Date of text
Sources
CURIA
Court name
CJEU - Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004
Free tags
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart
Germany
Environment
Free movement of goods
Packaging and packaging waste
Directive 94/62/EC
Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging
Abstract
Case C-309/02 Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart) (Environment – Free movement of goods – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62/EC – Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging) Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Waste – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Power granted to the Member States to promote systems for the reuse of packaging – Whether national measures permissible – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 1(2) and 5) 2. Environment – Waste – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Right of producers and distributors to continue to participate in a given packaging-waste management system – No such right – Replacement of an existing packaging-waste management system – Permissible – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 7) 3. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – National rules replacing a global packaging-waste collection system with a deposit and return system – Justification – Protection of the environment – Condition – Observance of the principle of proportionality (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) 1. Article 1(2) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste does not preclude the Member States from introducing measures designed to promote systems for the reuse of packaging. In accordance with Article 5 of that directive, such measures must comply not only with requirements that flow from the directive’s other provisions, in particular Article 7, but also with obligations resulting from the provisions of the Treaty, in particular Article 28 EC. (see paras 36-37, operative part 1) 2. While Article 7 of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste does not confer on the producers and distributors concerned any right to continue to participate in a given packaging-waste management system, it precludes the replacement of a global system for the collection of packaging waste with a deposit and return system where the new system is not equally appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objectives of that directive or where the changeover to the new system does not take place without a break and without jeopardising the ability of economic operators in the sectors concerned actually to participate in the new system as soon as it enters into force. (see paras 43, 46, 48, 50, operative part 2) 3. Article 28 EC precludes national rules when they announce that a global packaging-waste collection system is to be replaced by a deposit and return system without the producers and distributors concerned having a reasonable transitional period to adapt thereto and being assured that, at the time when the packaging-waste management system changes, they can actually participate in an operational system. Such rules can be justified by reasons relating to protection of the environment only if the means which they employ do not go beyond what is necessary for the purpose of attaining the desired objectives. (see paras 79, 83, operative part 3) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 14 December 2004(1) (Environment – Free movement of goods – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62/EC – Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging) v THE COURT (Grand Chamber),, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 May 2004, gives the following