CELEX: C2002/109/08
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste in a disused mine)

4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/5
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for the              Salzburg, on the interpretation of Articles 56 EC to 60 EC, the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,              the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,            Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
has given a judgment on 7 March 1999, in which it:                         R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           Articles 56 EC to 60 EC:
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     do not preclude a prior notification procedure such as that laid
                                                                                 down by the scheme for the acquisition of land established by
( 1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                 the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz 1997;
                                                                           —     preclude a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down
                                                                                 by that scheme.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            5 March 2002
                                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to
                                                                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
C-540/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans Reisch
e.a. v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,                                                27 February 2002
Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg, Grund-
     verkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg (1)
                                                                           in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v
(Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Prior                              Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1)
notification and authorisation procedure for the acquisition
   of building plots — Absence of purely internal situation)
                                                                           (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
                                                                           shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of
                           (2002/C 109/07)                                 dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a
                                                                           shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment
                                                                           on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive
                    (Language of the case: German)                         75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste
                                                                                                    in a disused mine)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (2002/C 109/08)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
In Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and
C-526/99 to C-540/99: Reference to the Court under                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salz-                                     in the European Court Reports)
burg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Hans Reisch (C-515/99),
Walter Riedl (C-527/99), Alexander Hacker (C-528/99),
Gerhard Eckert (C-529/99), Franz Gstöttenbauer (C-530/99),                 In Case C-6/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Helmut Hechwarter (C-531/99), Alois Bixner (C-532/99), Geza                by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
Aumüller (C-533/99), Berthold Garstenauer (C-534/99 and                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
C-536/99), Robert Eder (C-535/99), Hartmut Ramsauer                        Abfall Service AG (ASA) and Bundesminister für Umwelt,
(C-537/99 and C-538/99), Harald Kronberger (C-539/99),                     Jugend und Familie, on the interpretation of Council Regu-
Erich Morianz (C-540/99) and Bürgermeister der Landes-                     lation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
hauptstadt Salzburg, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.5.2002
European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), as amended by                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Commission Decision No 98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 (OJ
1998 L 165, p. 20), and Council Directive 75/442/EEC 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                                              26 February 2002
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of
24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,              in Case C-23/00 P: Council of the European Union v
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                              (Appeal — Admissibility — Application to set aside a
                                                                              judgment of the Court of First Instance to the extent to
                                                                              which that Court declared that there was no need to rule on
1.   It follows from the system established by Council Regulation
                                                                              an objection of inadmissibility raised against an application
     (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
                                                                                               dismissed by it as unfounded)
     control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
     European Community, as amended by Commission Decision
     98/368/EC of 18 May 1998,
                                                                                                     (2002/C 109/09)
     —      that the competent authority of dispatch, within the
            meaning of Article 2(c) thereof, is competent to verify
            whether a proposed shipment classified in the notification                          (Language of the case: English)
            as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ does in fact correspond
            to that classification, ssssand
     —      that, if that classification is incorrect, the authority must
            oppose the shipment by raising an objection founded on            In Case C-23/00 P, Council of the European Union (agents:
            that misclassification within the period prescribed by            M. Sims-Robertson and I. Dı́ez Parra): Appeal against the
            Article 7(2) of the Regulation.                                   judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                              Communities (Second Chamber) of 1 December 1999 in
                                                                              Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council
                                                                              and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427, seeking to have that
2.   The deposit of waste in a disused mine does not necessarily              judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the proceedings
     constitute a disposal operation for the purposes of D 12 of              being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH, C.H. Boehrin-
     Annex II A to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975               ger Sohn, established in Ingelheim am Rhein (Germany),
     on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard), Commission of
     18 March 1991 and Commission Decision 96/350/EC of                       the European Communities (agent: X. Lewis), Fédération
     24 May 1996.                                                             européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels
                                                                              (Belgium), (agent: A. Vandencasteele), Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
                                                                              rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in La Haye
     The deposit must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to
                                                                              (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret) and
     determine whether the operation is a disposal or a recovery
                                                                              United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent:
     operation within the meaning of that Directive.
                                                                              G. Amodeo, assisted by D. Lloyd Jones, QC), the Court,
                                                                              composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
                                                                              F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
     Such a deposit constitutes a recovery if its principal objective is
                                                                              Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
     that the waste serve a useful purpose in replacing other materials
     which would have had to be used for that purpose.                        R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
                                                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                              on 26 February 2002, in which it:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                     1.   Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.   Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs
                                                                                   incurred by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
                                                                                   C.H. Boehringer Sohn;