CELEX: 61994CC0335
Language: en
Date: 1996-01-25
Title: Joined opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 25 January 1996. # Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jäger. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Amtsgericht Recklinghausen - Germany. # Social legislation relating to road transport - Derogation for refuse vehicles. # Case C-335/94. # Criminal proceedings against Pierre Goupil. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de police de La Rochelle - France. # Social legislation relating to road transport - Derogation for refuse vehicles. # Case C-39/95.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALLÉGER delivered on 25 January 1996  (1)
         Case C-335/94 Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jäger(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Recklinghausen)
            (and Case C-39/95 Pierre Goupil (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police, La Rochelle) (Social legislation
               relating to road transport – Derogation for vehicles used in connection with refuse collection and disposal))
            
            
      
         
      1.  These two references for a preliminary ruling, although they come from different courts, essentially concern the same question,
      namely the interpretation of the words  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal in Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
      relating to road transport  
      
         			(2)
         		 (hereinafter  
      the regulation).
      
      2.  The regulation has three aims, namely road safety, the harmonization of conditions of competition and social progress.  
      
         			(3)
         		  To those ends, it lays down driving and rest periods (Sections IV and V) for drivers who meet the minimum age requirement
      (Section III) and effect carriage by road falling within its scope (Section II).  It prohibits the payment of remuneration
      related to distances driven and/or the amount of goods carried in so far as such payments endanger road safety.  It authorizes
      only limited derogations (Section VII), while reserving the power to apply control procedures and penalties (Section VIII).In order to ensure adequate monitoring of compliance with the provisions on working time, Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC)
      No 3821/85  
      
         			(4)
         		 requires recording equipment to be installed and used  
      ... in vehicles registered in a Member State which are used for the carriage of passengers or goods by road, except the vehicles
      referred to in Articles 4 and 14(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85.
      
      3.  Article 4 of Regulation No 3820/85 excludes from its scope 13 categories of vehicle.  In particular, Article 4(6) provides: [This regulation shall not apply to carriage by:]
      (6) vehicles used in connection with the sewerage, flood protection, water, gas and electricity services, highway maintenance
      and control,  
       refuse collection and disposal , telegraph and telephone services, carriage of postal articles, radio and television broadcasting and the detection of radio
      or television transmitters or receivers
      .  
      
         			(5)
         		
      4.  It is of that provision that the national courts seek an interpretation from the Court of Justice, in connection with disputes
      arising in the following circumstances.
       Case C-335/94, Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jäger
      
      5.  Mr Mrozek and Mr Jäger, the two defendants in the main action, are employed in a managerial capacity by Rethmann Entsorgungswirtschaft
      GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter  
      Rethmann), and are responsible for allocating shifts to the company's drivers.
      
      6.  Rethmann's activities include the agreement of long-term waste-disposal contracts with local authorities.  Under those contracts,
      it is entrusted with the collection and transportation of, on the one hand, industrial waste and, on the other, special household
      waste (such as dry-cell batteries and chemicals) deposited by residents in containers specially placed by Rethmann in towns
      for that purpose.
      
      7.  Mr Jäger is responsible for organizing the journeys of the collection vehicles carrying the household waste from its collection
      point, where it undergoes preliminary sorting, to Rethmann's plants, where it is sorted more rigorously.  Mr Mrozek is responsible
      for the vehicles which carry the waste from those plants to final disposal sites.
      
      8.  In connection with those journeys, company drivers were found to be in breach of driving times laid down by the Ausführungsverordnung
      zur Arbeitszeitordnung (Regulation implementing the German Code on Working Hours), and administrative fines were imposed on
      the two defendants for failing to organize the drivers' working hours in accordance with the rules.
      
      9.  In their action before the Amtsgericht Recklinghausen challenging the fines, Mr Mrozek and Mr Jäger argued that the journeys
      were made by  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85, so that they were exempt from the obligations imposed by the
      latter.  They also argued that the exception laid down by the Community rules precluded the introduction of national legislation
      regulating rules on driving time.
      
      10.  The Amtsgericht Recklinghausen considers that the determination of the dispute depends upon the interpretation of the relevant
      Community law provisions, and has therefore referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
      (1) How is the term  
      refuse collection and disposal in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 to be defined? 
      (a) Does that term relate exclusively to the collection of refuse from private households or does it also include the transport
      of waste from commercial undertakings? 
      
