CELEX: C2000/273/09
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (C-418/97) and Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees and Others v Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelderland (C-419/97) (Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Concept of "waste")

23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 273/5
1.    Declares that, by maintaining rules requiring Community              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      nationals who pursue haulage activities in Italy as service
      providers to be entered on the professional register of the          2.    Orders Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH to pay the
      Chambers of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry               costs.
      for the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                     of 15 June 2000
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 (reference for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State):
                          of 15 June 2000                                  ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v Minister van Volkshuis-
                                                                           vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (C-418/97)
                                                                           and Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees and Others v Directeur
in Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft                   van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelder-
mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission                                                 land (C-419/97) (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Embargo on trade                                           — Concept of ‘waste’)
              with Iraq — Lawful act — Damage)
                                                                                                     (2000/C 273/09)
                          (2000/C 273/08)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97: reference to the
In Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft                   Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
mbH, established in Munich, Germany, represented by Pro-                   EC) from the Nederlandse Raad van State, The Netherlands, for
fessor K. M. Meessen, with an address for service in Luxem-                a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
bourg at the chambers of P. Kinsch, 100 Boulevard de la                    court between ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd and Minister van
Pétrusse — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First               Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                   (C-418/97) and between Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees, Stich-
28 April 1998 in Case T-184/95 Dorsch Consult v Council                    ting Werkgroep Weurt+, Vereniging Stedelijk Leefmilieu
and Commission [1998] ECR II-667, seeking to have that                     Nijmegen and Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de
judgment set aside and the same form of order as that sought               provincie Gelderland, joined party: Elektriciteitsproductiemaat-
by the appellant at first instance, the other parties to the               schappij Oost- en Noord-Nederland NV (Epon) (C-419/97) —
proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:                  on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
S. Marquardt and A. Tanca and Commission of the European                   15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Communities (Agents: A. Rosas and J. Sack) — the Court (Fifth              Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (President of the First                   L 78, p. 32) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Chamber), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                   D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                   Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puisso-
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Lout-             chet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
erman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                             judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          23.9.2000
Case C-418/97                                                                    set out in Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
                                                                                 Directive 91/156, that is to say the discarding of the substance
                                                                                 in question or the intention or requirement to discard it, regard
1.  It may not be inferred from the mere fact that a substance such              being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that
    as LUWA-bottoms undergoes an operation listed in Annex IIB                   its effectiveness is not undermined.
    to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste,
    as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March                       For the purpose of determining whether the use of a substance
    1991, that that substance has been discarded so as to enable it              such as wood chips as fuel is to be regarded as constituting
    to be regarded as waste for the purposes of that directive.                  discarding, it is irrelevant that that substance may be recovered
                                                                                 in an environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel
                                                                                 without substantial treatment.
2.  For the purpose of determining whether the use of a substance
                                                                                 The fact that that use as fuel is a common method of recovering
    such as LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as
                                                                                 waste and the fact that that substance is commonly regarded as
    constituting discarding, it is irrelevant that that substance may
                                                                                 waste may be taken as evidence that the holder has discarded
    be recovered in an environmentally responsible manner for use
                                                                                 that substance or intends or is required to discard it within the
    as fuel without substantial treatment.
                                                                                 meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
                                                                                 Directive 91/156. However, whether it is in fact waste within
                                                                                 the meaning of that directive must be determined in the light of
    The fact that that use as fuel is a common method of recovering              all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the
    waste and the fact that that substance is commonly regarded as               directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not
    waste may be taken as evidence that the holder has discarded                 undermined.
    that substance or intends or is required to discard it within the
    meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
    Directive 91/156. However, whether it is in fact waste within          (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998. OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
    the meaning of the directive must be determined in the light of
    all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the
    directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not
    undermined.
    The fact that a substance used as fuel is the residue of the
    manufacturing process of another substance, that no use for            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
    that substance other than disposal can be envisaged, that the          Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February
    composition of the substance is not suitable for the use made of       2000 in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v
    it or that special environmental precautions must be taken when                           Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz
    it is used may be regarded as evidence that the holder has
    discarded that substance or intends or is required to discard it
    within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that directive. However,                                     (Case C-262/00)
    whether it is in fact waste within the meaning of the directive
    must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard                                   (2000/C 273/10)
    being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that
    its effectiveness is not undermined.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-
                                                                           richt (Finance Court, Hessen) of 21 February 2000, received at
Case C-419/97                                                              the Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion
                                                                           Koblenz (Principal Revenue Office, Koblenz) on the following
                                                                           questions:
1.  It may not be inferred from the mere fact that a substance such
    as wood chips undergoes an operation listed in Annex IIB to            1.    Does the description ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the
    Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, that that                  meaning of CN Code No 9021 cover an elbow bracelet,
    substance has been discarded so as to enable it to be regarded               called epX Elbow Basic, and an elbow support, called epX
    as waste for the purposes of the directive.                                  Elbow Dynamic, made of 1 mm-thick three-layer material
                                                                                 in a single colour, with a synthetic central layer enclosed
                                                                                 between two elastic membranes; tubular in shape and
2.  The fact that a substance is the result of a recovery operation              manufactured by sewing together, with a length of 8 cm
    within the meaning of Annex IIB to that directive is only one                (elbow bracelet) and 22 cm (elbow support, the latter
    of the factors which must be taken into consideration for the                being also anatomically sewn), each being pulled over the
    purpose of determining whether that substance is still waste,                lower arm below the elbow and worn as a sleeve, with an
    and does not as such permit a definitive conclusion to be drawn              integrated insert, over which is passed a circular strap
    in that regard. Whether it is waste must be determined in the                with an elastic and a non-elastic part and a Velcro
    light of all the circumstances, by comparison with the definition            fastening?