschaft für Mineralstoffaufbereitung und Verwertung mbH, formerly UTR Umwelt GmbH (C-311/00) and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 concerning the shipment of waste — Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils — Classification — Waste disposal and recovery operations — Objections to shipments — Legal basis — Illegal shipments)

26.4.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 101/11
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
                                                                             L 243, p. 31) and Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June
                                                                             1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December
                                                                             1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), and on the validity of
                                                                             Article 4(3)(b)(i) of Regulation No 259/93, the Court (Fifth
                       of 27 February 2003                                   Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the
                                                                             President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                                                                             P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
                                                                             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 27 February
In Joined Cases C-307/00 to C-311/00 (Reference for a
                                                                             2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Oliehandel
Koeweit BV (C-307/00), Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant
NV, Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs- und Siche-
rungsgesellschaft mbH (C-308/00), PPG Industries Fiber
Glass BV (C-309/00), Stork Veco BV (C-310/00), Sturing                       1.    Recovery operations involving the recycling or reclamation of
Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant NV, Afvalverbranding                               metals and metal compounds or the recycling or reclamation of
Zuid Nederland NV, Mineralplus Gesellschaft für Mine-                              other inorganic materials, as referred to in operations R4 and
ralstoffaufbereitung und Verwertung mbH, formerly UTR                              R5, respectively, of Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/
Umwelt GmbH (C-311/00) and Minister van Volks-                                     EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
  huisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer ( 1)                           Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
                                                                                   Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, may also cover the re-
                                                                                   use referred to in Article 3(1)(b)(i) of that directive. Those
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Environment —                          operations do not necessarily imply that the substance in
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Regulation (EEC)                                   question undergoes processing, can be used several times or can
No 259/93 concerning the shipment of waste — Directive                             subsequently be reclaimed.
75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils — Classification
— Waste disposal and recovery operations — Objections to
        shipments — Legal basis — Illegal shipments)
                                                                             2.    A waste treatment operation may not be classified simul-
                                                                                   taneously as both disposal and recovery within the meaning of
                          (2003/C 101/19)                                          Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 and by
                                                                                   Decision 96/350. Where an operation, having regard solely to
                                                                                   its wording, may a priori be covered by a disposal operation set
                   (Language of procedure: Dutch)                                  out in Annex IIA to that directive or a recovery operation
                                                                                   referred to in Annex IIB to that directive, it must be determined
                                                                                   on a case-by-case basis whether the main objective of the
                                                                                   operation in question is that the waste should serve a useful
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                   purpose, by replacing the use of other materials which would
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                   have had to be used to fulfil that function, and in such a case
                                                                                   to uphold the classification as recovery.
In Joined Cases C-307/00 to C-311/00: References to the                      3.    The classification chosen by the competent authorities of the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands)                     Member State of destination as regards a given waste treatment
for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before that                     operation does not prevail over the classification chosen by the
court between Oliehandel Koeweit BV (C-307/00), Slib-                              competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch, any
verwerking Noord-Brabant NV, Glückauf Sondershausen                                more than the classification chosen by the latter prevails over
Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH (C-308/00),                           that chosen by the competent authorities of the Member State
PPG Industries Fiber Glass BV (C-309/00), Stork Veco BV                            of destination.
(C-310/00), Sturing Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant NV,
Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland NV, Mineralplus Gesellschaft
für Mineralstoffaufbereitung und Verwertung mbH, formerly
UTR Umwelt GmbH (C-311/00) and Minister van Volkshuis-                       4.    It follows from the system put in place by Council Regulation
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, on the                              (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of                            control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments                        European Community that, when the competent authority of
of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ                        the Member State of dispatch forms the view that the purpose
1993 L 30, p. 1), Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July                          of a waste shipment has been incorrectly classified as recovery
1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council                        in the notification, that authority must base its objection to the
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32)                        shipment on the ground of that error in classification, without
and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996                                reference to a particular provision of that regulation which, such
(OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), Council Directive 96/59/EC of                              as Article 4(3)(b)(i) in particular, defines the objections which
16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated                               Member States may make to shipments of waste for disposal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/12                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             26.4.2003
5.    Having regard to Article 8(2)(b) of Council Directive 75/439/           The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale di Biella
      EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended           by order of 18 October 2001 is inadmissible.
      by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, the
      shipment of waste oils containing more than 50 ppm of PCB
      for use as a fuel constitutes illegal traffic in waste within the       (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6 April 2002.
      meaning of Article 26(1)(e) of Regulation No 259/93, to
      which the competent authority is required to object on the
      ground solely of that illegality, without reference to any of the
      specific provisions of that regulation setting out the objections
      which Member States may raise to waste shipments.
                                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                                                       (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                                      of 5 December 2002
                                                                              in Case C-461/01 P: Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas v
                                                                                             Council of the European Union ( 1)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                       (Appeal — State aid — Decision adopted on the basis of the
                                                                              third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                              the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC — Application
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                     for annulment — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible
                                                                                              and in part manifestly unfounded)
                        of 25 February 2003                                                             (2003/C 101/21)
in Case C-445/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
the Tribunale di Biella): Roberto Simoncello, Piera Boerio
              v Direzione Provinciale di Lavoro (1)                           (Provisional translation; the final translation will be published in the
                                                                                                     European Court Reports)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom of movement for
workers — Public undertaking — Requirements concerning
               hiring of workers — Inadmissibility)                           In Case C-461/01 P, Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas,
                                                                              residing in Larissa (Greece), (lawyer: A. Tessas) — appeal
                                                                              against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2003/C 101/20)                                    Communities (Fourth Chamber Extended Composition) of
                                                                              11 September 2001 in Case T-270/99 Tessa and Tessas v
                                                                              Council [2001] ECR II-2401, and seeking the annulment of
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                          that order, the other parties to the proceedings being: the
                                                                              Council of the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and
                                                                              D. Zahariou), and the Hellenic Republic, (Agents: I. Chalkias
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        and P. Mylonopoulos), — the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamb-
                    in the European Court Reports)                            er), composed of M. Timmermans, (Judge-Rapporteur), Presi-
                                                                              dent of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges;
                                                                              Advocate General F.G. Jacobs; Registrar: R. Grass, made an
                                                                              order on 5 December 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                              follows:
In Case C-445/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunale di Biella (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Roberto                  1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Simoncello, Piera Boerio and Direzione Provinciale di Lavoro
— on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty                2.    Ms Tessa and Mr Tessas will bear their own costs and pay
(now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), and                               those of the Council. The Hellenic Republic will bear its own
Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) — the                               costs.
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                         (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 February
2003, in which it has ruled: