You are on page 1of 2

C 146/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 21.6.

2003

subject-matter, account should be taken only of the claims of the JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions
raised by a defendant.
(Fifth Chamber)

( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
of 3 April 2003

in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from


the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu-
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT beheer (1)

(Sixth Chamber) (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —


Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
of 8 May 2003
use of incineration residues as raw material in cement
manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
in Case C-113/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen): Paranova Oy (1) pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

(Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC — (2003/C 146/13)


Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
the medicinal product of reference) (Language of the case: Dutch)

(2003/C 146/12) (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published


in the European Court Reports)
(Language of the case: Swedish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published


in the European Court Reports) In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
In Case C-113/01: Reference to the Court under Article BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
234 EC by Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Finland) for a en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that 442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as
court brought by Paranova Oy on the interpretation of amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber), (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of a marketing 1. Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
authorisation of reference of itself entails the withdrawal of the stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question. operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/
However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
imports of the medicinal product in question where there is in fact a Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
risk to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, for the purpose
that medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State. of implementing 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, as
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January
1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;
21.6.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/9

2. The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by (Sixth Chamber)
Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that of 8 May 2003
purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
down in the Directive.
in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001. Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne Gewerkschafter-
Innen/UG’ (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for


workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as
regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope —
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers
from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)
(Sixth Chamber)
(2003/C 146/15)
of 8 May 2003

in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Com- (Language of the case: German)
mission of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets in the European Court Reports)
— Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)

(2003/C 146/14)
In Case C-171/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
(Language of the case: German) ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’, also represented: Bundesmi-
in the European Court Reports) nister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Kammer für Arbeiter und
Angestellte für Vorarlberg, Wählergruppe ‘Vorarlberger Arbei-
ter- und Angestelltenbund (ÖAAB) — AK-Präsident Josef Fink’,
Wählergruppe ‘FSG — Walter Gelbmann — mit euch ins
In Case C-122/01 P, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in nächste Jahrtausend/Liste 2’, Wählergruppe ‘Freiheitliche und
Hambourg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtwanwalt: parteifreie Arbeitnehmer Vorarlberg — FPÖ’, Wählergruppe
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of ‘Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock’, and Wählergruppe ‘NBZ —
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February Neue Bewegung für die Zukunft’, on the interpretation of
2001 in Case T-1/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II- Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on
465, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other the development of the Association, adopted by the Associ-
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European ation Council established by the Association Agreement
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), the between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it: the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which
it has ruled:
1. Dismisses the appeal.
Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
2. Orders T. Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
established by the Association Agreement between the European
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001. Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as:

— having direct effect in the Member States, and