      (b) As regards refuse from private households: 
      (aa) Do special types of household waste, such as batteries, paints and solvents, also come within the exception contained in Article
      4(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85? 
      
      (bb) Does the exception apply only in respect of short journeys within a local authority area, in particular door-to-door transport,
      or are longer journeys, such as transport to a more distant waste dump, also covered? 
      
      (cc) Is the transportation of such refuse entitled to the benefit of Article 4(6) of the regulation even where the refuse is collected
      and disposed of by private undertakings on behalf of the local authority? 
      
      
      (c) If the transportation of commercial waste is also covered: 
      (aa) Is the transportation of every kind of commercial waste covered? 
      
      (bb) Are longer journeys, such as transport to dumps, also covered by Article 4(6) of the regulation? 
      
      
      (d) Does Article 4(6) also apply to journeys by empty vehicles, such as return journeys from a dump without a load? 
      
      (e) Are journeys in preparation for transportation, such as those transferring vehicles or trailers between different branches
      of an undertaking, also covered? 
      
      
      (2) What is the relationship between the derogating rule contained in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and national
      rules on driving periods? 
      (a) If a journey comes within the derogating rule contained in Article 4(6) of the regulation, can a restriction on driving periods
      still be imposed under national rules? 
      or
      
      (b) Are national rules, such as the German Code on Working Hours or the Regulation implementing the Code on Working Hours, also
      inapplicable to such journeys?
      
       Case C-39/95, Pierre Goupil
      
      11.  Mr Goupil is the chairman and general manager of a company whose activities are described in the companies register as  
      cleaning, clearance, waste removal and waste treatment.  In fact the company collects waste from undertakings and transports it to a tip or incineration plant.
      
      12.  On an inspection of one of the company's drivers when carrying two waste skips by road, the vehicle's tachograph discs were
      found to show that the driving time laid down by Regulation No 3820/85 had been exceeded. Mr Goupil was then prosecuted for
      infringement of Regulation No 3821/85 and of a French Decree.
      
      13.  At the hearing before the national court, Mr Goupil argued that he was not a carrier, but a provider of services concerning
      industrial and commercial waste without market value, and that he was not therefore obliged to comply with the requirements
      of Regulations Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85.
      
      14.  The Tribunal de Police de la Rochelle states that  
      ... many companies with objects identical to those of the company now being prosecuted have been prosecuted before local criminal
      courts in France and that  
      having regard to divergences in the case-law as to whether such undertakings are covered by the exemption in Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85, the following question
      must be referred to the Court of Justice:Does Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 exempt from the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 vehicles belonging to private
      companies engaged in the collection and treatment of waste which transport waste skips or industrial waste, including cases
      where such transport is effected over long distances?
       The replies to the questions
      
      15.  I will consider first the question common to both cases, concerning the scope of the derogation in Article 4(6) of the regulation
      for  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal, while at the same time making the various clarifications requested by the Amtsgericht Recklinghausen in its first question,
      before going on to answer the second question in Case C-335/94, as to whether national law may impose limits on driving hours
      outside the scope of the regulation.
       The words  
      refuse collection and disposal
      
      16.  Article 4 excludes carriage by certain vehicles from the scope of the regulation, which is defined in Article 2 as covering
      carriage by road  
      
         			(6)
         		 within the Community.  Article 4 is therefore a provision which  
       derogates  from the general rules contained in the regulation.
      
      17.  It is important to remember the context in which Community social legislation relating to road transport was adopted.  The
      Community legislature wished to harmonize certain provisions in that area in order to ensure the uniform application of those
      provisions throughout the territory of the Member States,  
      
         			(7)
         		 so as to enable the three aims to be achieved.
      
      18.  In order to achieve uniform application, the scope of the authorized exemptions must be strictly construed.
      
      19.  The Court of Justice has always refused, therefore, to give a broad interpretation to the exemptions in Regulations Nos 543/69
      and 3820/85,  
      
         			(8)
         		 since  
      derogations are not to be interpreted in such a way as to extend their effects beyond what is necessary to safeguard the interests
      which they seek to secure.
      
         			(9)
         		
      20.  In particular, the exemptions in Article 4, which the Court is now being asked to interpret, are already the subject of an
      abundant case-law establishing the principle that that derogating provision is to be strictly construed.
      
