CELEX: C2000/335/46
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-307/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of Oliehandel Koeweit B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

25.11.2000            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/25
    The Netherlands Government disputes the validity of the           —     Breach of principle of legal certainty
    objections of a financial and administrative nature raised
    by the Commission and points out that the Commission                    In the absence of a relevant Community definition, the
    bases its arguments on out-of-date (and superseded)                     meaning of the term ‘adequate compensation’ as referred
    reporting and data.                                                     to in the seventh indent of Article 3(2) of Decision
                                                                            90/424/EEC is left to the discretion of the Member
                                                                            States. They must determine, in the light of the relevant
—   Misapplication of the law:                                              legislation (in this case Directive 80/217/EEC and
                                                                            Decision 90/424/EEC), what is adequate compensation.
                                                                            The Commission now assigns a meaning all of its own to
    Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the
                                                                            the term ‘adequate compensation’, which cannot be
    veterinary field (2) makes no provision for the application
                                                                            inferred from existing Community legislation. The Com-
    of a general reduction. When classic swine fever occurs
                                                                            mission has thus acted in breach of the principle of legal
    in a Member State, that Member State is eligible under
                                                                            certainty which requires that legal rules be clear and their
    Article 3(2) of Decision 90/424 for a financial contri-
                                                                            application foreseeable for those affected by them.
    bution from the Community for the eradication of the
    disease. The right to a contribution of 50 % arises in
    respect of measures referred to in Article 3(5) of Decision       —     Breach of the requirement to state reasons.
    90/424/EEC. The conditions referred to in Article 3(2) of
    Decision 90/424/EEC were complied with in controlling
    the swine fever epidemic. In so far as the Commission             (1) OJ 2000 L 129, p. 33.
    is of the opinion that technical and administrative               (2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 19.
    shortcomings were discovered subsequently in the
    Netherlands, the Netherlands takes the view that, since
    they were inevitable, such shortcomings should not lead
    to a reduction. Perhaps the reduction was intended to
    have a remedial effect and was used by the Commission
    as an instrument for putting the level of compensation
    paid in the Netherlands on a par with that paid in other
    countries. If that is the case, the Commission has failed to
    take account of the need to recognize the specific
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
    circumstances in each Member State, such as the structure
                                                                      Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
    of pig farming, the density of the pig population in the
                                                                      Oliehandel Koeweit B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvest-
    affected area, as well as of economic and cyclical vari-
                                                                               ing, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
    ations in price levels between and with respect to other
    EU Member States during previous outbreaks of classical
    swine fever, and has overlooked the fact that the situation                                (Case C-307/00)
    in the other Member States was completely different from
    that in the Netherlands as regards the extent and duration
    of the crisis.                                                                             (2000/C 335/46)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    In so far as the Commission intended to impose a penalty
                                                                      European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
    on the Netherlands, that is wrong because there is in any
                                                                      Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
    case no legal basis for it.
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Oliehandel Koeweit B.V.
—   Breach of the principle of proportionality                        and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en
                                                                      Milieubeheer on the following questions:
    The Netherlands Government is of the opinion that there           1.    Do Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the
    is a major imbalance between, on the one hand, the                      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-
    deficiencies found (or described as such) by the Com-                   ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and Directive 87/101/EEC (2) of
    mission in the implementation of the measures taken to                  22 December 1986 amending Directive 75/439/EEC on
    control classical swine fever and, on the other hand, the               the disposal of waste oils mean that Regulation (EEC)
    financial correction applied by the Commission. The                     No 259/93 (3) of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
    Commission wrongly uses the data collected by it on the                 control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
    basis of a small and, in the opinion of the Netherlands                 European       Community       (hereinafter:    ‘Regulation
    Government, unrepresentative spot check as the basis for                No 259/93’) must be interpreted as meaning that the
    conclusions about the handling of the whole operation                   shipment of waste oil with a PCB content of over 50 ppm
    to control classical swine fever in 1997. The Netherlands               must always be regarded as a shipment of waste for
    Government is further of the opinion that comparison                    disposal within the meaning of Title II, Chapter A, of
    with the guidelines operated for the imposition of                      Regulation No 259/93, read in conjunction with Art-
    reductions in the EAGGF context supports the view of the                icle 1(e) of Directive 75/442/EEC (4) of 15 July 1975 on
    Netherlands that the 25 % reduction is disproportionate.                waste (hereinafter: ‘the Framework Directive’)?
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
2.a) If the first question must be answered in the affirmative          2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned
      and therefore the shipment of waste oil with a PCB                     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly
      content of over 50 ppm must always be regarded as a                    ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of
      shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                    operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework
      raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of               Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,
      Regulation No 259/93 solely on account of the need to                  and if so which one?
      achieve self-sufficiency at national level without showing
      that self-sufficiency at national level is necessary to           3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
      achieve self-sufficiency at Community level?                           an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery
                                                                             within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
2.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such            Directive?
      a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
      principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible       3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
      with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European                operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
      Community?                                                             given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
                                                                             that operation or does neither of the two lists take
                                                                             precedence over the other?
( 1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
( 2) OJ 1987, L 42, p. 43.
                                                                        4.   Must the view of the competent authority of the Member
( 3) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
( 4) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                                   State of dispatch or of the Member State of destination
                                                                             be regarded as decisive as regards whether an operation
                                                                             must be classified as disposal or recovery?
                                                                        5.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a
                                                                             shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection to
                                                                             the shipment be raised pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on
                                                                             the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                             into and out of the European Community solely on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
                                                                             account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency at national
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
                                                                             level without showing that self-sufficiency at national
N.V. Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sond-
                                                                             level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at Community
ershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                             level?
and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
                          en Milieubeheer
                                                                        5.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such
                                                                             a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
                          (Case C-308/00)                                    principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
                                                                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                             Community?
                          (2000/C 335/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) OJ 1975, L 194, p. 39.
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the                   (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Slibverwerking
Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs-
und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-
                                                                        Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case
      ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
                                                                        of PPG Industries Fiber Glass B.V. and Minister van
      to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
      Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-
      use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-
      work Directive?                                                                            (Case C-309/00)
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the                                   (2000/C 335/48)
      above question? For the operation referred to therein to
      exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a
      treatment, can be used several times or can be taken              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      back?                                                             European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the