Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen.
Date: 2006-02-16
21. It must be observed, as a preliminary point, that the question of shipments of waste is regulated in a harmonised manner at Community level by Regulation No 259/93, in order to ensure the protection of the environment (Case C-324/99 DaimlerChrysler  [2001] ECR I-9897, paragraph 42, and Case C‑6/00 ASA  [2002] ECR I‑1961, paragraph 35).
22. The cases in which Member States may object to a shipment of waste between Member States are, for shipments of waste for recovery, those exhaustively listed in Article 7(4) of that regulation as provided by Article 7(2) thereof ( ASA , paragraph 36).
28. Thus, with regard to the situation referred to in the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, the Court has held, in paragraph 43 of the judgment in Case C‑277/02 EU-Wood-Trading  [2004] ECR I‑11957, that the competent authorities may base an objection on considerations relating not only to the transport operation itself but also to the recovery operation planned for that shipment.
29. Since under Article 4 of Directive 75/442 the Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without the use of processes or methods capable of harming the environment, the provisions of the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93 must be interpreted as authorising the competent authorities of dispatch to raise objections to a shipment of waste for recovery on the ground that the planned recovery disregards the requirements arising from Article 4 of that directive ( EU-Wood-Trading , paragraph 42).
30. In the judgment in EU-Wood-Trading , the Court held that the provisions of the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93 imply that the competent authorities, in assessing the risks which recovery of waste carried out in the State of destination would entail for human health and the environment, may take account of all relevant criteria in that regard, including those which are in force in the State of dispatch, even if they are stricter than those of the State of destination, and provided they are intended to avoid those risks.  The competent authorities of dispatch cannot, however, be bound by the criteria of their State if such criteria are no more apt to avoid those risks than those of the State of destination ( EU-Wood-Trading , paragraph 46).
31. Moreover, opposition by the competent authority of dispatch on the basis of its national waste recovery standards to a shipment can only be lawful in so far as those standards, in compliance with the principle of proportionality, are apt to attain the objectives pursued which are intended to prevent risks for human health and the environment, and do not go beyond what is necessary to attain them ( EU-Wood-Trading , paragraph 49).  Those risks must be measured, not by the yardstick of general considerations, but on the basis of relevant scientific research ( EU-Wood-Trading , paragraph 50).
45. It is therefore apparent from the actual wording of Article 7 of Regulation No 259/93 that the period of 30 days begins to run when the competent authority of destination has sent an acknowledgement of receipt.  The fact that the competent authority of dispatch, as is the case in the main proceedings, considers that it has not received all the information necessary should not cause that period not to start to run.  The period of 30 days laid down by that regulation provides the notifier with a guarantee that the shipment will be examined within the periods prescribed by the regulation and that he will be informed, upon the expiry of those periods at the latest, whether, and on what conditions, if any, the shipment can be carried out (see to that effect, with regard to an objection raised by the competent authority of dispatch concerning the erroneous classification of a shipment, ASA , paragraph 49).