European Union – Environment. The 'waste hierarchy' principle, as expressed in art 4 of the Directive (EC) 2008/98, read in the light of art 13 thereof, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which classified waste incineration facilities as 'strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance', as long as that legislation was compatible with the other provisions of that directive which laid down more specific obligations. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning an action seeking the annulment of an Italian Decree concerned, among other things, with the identification of the overall treatment capacity of facilities for the incineration of municipal and similar waste in service or authorised at national level.
Insolvency – Statutory demand. The deputy judge had correctly concluded that the third-party charges provided by the respondents for the indebtedness of a company (of which they were directors and shareholders) to the creditor company were security in respect of the debt upon which the statutory demands had been based, within the meaning of r 6.5(4)(c) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, interpreted in accordance with its underlying rationale and purpose. Accordingly, the Chancery Division dismissed the creditor's appeal against the deputy judge's decision to set aside the statutory demands served by the creditor against the respondents.
European Union – Customs and excise. Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 stated that where the facts as finally established show that there had been dumping and injury caused thereby, and the Union interest called for intervention, a definitive anti-dumping duty was to be imposed by the Commission. Further, art 14(1) of that Regulation provided that the anti-dumping duties were to be imposed by regulation. It followed that, in that the Implementing Regulations at issue referred to arts 9 and 14 of Regulation 2016/1036, they had a legal basis that empowered the European Commission to re-impose the anti-dumping duties imposed by the Regulations declared to be invalid. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings between the taxpayer company and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, UK, in relation to a request by that company for repayment of anti-dumping duties paid on the import of footwear with uppers of leather into the EU.
European Union – Consumer protection. Article 3(3) of Directive (EC) 1999/44 should be interpreted as meaning that the member states remained competent to establish the place where the consumer was required to make goods acquired under a distance contract available to the seller, for them to be brought into conformity in accordance with that provision. That place had to be appropriate for ensuring that they could be brought into conformity free of charge, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking into account the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer had required the goods. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings by the applicant purchaser concerning a claim for reimbursement of the purchase price of a tent, made by the applicant in the exercise of his right to rescind the sale contract.
Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In respect of a child (A), who was the subject of an interim care order, the only realistic option was for him to go to live with his father. Accordingly, the local authority's proposal for such a transition was approved. However, the Family Division ruled that the position in relation to A's sibling required further assessment of family members and of the mother which, it held, would be the subject of further consideration.