Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe v Land Rheinland-Pfalz.
Date: 2005-04-14
25. The Court may, of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (Case C-309/99 Wouters and Others  [2002] ECR I-1577, paragraph 42, and Case C-434/02 Arnold André  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27). In the circumstances of this case, however, the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, considers that it is in possession of all the facts necessary for it to answer the questions referred. In consequence, the request for reopening of the oral procedure must be rejected.
On the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
27. The first point to be noted is that the Community rules do not seek to effect complete harmonisation in the area of the environment. Even though Article 174 EC refers to certain Community objectives to be attained, Article 176 EC allows the Member States to introduce more stringent protective measures (Case C-318/98 Fornasar and Others  [2000] ECR I-4785, paragraph 46). Article 176 EC makes such measures subject only to the conditions that they should be compatible with the Treaty and that they should be notified to the Commission.
32. It follows that Article 176 EC and the Directive allow the Member States to introduce more stringent protection measures that go beyond the minimum requirements fixed by the Directive (see, to that effect, Fornasar and Others , paragraph 46, concerning Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20).
On the first question
41. It is clear from the foregoing that the thresholds and tests contained in a measure of domestic law such as that at issue in the main proceedings follow the same policy of protecting the environment as the Directive does. Inasmuch as such a regulation imposes requirements stricter than those of that Directive, it constitutes a more stringent protective measure for the purposes of Article 176 EC.
43. The use of the expression ‘not later than’ in Articles 5(2) and 18 of the Directive shows that the Member States are at liberty to apply earlier time-limits if they deem it necessary (see, to that effect, Case C-11/92 Gallaher and Others  [1993] ECR I-3545, paragraph 20, on the subject of the expression ‘at least’).
46. Although Article 5 of the Directive specifically concerns a strategy the purpose of which is to reduce waste going to landfill, the Directive as a whole plainly applies to waste in the liberal sense of the word, as it is defined in Article 2(a).
49. It follows that a measure of domestic law, such as that referred to in paragraph 45 above, which, in order to authorise landfilling, extends restrictions not to biodegradable substances only but to all organic substances, pursues the same goals as the Directive. In so far as such a measure covers a range of substances wider than that to be found in Article 5 of the Directive, it is a more stringent protective measure for the purposes of Article 176 EC.
52. It follows that a measure of domestic law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and which applies to waste other than municipal waste, is compatible with the Directive and constitutes a more stringent protective measure for the purposes of Article 176 EC.
58. In order to answer that question, it is to be recalled that, in connection with the Community’s environmental policy, to the extent that a measure of domestic law pursues the same objectives as a directive, Article 176 EC makes provision for and authorises the minimum requirements laid down by that directive to be exceeded, in the conditions set by that article.