Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2004/190/12

    Case C– 215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 14 May 2004 in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen

    SL C 190, 24.7.2004, p. 7–7 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    24.7.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 190/7

    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 14 May 2004 in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen

    (Case C– 215/04)

    (2004/C 190/12)

    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 14 May 2004 of the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen on the following questions:

    1.

    Must the expression ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Regulation No 259/93 (1) be understood as meaning that an approved collection undertaking cannot automatically be the notifier of exports of waste for recycling?

    If the answer is in the affirmative: which criteria determine whether an approved collection undertaking can be the notifier of exports of waste for recycling?

    May the criterion be that the waste producer is unknown or that there are so many waste producers, the individual contribution of each of which is so modest that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the exportation of the waste?

    2.

    Does Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93, in conjunction with Article 7(4)(a), first and second indents in particular, provide a possibility for the competent authorities of the country of dispatch to raise an objection against a specific request for authorisation to export waste for the purpose of recycling if there is no information from the notifier that the recipient plant's treatment of the waste in question will, from the environmental point of view, be of the same standard as is required under national rules in the country of dispatch?

    3.

    Must the first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 be construed as meaning that the requirement as to information on the composition of the waste may be regarded as being satisfied if the notifier indicates that the waste in question is of only one specific kind, for example, ‘electronic scrap’?

    4.

    Must Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 259/93 be construed as meaning that the period in Article 7(2) begins to run when the competent authority of destination has sent the acknowledgement, irrespective of the fact that the competent authority of dispatch does not consider that it has received all of the information set out in Article 6(5)?

    If the answer is in the negative: what information must a notification contain before the 30-day period indicated in Article 7(2) can begin to run?

    Does the fact of having exceeded the 30-day period for reply have the effect in law that the authority cannot raise further objections or request further information?

    (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1).

    Top