Data source
Date of text
13 Dec 2001
Country
Seat of court
Luxembourg
Original language

English

Type of text
International court
Reference number
Case C-324/99
Court name
European Court of Justice
Justice(s)
Rodríguez Iglesias, G., C.
Colneric, N.
Gulmann, C.
Edward, D., A., O.
La Pergola, A.
Sevón, L.
Wathelet, M.
Schintgen, R.
Skouris, V.
Cunha Rodrigues, J., N.
Timmermans, C., W., A.
Sources
InforMEA
Keywords
illegal trade, Waste, waste collection, waste disposal, Waste management, waste recovery, waste storage, waste treatment

The Federal Administrative Court of Germany referred to the European Court of Justice a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC certain questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the Supervision of and Control of Shipments of Waste within, Into and Out of the European Community.
The questions were raised in proceedings between Daimler Chrysler AG and Land of Baden-Wuerttemberg concerning the legality of a decree of the Government and the Minister for the Environment and Transport of that region making it compulsory to offer certain waste for disposal to an approved body- in this case only to an incinerator in Hamburg.
The court held that where a national measure generally prohibiting export of waste for disposal was justified by the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93 it was not necessary for that national measure to be subject to a further and separate review of its compatibility with Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29 and 30 EC).
The court also considered whether Article 4 (3) of the regulation authorized a Member State which had adopted legislation, of the type above, allowing disposal to an approved body only, to prescribe that transshipment to another Member State would only be permitted subject to the intended disposal satisfying the requirements of environmental protection legislation in that other State. The court ruled that the regulation did not allow the adoption of such a provision.