      21.  Thus, in Case 47/79  
       Nehlsen  v  
       Bremen  [1979] ECR 3639,  
      
         			(10)
         		 the Court held that the exemption in Article 4(4) of Regulation No 543/69 as amended, in favour of vehicles  
      which are used by other public authorities for public services ... which are not in competition with professional road hauliers, could not apply to vehicles belonging to private persons and used for public services or on behalf of the public authorities.
      
      22.  In Case 79/86  
       Hamilton  v  
       Whitelock 
         			(11)
         		 the Court interpreted the words  
      specialized breakdown vehicle in Article 4(9) of Regulation No 543/69, as amended by Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2827/77,  
      
         			(12)
         		 as referring only to vehicles adapted or suited generally only for the removal of vehicles recently involved in an accident,
      to the exclusion of vehicles simply used to transport other vehicles.
      23.  
      
      In
         
        Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area  v  
       British Gas , cited above,  
      
         			(13)
         		 the Court held that the derogation from the obligation to install and use a tachograph for  
      vehicles used in connection with ... gas ... services in Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85 applied solely to vehicles used for carriage wholly and exclusively in connection
      with the production, transport or distribution of gas, or the maintenance of the necessary installations for that purpose.
       By contrast, that derogation did not apply to vehicles used wholly or partly in connection with the carriage of domestic
      gas appliances.
      
      
      
      
      
      24.  Moreover, besides being construed narrowly, and in accordance with the case-law, Article 4(6) must be read in the light of
      the aims pursued by the regulation,  
      
         			(14)
         		 namely road safety, the harmonization of the conditions of competition and social progress:  
      it is evident from the first recital in the preamble to that regulation that the possibility of derogating from the Community
      rules must not undermine the objectives pursued in that area.  
      
         			(15)
         		
      25.  It should also be noted that the derogations provided for by Article 4(6) are based on the consideration that the services
      referred to are all general services performed in the public interest:With regard to the interests which Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85 seeks to safeguard, the derogations provided for
      in that provision are based on the nature of the services in connection with which the vehicles are used.  In that respect
      it is apparent from the list in Article 4(6) that the services envisaged by that provision are all  
       general services performed in the public interest .
         			(16)
         		
      26.  In order, therefore, to determine the scope of the exemption for  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal, those words need to be defined in the light of the above case-law.
      
      27.  In that respect, the choice of words used, namely  
      services,  
      collection and disposal and  
      refuse seems to me to be significant.
      
      28.  First, it is revealing that the Community legislature used the expression  
      collection and disposal (
      enlèvement in the French version, and  
      Abfuhr in German) rather than the words  
      carriage or  
      transport.
      
      29.  That choice seems to me to be intentional, since the words  
      carriage and  
      transport are used elsewhere in Article 4 to describe other exemptions.  Thus, for example, the regulation does not apply to  
      vehicles used for the  
       carriage  of goods where the maximum permissible weight [...] does not exceed 3.5 tonnes,  
      
         			(17)
         		 or to  
      vehicles used for the  
       carriage  of passengers on regular services where the route covered by the service in question does not exceed 50 kilometres,  
      
         			(18)
         		 or to  
      vehicles  
       transporting  circus and fun-fair equipment.  
      
         			(19)
         		
      30.  The two terms have different meanings.   
      Collection and disposal is more restricted than  
      carriage or  
      transport.  The former consists merely in picking up, collecting or finally removing an object from a place where it has been deposited,
      and requires movement over a limited distance and a short period of time.  By contrast,  
      carriage or  
      transport may be effected over a longer distance and an extended period of time.  It is in that sense that the expressions  
      carriage by road and  
      road transport are used.  In my view, the legislature intended to make a clear distinction between the two concepts and to reserve the benefit
      of the derogation for vehicles used in connection with  
       collection and disposal .
      
      31.  To allow the derogation from the very strict provisions of the Community rules, especially as regards driving and rest periods,
      to extend to vehicles used for the  
       carriage  or  
       transport  of refuse would be to authorize a broad interpretation of Article 4(6).  Such an interpretation cannot be accepted under
      the case-law, as it would run counter to the aims pursued.  In accordance with the spirit of the rules, driving times must
      be limited and controlled so as not to compromise road safety or drivers' working conditions.
      
