CELEX: C2003/124/02
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and use of incineration residues as raw material in cement manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

24.5.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 124/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    The heading of Article 13A of that directive does not, of itself,
                                                                                    entail restrictions on the possibilities of exemption provided for
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                           by that provision.
                           of 3 April 2003                                    (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
       the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann ( 1)
(VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a
                                soloist)                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 124/01)                                                                of 3 April 2003
                   (Language of the case: German)                             in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
                    in the European Court Reports)                            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu-
                                                                                                              beheer (1)
                                                                              (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
In Case C-144/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                       stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                  use of incineration residues as raw material in cement
Matthias Hoffmann, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(n)                 manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                      a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                       pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court
                                                                                                          (2003/C 124/02)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
1.    Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
      of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system                In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be               EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
      interpreted to the effect that the expression ‘other [recognised]       in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
      cultural bodies’ does not exclude soloists performing individu-         EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
      ally.                                                                   BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               24.5.2003
en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/               Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as                   Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991                      [2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
(OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC                       judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court                              Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                   in Madrid (Spain), (represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                       (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
                                                                              2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
      stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
      operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/               1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May
      EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                           2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;
      Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
      Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, for the purpose                      2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
      of implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of                         judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
      1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments                   the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
      of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as                   reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998
      amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January                    the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;
      1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
      waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;
                                                                              3.    Reserves the costs.
2.    The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a
      relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
      operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in            (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by
      Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
      operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
      Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that
      purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
      down in the Directive.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                              Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                               Spain
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                         (Case C-70/03)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                        (2003/C 124/04)
                           of 3 April 2003
in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio
                              Samper ( 1)
                                                                              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
                 sideration of comparative merits)                            ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
                           (2003/C 124/03)                                    its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                            1.    Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national
                                                                                    law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC ( 1) of
                                                                                    5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von                             Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the                           the Treaty and under that directive;