# C_2019164EN.01000901.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 January 2019 — A.m.a — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri.

(Case C-15/19)

(2019/C 164/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A.m.a. — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA

Cross-appellant: Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC (1) preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 transposing those provisions of [EU law] into national law apply retroactively, with the result that pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate are subject, unconditionally, to the obligations laid down by those provisions of national legislation, in particular in so far as they extend the period of responsibility for after-care from 10 to 30 years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC (1) preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 transposing those provisions of [EU law] into national law apply retroactively, with the result that pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate are subject, unconditionally, to the obligations laid down by those provisions of national legislation, in particular in so far as they extend the period of responsibility for after-care from 10 to 30 years?

| 2. | In particular, do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31, which provide that Member States must take ‘measures to ensure that all of the costs involved in the setting up and operation of a landfill site, including as far as possible the cost of the financial security or its equivalent referred to in Article 8(a)(iv), and the estimated costs of the closure and after-care of the site for a period of at least 30 years shall be covered by the price to be charged by the operator for the disposal of any type of waste in that site’ and ‘measures in order that landfills which have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of transposition of [that directive], may. continue to operate’ respectively, preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 apply to pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate, where the measures implementing those obligations, in particular in relation to those landfill sites, are limited in Article 17 of that legislative decree to the provision of a transitional period and do not include any measure seeking to limit the financial impact of the extension on the ‘permit holder’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31, which provide that Member States must take ‘measures to ensure that all of the costs involved in the setting up and operation of a landfill site, including as far as possible the cost of the financial security or its equivalent referred to in Article 8(a)(iv), and the estimated costs of the closure and after-care of the site for a period of at least 30 years shall be covered by the price to be charged by the operator for the disposal of any type of waste in that site’ and ‘measures in order that landfills which have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of transposition of [that directive], may. continue to operate’ respectively, preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 apply to pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate, where the measures implementing those obligations, in particular in relation to those landfill sites, are limited in Article 17 of that legislative decree to the provision of a transitional period and do not include any measure seeking to limit the financial impact of the extension on the ‘permit holder’?

| 3. | Moreover, do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31 preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 also apply to pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate as regards the financial burden resulting from the obligations laid down by those provisions of national legislation and, in particular, from the extension of the period of responsibility for after-care from 10 to 30 years, by imposing that burden on the ‘permit holder’ and thereby legitimising the adjustment — to the detriment of that permit holder — of the costs set out in the commercial agreements regulating [waste] disposal activities? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Moreover, do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31 preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 also apply to pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate as regards the financial burden resulting from the obligations laid down by those provisions of national legislation and, in particular, from the extension of the period of responsibility for after-care from 10 to 30 years, by imposing that burden on the ‘permit holder’ and thereby legitimising the adjustment — to the detriment of that permit holder — of the costs set out in the commercial agreements regulating [waste] disposal activities?

| 4. | Lastly, do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31 preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 also apply to pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate as regards the financial burden resulting from the obligations laid down by those provisions of national legislation and, in particular, from the extension of the period of responsibility for after-care from 10 to 30 years, given that — in order to determine that financial burden — account must be taken not only of waste to be deposited as from the entry into force of the provisions transposing those provisions of EU law into national law but also of waste already deposited prior to that entry into force? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Lastly, do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31 preclude the interpretation upheld by the appeal court, according to which Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 also apply to pre-existing landfill sites which already have permission to operate as regards the financial burden resulting from the obligations laid down by those provisions of national legislation and, in particular, from the extension of the period of responsibility for after-care from 10 to 30 years, given that — in order to determine that financial burden — account must be taken not only of waste to be deposited as from the entry into force of the provisions transposing those provisions of EU law into national law but also of waste already deposited prior to that entry into force?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).

---