C-295/82

on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 34 of the E E C T r e a t y and of Council Directive 7 5 / 4 3 9 / E E C of 16 J u n e 1975 o n the disposal of waste oils (Official J o u r n a l , L 194, p. 23),

T H E C O U R T (Third C h a m b e r )

composed of: Y. G a l m o t , President of C h a m b e r , Lord M a c k e n z i e Stuart and U . Everling, Judges,

Advocate G e n e r a l : S. R o z è s Registrar: J. A. P o m p e , D e p u t y Registrar

gives the following

JUDGMENT

The French Republic implemented the directive in Decree No 79-981 of 21 The approved collector is responsible for November 1979 "laying down rules for the collection of all waste oils produced the recovery of waste oils" (Journal in the zone for which an approval has Officiel de la République Française of 23 been granted to it; November 1979, p. 2900), and further by the Order of 21 November 1979 on the "conditions for the collection of waste oils in pursuance of Decree No 79-981 The approved collector must deliver of 21 November 1979 laying down rules waste oils to an approved disposal under- for the recovery of waste oils" (Journal taking, except for clear oils which may Officiel de la République Française of also be reused without further treatment 23 November 1979, p. 2901) and by the (Article 10 of the Annex to the Order of Order of 21 November 1979 on the 21 November 1979 on the conditions for "conditions for the disposal of waste oils the collection of waste oils); in pursuance of Decree N o 79-981 of 21 November 1979 laying down rules for the recovery of waste oils" (Journal The disposal of waste oils is likewise Officiel de la République Française of subject to an approval issued by the 23 November 1979, p. 2903). Minister for the Environment;

The French legislation provides in Approved disposal undertakings must substance that: treat the waste oils in their own plants, or their approval may be withdrawn.

companies in a clear attempt to evade the States and all measures having equivalent law and in order to enable them to effect, and are they compatible with the continue their former activities of directives issued on the subject by the collecting waste oils without approval. Council of the Communities?" Before the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Saint-Etienne, the plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants set aside a substantial The judgment making the reference was quantity of the oils which they collected received at the Court Registry on 22 for export to Belgium and the Federal November 1982. Republic of Germany. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on Rhône Alpes Huiles and the other the Statute of the Court of Justice of the defendants at first instance claimed EEC written observations were submitted before the national court that application by the Syndicat National des Fabricants of the French domestic legislation Raffineurs d'Huile de Graissage and constituted a measure having an effect Others, represented by J. F. Renaud and equivalent to a quantitative restriction on A. Desmazières de Séchelles of the Paris exports and imports contrary to Article Bar; by Rhône Alpes Huiles and Others, 30 of the EEC Treaty and, moreover, represented by J. Thréard of the Paris was not justified by virtue of the dero- Bar; by the Commission of the European gations permitted by Article 36 of Communities, represented by its Legal the Treaty. The Tribunal de Grande Adviser, R. Wägenbaur; by the French Instance, Saint Etienne, decided, by Government, represented by J. P. Costes judgment of 28 October 1981, "that the of the General Secretariat of the Comité French legislation is justified under Interministériels pour les Questions de Article 36 of the EEC Treaty". Coopération Économique Européenne [Interdepartmental Committee for Ques- tions on European Economie Cooper- On appeal by the defendants, the Cour ation]; and by the Italian Government, d'Appel, Lyon, decided by judgment represented by P. G. Ferri, Avvocato of 18 November 1982 to stay the dello Stato. proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: Upon hearing the report of the Judge- Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to "Are the provisions contained in Article open the oral procedure without any 3 of Decree No 79-981 of 21 November preparatory inquiry and to assign the 1979, requiring holders of waste oils who case to the Third Chamber. transport such wastes themselves to place them at the disposal of a disposal under- taking holding a permit under Article 8 of the decree, and the provisions of II — S u m m a r y of the obser- Article 10 of the annex to the order of vations submitted to the 21 November 1979 on the conditions for Court the collection of waste oils, requiring approved collectors to deliver the waste oils to approved disposal undertakings, compatible with Article 30 et seq. of the Rhône Alpes Huiles and the other Treaty of Rome prohibiting quantitative appellants in the main proceedings restrictions on imports between Member consider that the French legislation

The Syndicat National des Fabricants Raffineurs d'Huile de Graissage and the other respondents in the main pro­ The raw material can be effectively ceedings also refer broadly to the recycled only by regeneration, and not arguments which they put forward in by burning. France has chosen to give Case 172/82. Thus they again contend absolute priority to regeneration and that the legality of the French legislation prohibits burning. The French system of should be examined not in relation to exclusive rights is indispensable, in order Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty, but in to reduce distortions arising out of the the context of Directive 75/439/EEC. In failure to implement the directive in fact the Court is asked to give a pre­ certain Member States and the fact that liminary ruling not on the validity of is has been implemented in different the directive but rather on a question ways in the other Member States. Re­ of interpretation. Moreover, they state generation in France is thus discouraged, that Article 90 of the EEC Treaty, a as is demonstrated by the fact that the provision based on public policy, in their company Sopaluna has for some months view justifies the French legislation. As a been treating tonnages below its profit result of the procedural rules contained threshold. The respondents in the main in Article 90, as long as the Commission proceedings therefore conclude that the has not contested the restrictions in Court should give the following reply to question, those restrictions are per­ the question referred to it: missible. They are binding on the national court.

