Joined cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 Commune de Braine-le-Château (C-53/02) and Michel Tillieut and Others (C-217/02) v Région wallonne, and BIFFA Waste Services SA and Others

Joined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 Commune de Braine-le-Château and Michel Tillieut and Others v Région wallonne (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) (Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Waste – Management plans – Suitable sites and installations for waste disposal – Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposal sites) Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Obligation on the competent authorities to draw up one or more waste management plans – Suitable disposal sites or installations – Obligation, for purposes of issuing a permit, to mark them on a geographical map or to determine location criteria which are sufficiently precise (Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Council Directive 91/156, Arts 7 and 9) 2. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Obligation on Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period – Scope (Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 7(1) and Council Directive 91/156, Art. 2(1), first subpara.) 3. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Failure to draw up within the prescribed period one or more waste management plans relating to suitable disposal sites or installations – Issue of individual operating permits – Whether permissible (Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Arts 4, 5, 7 and 9) 1. Article 7 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted to mean that the management plan or plans which the competent authorities of the Member States are required to draw up under that provision must include either a geographical map specifying the exact location of waste disposal sites or location criteria which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9 of the directive to determine whether the site or installation in question falls within the management framework provided for by the plan. (see para. 35, operative part. 1) 2. Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period, which may go beyond the time-limit for transposing Directive 91/156 laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the latter. (see para. 38, operative part 2) 3. Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, read in conjunction with Article 9 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State which has not adopted, within the period prescribed, one or more waste management plans relating to suitable sites or installations for waste disposal from issuing individual permits to operate such sites and installations. (see para. 46, operative part 3) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 1 April 2004(1) (Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Waste – Management plans – Suitable sites and installations for waste disposal – Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposal sites) and THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),, after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of: after hearing the oral observations of the commune of Braine-le-Château, represented by L. Evrard, avocat; of Mr Tillieut and Others, represented by J. Sambon; of the Région wallonne, represented by E. Orban de Xivry and F. Krenc, avocat; of Mr Feron and Mr De Codt, represented by J. Sambon; of BIFFA Waste Services SA, represented by B. Deltour; of Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de l'environnement SA (PAGE), represented by F. Haumont; of the French Government, represented by E. Puisais, acting as Agent; of the United Kingdom Government, represented by D. Wyatt; and of the Commission, represented by C.-F. Durand and M. Konstantinidis, at the hearing on 26 June 2003, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 September 2003, gives the following On those grounds, THE COURT (Sixth Chamber), Gulmann Cunha Rodrigues Puissochet Schintgen Macken R. Grass V. Skouris Registrar President