Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam - Netherlands) – Criminal proceedings against Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (C-241/12), Belgian Shell NV (C-242/12)
(Joined Cases C-241/12 and C-242/12) 1
(Environment – Waste – Concept – Directive 2006/12/EC – Shipments of waste – Information from the competent national authorities –Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 – Discarding of a substance or object or intention or requirement to discard it)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank te Rotterdam
Parties in the main proceedings
Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (C-241/12), Belgian Shell NV (C-242/12)
Re:
Requests for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank te Rotterdam – Netherlands – Interpretation of 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) and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) – Concept of ‘waste’ – Shipment of Ultra Light Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) by vessel from the Netherlands to Belgium – ULSD mixed accidentally, when the vessel was being loaded, with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) – Product no longer corresponding to the specifications agreed upon by the buyer and the vendor – Buyer who became aware of that fact at the time of delivery in Belgium – Diesel taken back by the vendor and shipped to the Netherlands – Purchase price refunded to the buyer – Vendor having the intention of placing the diesel back on the market, whether or not after mixing it with another product – Inclusion or non-inclusion in the concept of waste.
Operative part of the judgment
Article 2(a) of 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 amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2557/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a consignment of diesel accidentally mixed with another substance is not covered by the concept of ‘waste’, provided that the holder of that consignment does actually intend to place that consignment, mixed with another product, back on the market, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
____________1 OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.