CELEX: C2006/086/10
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  16 February 2006  in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery operations — Concept of  notifier  — Notifier's obligations)

8.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/6
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (First Chamber)
   of 16 February 2006
   in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (1)
   
   (Waste - Transfer of waste - Waste intended for recovery operations - Concept of ‘notifier’ - Notifier's obligations)
   (2006/C 86/10)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-215/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 14 May 2004, received at the Court on 21 May 2004, in the proceedings between Marius Pedersen A/S and Miljøstyrelsen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 16 February 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:
   
               1.
            
            
               The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of 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 the simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery. However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown or that the number of waste producers is so great and the individual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article 7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of information on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that required by the rules in the State of dispatch;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply information relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic scrap’;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 begins to run when the competent authorities of the State of destination have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irrespective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the information set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional information from the notifier.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.