MI.VER Srl and Daniele Antonelli v Provincia di Macerata.
Date: 2008-12-11
15. It is to be observed in that regard that the presumption that questions referred by national courts for a preliminary ruling are relevant may be rebutted only in exceptional cases, where it is quite obvious that the interpretation which is sought of the provisions of European Union law referred to in the questions bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action (see, inter alia, Case C‑415/93 Bosman  [1995] ECR I‑4921, paragraph 61, and Joined Cases C‑222/05 to C‑225/05 Weerd and Others  [2007] ECR I‑4233, paragraph 22).
20. They observe, essentially, that it follows from the case-law of the Court (Joined Cases C‑175/98 and C‑177/98 Lirussi and Bizzaro  [1999] ECR I‑6881, paragraph 54) that temporary storage, although preceding waste management proper and therefore not requiring authorisation, must be regulated by the Member States in such a way as to achieve the objectives of Directive 75/442 with regard to protection of human health and the environment. To accept that producers of waste can, without authorisation, mix waste covered by different codes could be hazardous and would limit its actual and full recovery, which would run contrary both to the objectives laid down by that directive and to the purpose of the codification laid down in Decision 2000/532.
21. In that regard, it should be pointed out that temporary storage is mentioned only in Annexes II A and II B to that directive, listing waste disposal operations and waste recovery operations respectively. It is apparent from those annexes, points D 15 and R 13 thereof respectively, that temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where it is produced, is excluded from the list of operations classified as disposal operations or recovery operations in Directive 75/442. It must be defined, as the Court noted in paragraph 45 of the judgment in Lirussi and Bizzaro , as the operation preparatory to waste management within the meaning of Article 1(d) of that directive.
25. However, as the Court has already held on several occasions, the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 75/442 does not specify the actual content of the measures which are to be taken to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, but is binding on the Member States as to the objective to be achieved, whilst leaving to the Member States a margin of discretion in assessing the need for such measures (see, inter alia, Case C‑365/97 Commission  v Italy  [1999] ECR I‑7773, paragraph 67; Case C‑420/02 Commission  v Greece  [2004] ECR I‑11175, paragraph 21; and Case C‑135/05 Commission  v Italy  [2007] ECR I‑3475, paragraph 37).
30. Nevertheless, since that nomenclature is repeated in the Italian rules, it is necessary to answer the second question and to interpret the concept of ‘mixed packaging’ corresponding to code 15 01 06 of the list annexed to that decision in order to ensure a uniform interpretation of that concept, in the event that the referring court should find that it is applicable to the main proceedings, having regard, in particular, to the answer given to the first question (see to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio  [2006] ECR I‑11987, paragraph 20, and the case-law cited).