      32.  On that point, Mr Goupil's representative argued at the hearing that the journeys are short in any event and, in accordance
      with national rules, cannot last more than 24 hours.  That argument cannot be accepted.  As the representative of the French
      Government asked, if the transport of refuse were to be exempted from the control measures, how, without a tachograph, would
      it be possible to ensure that abuses prejudicial both to road safety and to the social protection of drivers were not committed?
       The only solution is to apply the Community rules to  
      carriage and  
      transport.
      
      33.  Conversely, restricting the exemption to  
      collection and disposal vehicles only does not have the same adverse effects.  Those vehicles move very slowly, within a limited area, and make frequent
      stops at places where refuse is deposited.
      
      34.  So far as the aims of the regulation are concerned, the method of collection and disposal, which may vary from one authority
      to another, is immaterial.  Collection may be by the traditional door-to-door method, or be selective, from containers placed
      specially for public use, as tends to be the case now.
      
      35.  It is also immaterial what type of vehicle is used, or whether it is specially equipped.
      
      36.  Nor, finally, does it matter in principle whether, having collected the refuse, the vehicle takes its load to the treatment
      centre only, or continues to the final disposal sites, the only determining factor being that of proximity.  The aims pursued
      will not be compromised so long as the derogation is restricted to vehicles used for transportation in the strict sense only
      as an ancillary to the essential activity of collection and disposal.If, on the other hand, as is often the case, the final disposal sites are a long way from built-up areas, then transportation
      to those sites, which requires longer driving times, is no longer covered by the exemption.It is for the national court to determine in any event whether the vehicle's journey to those sites is sufficiently subsidiary
      to collection proper for the aims pursued, especially road safety and social progress, not to be compromised.
      
      37.  Accordingly, and in reply in particular to Question 1(d) in Case C-335/94, journeys by empty vehicles are covered by Article
      4(6) if they come within the context of the essential activity of collection and do not, by reason of their length and duration,
      constitute a  
      transport activity.  If a vehicle leaves its depot, collects refuse and takes it to an appropriate nearby site, the activity is one
      of  
      collection and disposal.  The fact that the vehicle is empty at the beginning and at the end of its journey does not render Article 4(6) inapplicable.
      
      38.  To conclude, the derogation does not extend to vehicles whose essential activity is the  
       transport  of refuse.  It applies only to vehicles used to collect refuse and take it to sorting, treatment or disposal sites, in so
      far as the transport aspect of their activity remains subsidiary to the collection.
      
      39.  Having thus explained the meaning of  
      collection and disposal, I turn now to the word  
      refuse (
      immondices in French, and  
      Müll in German).
      
      40.  Unlike the words  
      collection and disposal, the choice of the word  
      refuse does not seem to me to reveal an intention by the legislature to limit the type of waste which may be collected and disposed
      of by vehicles exempted under Article 4(6).
      
      41.  The word has a very wide meaning, as is apparent from the definitions in the dictionaries of Larousse (
      ordures ménagères, déchets de toute sorte) and Robert (
      déchets de la vie humaine et animale, résidus du commerce et de l'industrie).  In principle, the type of waste collected, whether domestic or commercial, is immaterial for the purposes of applying
      the exemption.
      
      42.  The definition should not be extended too far, however, since too wide an interpretation might be difficult to reconcile with
      other Community provisions.  For example, Article 13(1)(d) of the regulation already authorizes Member States to grant exceptions
      for vehicles used to carry animal waste.  The term  
      refuse cannot therefore include animal waste without causing duplication between Article 4(6) and Article 13(1)(d).  Nor, for example,
      can the term cover dangerous goods, the transport of which is subject to restrictions under other Community legislation. 
      
      
         			(20)
         		
      43.  The term  
      refuse must therefore be understood in its widest accepted sense, which covers both household refuse and waste produced by industry,
      commerce and traditional trades, save where more specific rules for a particular type of waste apply.
      
      44.  A further limitation on the definition of the term  
      refuse may be deduced from the fact that Article 4(6) refers to  
      vehicles used in connection with ... services.
      
      45.  As noted, the judgment in  
       British Gas , cited above, reveals that the common factor of the exemptions in Article 4(6) is that they constitute general services performed
      in the public interest.  The expression  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal thus designates vehicles used for the public service of collecting and disposing of refuse, which is a service required in
      the interests of public health and hygiene.
      
