Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 61996CJ0129

Sprendimo santrauka

1997 m. gruodžio 18 d. Teisingumo Teismo sprendimas.
Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL prieš Région wallonne.
Prašymas priimti prejudicinį sprendimą: Conseil d'Etat - Belgija.
Direktyva 91/156/EEB.
Byla C-129/96.

Case C-129/96

Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL

v

Région Wallonne

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Conseil d'État

‛Directive 91/156/EEC — Period for transposition — Effects — Definition of waste’

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 24 April 1997   I-7413

Judgment of the Court, 18 December 1997   I-7435

Summary of the Judgment

  1. Approximation of laws — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Definition — Substance forming an integral part of an industrial production process

    (Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a))

  2. Environment — Waste disposal — Directive 91/156 — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for transposition — Obligation not to adopt measures liable to compromise the result prescribed by the directive — Assessment by the national court — Criteria

    (EC Treaty, Art. 5, second para., and Art 189, third para.; Council Directive 91/156)

  1.  A substance is not excluded from the definition of waste in Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, merely because it directly or indirectly forms an integral part of an industrial production process.

    That conclusion does not undermine the distinction which must be drawn between waste recovery within the meaning of that directive and normal industrial treatment of products which are not waste.

  2.  The second paragraph of Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, and Directive 91/156 amending Directive 75/442 on waste, require the Member States to which that directive is addressed to refrain, during the period laid down therein for its implementation, from adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed. It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case as regards the national provisions whose legality it is called upon to consider.

    In making that assessment, the national court must consider, in particular, whether the provisions in issue purport to constitute full transposition of the directive, as well as the effects in practice of applying those incompatible provisions and of their duration in time. More particularly, if the provisions in issue are intended to constitute full and definitive transposition of the directive, their incompatibility with the directive might give rise to the presumption that the result prescribed by the directive will not be achieved within the period prescribed if it is impossible to amend them in time. Conversely, the national court could take into account the right of a Member State to adopt transitional measures or to implement the directive in stages, where the incompatibility of the transitional national measures with the directive, or the non-transposition of certain of its provisions, would not necessarily compromise the result prescribed.

Top