The Italian Government for its part considers that Directive 75/439/EEC (a) delivery of the waste oil by the lays down compulsory rules for the original holder to persons or under- Member States which involve restrictions takings other than those designated, on the trade in waste oils. That follows under the national rules, as collectors from a reading of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of or disposal undertakings in accord- the directive in conjunction with each ance with Article 5 of the directive; other, which provide that the use and movement of that product must be (b) delivery of the waste oil by persons supervised. If it is necessary to ensure or undertakings which are not the that the waste oil is treated in a specified original holders of the waste oil or manner in order to prevent pollution and collectors or disposal undertakings as at the same time to promote the defined in subparagraph (a) above to recycling of energy, it is impossible to any other person or undertaking, avoid "compulsory" routing of the even an authorized disposal under- product so that it is taken directly and in taking." a manner which can be effectively checked to the point at which it is properly disposed of. The Commission for its part also refers to the observation lodged in Case 172/82. It proposes that the questions referred to Article 7 of the directive specifically the Court should be answered as follows : limits the freedom to trade in waste oil. The holder, that is to say the person of undertaking on whose premises the "Article 34 must be interpreted as degraded product is actually produced, is prohibiting a Member State from expressly obliged, by virtue of the organizing on its territory a system for reference made in Article 7 to Article 5, the collection and disposal of waste oils to comply with the measures adopted by which prohibits holders and collectors of the Member States in order "to ensure waste oil from delivering such oil to that one or more undertakings carry out traders lawfully operating in other the collection and/or disposal of the Member States."

3 The disposal of waste oils is the subject of the aforementioned Council Directive 75/439. Articles 2 to 4 of the directive provide that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure the safe collection and disposal of waste oils, preferably by recycling. Article 5 of the directive provides that "where the aims defined in Articles 2, 3 and 4 cannot otherwise be achieved,

JUDGMENT OF 9. 2. 1984 — CASE 295/82

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that one or more undertakings carry out the collection and/or disposal of the products offered to them by holders, where appropriate in the zone assigned to them by the competent authorities". Article 7 requires holders of waste oils to place them "at the disposal of the undertaking or undertakings referred to in Article 5", except if they are in a position to discharge, deposit or process them in a way which is not prohibited under Article 4 for reasons connected with the protection of the environment.

GIE RHÔNE ALPES HUILES ν SYNDIC. NAT. DES FABRICANTS RAFFINEURS D'HUILE DE GRAISSAGE

"Are the provisions contained in Article 3 of Decree N o 79-981 of 21 November 1979, requiring holders of waste oils who transport such wastes themselves to place them at the disposal of a disposal undertaking holding a permit under Article 8 of the decree, and the provisions of Article 10 of the annex to the order of 21 November 1979 on the conditions for the collection of waste oils, requiring approved collectors to deliver the waste oils to approved disposal undertakings, compatible with the provisions of Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty of Rome prohibiting quantitative restrictions on imports between Member States and all measures having equivalent effect, and are they compatible with the directives issued on the subject by the Council of the Communities?"

7 This question is substantially similar to the question which was answered in the judgment of the Court of 10 March 1983 in Case 172/82 Inter-Huiles [1983] ECR 555. Like the question in that case its purpose is to establish whether Community rules on the free movement of goods, and Council Directive 75/439 of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, permit a Member State to organize a system for the collection and disposal of waste oils within its territory in such a way as to prohibit exports to an authorized disposal or regenerating undertaking in another Member State. However, unlike the question raised in the earlier case, it draws a distinction between used oils which are delivered by a holder and those which are delivered by an approved collector.

1 2 In any event, whilst the French Government has maintained that its national legislation, taken together with a customs circular dated 20 October 1982, permits, in practice, the resale of waste oils to authorized disposal under- takings in other Member States, it should be borne in mind that the Court, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, can only provide the interpretation of Community law which is requested of it. It is instead for the national court, where necessary in the light of information furnished by the Court of Justice, to determine whether the legislation at issue contains a prohibition of exports.

1 3 For the rest, it appears to the Court that the interpretation of Community rules which has been requested in this case has in the meantime been provided by the judgment of the Court in the aforementioned Inter-Huiles case, in which all the contentions put forward in the observations submitted in these proceedings received an answer, and in connection with which it does not appear to the Court that any new factors have arisen.

GIE RHÔNE ALPES HUILES ν SYNDIC. NAT. DES FABRICANTS RAFFINEURS D'HUILE DE GRAISSAGE

Costs

14 The costs incurred by the Government of the French Republic, the Government of the Italian Republic and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, costs are a matter for that court.

P. Heim Y. Galmot Registrar President of the Third Chamber