      46.  That public service, which is required whenever any human community is formed, generally takes the form of either a door-to-door
      or a selective collection of waste.
      
      47.  The definition of the word  
      refuse, as used in the rules, is therefore restricted by the fact that only waste or residue habitually produced by the normal activity
      of a human community is included.  The type of waste is immaterial, since individuals may, for example, generate not only
      food waste but also industrial-type waste (paint residue, batteries etc.),  
      
         			(21)
         		  whereas, conversely, industries may discard food waste generated by the human activity which supports them in addition to
      the waste generated by the industry itself.  Nevertheless, the collection and disposal of such waste as a whole must be carried
      out in pursuance of an objective which is in the  
       general  interest.
      
      48.  Where a vehicle is used to collect and transport refuse in the context of a service which is not a public service, and in
      an area of activity which is open to competition, the exemptions cease and the general rules apply.  Transport for commercial
      purposes in a competitive area thus falls within the natural scope of the Community rules rather than of the exemptions.
      
      49.  However, although the references to services in Article 4(6) are to public services, the article does not make a distinction
      between services performed directly by the public authorities and services entrusted by them to a private undertaking.  In
      my view the distinction is therefore not a criterion for applying the exemption.
      
      50.  That conclusion follows from a comparison between the current wording of Article 4(6) and that of the previous regulation.
       Article 4(4) of Regulation No 543/69, as amended by Regulation No 2827/77, excluded from the scope of the regulation  
      vehicles which are used by other public authorities for public services.  
      
         			(22)
         		  The changed wording in Regulation No 3820/85 shows that the legislature intended to widen the scope of the provision in
      accordance with the general aim, stated in the first recital of the preamble to the regulation, of making its provisions more
      flexible; the benefit is therefore no longer reserved solely for vehicles used by the public authorities, provided the operation
      in question helps to carry out a refuse collection and disposal service in the public interest.
      
      51.  Allowing the derogation to benefit private undertakings does not have the effect of conferring a competitive advantage upon
      one undertaking as against another.  As the Commission has pointed out,  
      
         			(23)
         		 either the public refuse collection and disposal service is entrusted by the authorities to a single undertaking, in which
      case the benefit of the exemption cannot be granted to any other undertaking, or several undertakings are invited to perform
      the service together, in which case they all benefit equally from the derogating provision.
      
      52.  I therefore consider that the derogation may benefit both the public authorities and private undertakings which perform a
      general refuse collection and disposal service in the public interest.
      
      53.  In the light of that analysis of the expression  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal, it may be interpreted as follows. 
      
      54.  The derogation in Article 4(6) covers vehicles used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is not subject to more
      specific rules and for the transportation of such waste over short distances, within the context of a general service in the
      public interest provided directly by the public authorities or by private undertakings under their control.
       The limitation of driving time by national legislation
      
      55.  In Question 2 in Case C-335/94, the national court asks in effect whether national rules on driving periods may apply in areas
      which are excluded from the scope of the Community rules, such as those referred to in Article 4(6) of  Regulation No 3820/85.
      
      56.  The eleventh recital in the preamble to the regulation  
      
         			(24)
         		 shows that the harmonization pursued at Community level in the area of road transport is only partial and leaves outside
      its scope a number of situations, such as those referred to in Article 4(6).
      
      57.  Nevertheless, such an exclusion cannot remove the legislative power of Member States in those situations.  A provision which
      simply excludes the application of Community rules is not intended to exclude any kind of rules concerning the transport in
      question, nor does it have that effect.
      
      58.  Moreover, the third recital reserves generally the right to impose more stringent rules at national level in accordance with
      the aims pursued:Whereas the provisions of this regulation dealing with working conditions cannot be allowed to prejudice the right of the
      two sides of industry to lay down, by collective bargaining or otherwise, provisions more favourable to workers; whereas,
      in order not only to promote social progress but also to improve road safety, each Member State must retain the right to adopt
      certain appropriate measures.More particularly, the fourteenth recital states:Whereas, with regard to driving periods, it is desirable to set limits on continuous driving time and on daily driving time,
      but without prejudice to any national rules whereby drivers are prohibited from driving for longer than they can with complete
      safety.
      
      59.  Therefore, in areas outside the scope of the regulation, Member States remain competent to establish or maintain, if they
      deem necessary, rules compatible with Community law which pursue the same aims.
       
