Criminal proceedings against Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi (C-304/94), Roberto Santella (C-330/94), Giovanni Muzi and others (C-342/94) and Anselmo Savini (C-224/95).
Date: 1997-06-25
36 It must be noted at the outset that, although the Court may not, under Article 177 of the Treaty, decide upon the validity, in regard to Community law, of a provision of domestic law, as it would be possible for it to do under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (see, for example, Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585), it nevertheless has jurisdiction to supply the national court with an interpretation of Community law on all such points as may enable that court to determine that issue of compatibility for the purposes of the case before it (see, for example, Case 223/78 Grosoli [1979] ECR 2621, paragraph 3).
38 However, the Court has consistently held that it is solely for the national courts before which actions are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the special features of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court.  Dismissal of a request from a national court is possible where it is clear that the interpretation of Community law or the consideration of the validity of a Community rule, requested by that court, has no bearing on the real situation or on the subject-matter of the case in the main proceedings (see in particular the judgments in Case C-67/91 Asociación Española de Banca Privada and Others [1992] ECR I-4785, paragraphs 25 and 26; Joined Cases C-332/92, C-333/92 and C-335/92 Eurico Italia and Others [1994] ECR 711, paragraph 17, and Case C-62/93 BP Soupergaz [1995] ECR I-1883, paragraph 10).
43 Moreover, it is clear from the orders for reference that, at the material time, the facts of the cases before the national courts attracted penalties under national law, and the decree-laws which made the penalties deriving from DPR 915/82 inapplicable to them entered into force only subsequently  In those circumstances, it is inappropriate to enquire into such consequences as might derive, for the application of Regulation No 259/93, from the principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis.
46 Accordingly, it must be concluded that, in order to ensure that the national systems for supervision and control of shipments of waste conform with minimum criteria, Article 2(a) in Title I of Regulation No 259/93, referring to Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended, laid down a common definition of the concept of waste which is of direct application, even to shipments within any Member State.
47 As regards the interpretation of the Community legislation on waste, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the concept of waste within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442, in its original version, and Article 1 of Directive 78/319 was not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which were capable of economic reutilization. National legislation which defines waste as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization is not compatible with Directive 75/442, in its original version, and Directive 78/319 (Case C-359/88 Zanetti and Others [1990] ECR I-1509, paragraphs 12 and 13, and Case C-422/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I-1097, paragraph 22).
48 That interpretation is not affected either by Directive 91/156, which amended the first of those two directives, or by Directive 91/689, which repealed the second (see Germany v Commission, cited above, paragraph 23), or by Regulation No 259/93.
52 It follows that the system of supervision and control established by Directive 75/442, as amended, is intended to cover all objects and substances discarded by their owners, even if they have a commercial value and are collected on a commercial basis for recycling, reclamation or re-use.