      60.  I therefore propose that the Court reply to the questions submitted by the national courts as follows: In Cases C-335/94 and C-39/95: The words  
      vehicles used in connection with ... refuse collection and disposal in Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
      relating to road transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is
      not subject to more specific rules and, subsidiary to such collection, for the transportation of such waste over short distances,
      within the context of a general service in the public interest provided directly by the public authorities or by private undertakings
      under their control. In Case C-335/94: The exemptions provided for by Article 4(6) of the regulation cited above does not preclude Member States from enacting national
      rules on driving time for the vehicles referred to in that provision.
      
       1 –
         
            Original language: French.
      
      2 –
         
         OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1.  This regulation replaces and amends Council Regulation (EEC) No 543/69 of 25 March 1969 on the harmonization
            of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 170), which had already
            been amended several times by Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 514/72 of 28 February 1972 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I),
            p. 124), 515/72 of 28 February 1972 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 134), 2827/77 of 12 December 1977 (OJ 1977 L
            334, p. 1) and 2829/77 of 12 December 1977 (OJ 1977 L 334, p. 11).  Since the two regulations concern the same matter and
            pursue the same objectives, I refer in my Opinion to the case-law of the Court relating both to the regulation of 1969 and
            to the regulation of 1985.
         
      
      3 –
         
         First recital.
      
      4 –
         
         Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8).
      
      5 –
         
         Emphasis added.
      
      6 –
         
         Carriage by road is defined in Article 1(1) of the regulation as  
            any journey made on roads open to the public of a vehicle, whether laden or not, used for the carriage of passengers or goods.
         
      
      7 –
         
         See the third recital in the preamble to Regulation No 543/69.
      
      8 –
         
         See, for example, concerning the exemption from the tachograph obligation provided for by Article 14a(3)(a) of Regulation
            No 543/69 as amended by Regulations Nos 515/72 and 2827/77, Case 133/83  
             Regina  v  
             Scott  [1984] ECR 2863; and, concerning Article 12 of Regulation No 3820/85, which authorizes departure from the provisions of the
            regulation under certain conditions, Case C-235/94  
             Regina  v  
             Bird  [1995] ECR I-0000.
         
      
      9 –
         
         See the judgment in  
             Regina  v  
             Bird , cited above, paragraph 10, and the judgments cited by the Court therein: Case 90/83  
             Paterson  v  
             Weddel  [1984] ECR 1567, paragraph 16, and Case C-116/91  
             Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area  v  
             British Gas  [1992] ECR I-4071, paragraph 12.
         
      
      10 –
         
         Paragraph 7 of the judgment.
      
      11 –
         
         [1987] ECR 2363, at paragraph 10 of the judgment.
      
      12 –
         
         The provision in question is now Article 4(10) of Regulation No 3820/85.
      
      13 –
         
         Paragraph 21.
      
      14 –
         
         See, for example, the judgments in  
             Nehlsen , cited above (paragraph 4);  
             Scott , cited above (paragraph 15);  
             British Gas , cited above (paragraph 12), and in Case C-116/92  
             Regina  v  
             Charlton and Others  [1993] ECR I-6755, paragraph 14.
         
      
      15 –
         
         Judgment in  
             British Gas , cited above, paragraph 12.
         
      
      16 –
         
         Ibid., paragraph 13, emphasis added.
      
      17 –
         
         Article 4(1).
      
      18 –
         
         Article 4(3).
      
      19 –
         
         Article 4(9).
      
      20 –
         
         Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road
            (OJ 1995 L 249, p. 35).
         
      
      21 –
         
         In Article 1(3) of both Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 (OJ 1989 L 163, p. 32) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC
            of 21 June 1989 (OJ 1989 L 203, p. 50), which concern the prevention and reduction of air pollution from new and existing
            municipal waste incineration plants,  
            municipal waste is defined, for example, as  
            domestic refuse, as well as commercial or trade refuse and other waste which, because of its nature or composition, is similar
            to domestic refuse.
         
      
      22 –
         
         On the interpretation of that provision, see the judgment in  
             Nehlsen , cited above.
         
      
      23 –
         
         Paragraph 13 of its observations in Case C-335/94.
      
      24 –
         
         Whereas certain transport operations may be exempted from the application of this regulation.