Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:818
Date: 2025-10-23
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

summary, as follows. It is difficult to see how 
the system of transboundary movements of waste, and the recovery of illegal 
transboundary shipments of waste, is to work if the competent authority taking 
back the waste does not have the right to ensure that the waste taken back is 
recovered or disposed of. In the view of the Naturvårdsverket, there is a legal 
basis for that in the Waste Shipment Regulation. The take-back of an illegal waste 
shipment also constitutes a transboundary movement of waste. In the case of a 
take-back pursuant to Article 24(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the Waste Shipment 
Regulation, it is necessary, under the third subparagraph of that article, to draw up 
a new notification for the shipment back to the country of dispatch from the 
country where the shipment was stopped. Under Article 4(6) of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation, a notification is to cover the shipment of waste from its 
initial place of dispatch and include its interim and non-interim recovery or 
disposal. The notification must cover, inter alia, the consignor, the consignee, the 
treatment facility and the treatment procedure. In the view of the 
Naturvårdsverket, it is thus assumed that what is taken back is waste and that the 
waste is being taken back for recovery or disposal. The Naturvårdsverket, as the 
competent authority, is obliged to follow the procedure laid down in the EU 
regulation. No evidence has been provided to show that UQ is able to dispose of 
the waste in the shipment in an environmentally acceptable manner and in 
accordance with the applicable national rules on waste management. UQ has 
NATURVÅRDSVERKET 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
stated that he received remuneration for some of the contents of the container and 
that he therefore wished to complete the shipment to Cameroon. There are 
indications that he intends to re-export the contents of the container. Against that 
background, it cannot be considered possible for the Naturvårdsverket, as the 
competent authority, supervisory authority and holder of the waste, to return the 
waste in the shipment to UQ. If Article 24(2)(a) to (c) of the Waste Shipment 
Regulation is to be interpreted and applied in the manner established by the Land 
and Environment Court, then Article 24(2)(d) of the Waste Shipment Regulation 
could provide a legal basis for the authority of dispatch to recover the waste in the 
country of dispatch, where it cannot be considered possible for the exporter to deal 
with the waste in an appropriate manner after it has been taken back. In such 
situations, the competent authority of dispatch, in this case the Naturvårdsverket, 
must be responsible for ensuring that the waste is dealt with and recovered, in its 
capacity as competent authority, supervisory authority, holder of the waste and 
notifier of the waste shipment. 
15 UQ has argued, in summary, as follows. As stated by the Naturvårdsverket, it is 
necessary under the third and fifth subparagraphs of Article 24(2) of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation to draw up a new notification up in accordance with the 
requirement set out in Article 4. However, it is apparent from Article 4(6) that a 
shipment may relate to interim recovery or disposal and that it is not necessary for 
final treatment of the waste to take place. It is true that he asked the 
Naturvårdsverket to arrange the return shipment, but he never asked the authority 
for recovery or disposal. If the Naturvårdsverket has stated in the notification of 
the return shipment that the authority itself would carry that out, it goes beyond 
what he has agreed to and the authority does not have the right, over his 
objections, to assume ownership of the property. There is no legal basis for 
transferring ownership of the property from an individual to the Naturvårdsverket. 
The reason why he was unable to arrange the return shipment himself was that the 
Naturvårdsverket, apparently without any legal basis, required that the return itself 
be effected in a different way than the shipment to Belgium. He is able to dispose 
of the waste and can send it for final treatment himself, in exactly the same way as 
the Naturvårdsverket will do. Even though the property is currently classified as 
waste, it may, after repair, be classified as property which is not waste. The case 
concerns the two vehicles that were in the container. Both vehicles have a value 
on the open market and both have successfully undergone a roadworthiness test; 
there are also purchase contracts for them and payment has been made. The tyres 
had been deliberately deflated to ensure that they would not roll in the container. 
There are still opportunities and financial incentives to repair the minor defects 
noted. If he could once again show that the vehicles had passed a clean 
roadworthiness test, that a purchase contract is in place, that the purchase price 
has been paid and that there is no other major damage, the vehicles would not 
have been considered waste if they had been shipped alone. The remarks made 
about the vehicles are limited and the fact that one has corrosion damage does not 
mean that it is waste. In the event that the vehicles, after repair work, do not meet 
the requirements in order not to be classified as waste, they will be recovered and 
he can then have the vehicles scrapped himself. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 3. 2024 – CASE C-221/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
European Union law 
The Waste Shipment Regulation 
16 The Waste Shipment Regulation is to apply inter alia to shipments of waste 
exported from the Community to third countries or transiting through the 
Community on the way from and to third countries (see Article 1(2)). 
17 In the case of a shipment originating from a Member State, a notifier means any 
natural or legal person under the jurisdiction of that Member State who intends to 
carry out a shipment of waste or intends to have a shipment of waste carried out 
and to whom the duty to notify is assigned in accordance with an established 
listing (see Article 2(15)). 
18 Competent authority means, in the case of Member States, the body designated by 
the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 53 (see Article 2(18)). 
19 Shipment means, inter alia, the transport of waste destined for recovery or 
disposal which is planned or takes place between a country and another country, 
or between a country and overseas countries and territories or other areas, under 
that country’s protection (see Article 2(34)). 
20 Illegal shipment means, inter alia, any shipment of waste effected without 
notification to all competent authorities concerned pursuant to the Waste 
Shipment Regulation, without the consent of the competent authorities concerned 
pursuant to that regulation, in a way which is not specified materially in the 
notification or movement documents or in a way which results in recovery or 
disposal in contravention of Community or international rules (see Article 2(35)). 
21 Shipments of waste destined for disposal and recovery operations are to be subject 
to a procedure requiring prior written notification and consent as laid down in 
Title II of the Waste Shipment Regulation (see Article 3(1)). 
22 When a notification is submitted, the notification document (Annex IA to the 
regulation) and, where relevant, the movement document (Annex IB to the 
regulation) must be filled in by the notifier (see Article 4(1)). A notification is to 
cover the shipment of waste from its initial place of dispatch and include its 
interim and non-interim recovery or disposal (see Article 4(6)). 
23 The Waste Shipment Regulation lays down take-back obligations in certain 
specified situations (see Chapter 4). As regards take-back when a shipment is 
illegal, the first subparagraph of Article 24(2) states that if an illegal shipment is 
the responsibility of the notifier, the competent authority of dispatch is to ensure 
that the waste in question is: 
(a) taken back by the notifier de facto; or, if no notification has been 
submitted; 
NATURVÅRDSVERKET 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
(b) taken back by the notifier de jure; or, if impracticable; 
(c) taken back by the competent authority of dispatch itself or by a natural 
or legal person on its behalf; or, if impracticable; 
(d) alternatively recovered or disposed of in the country of destination or 
dispatch by the competent authority of dispatch itself or by a natural or legal 
person on its behalf; or, if impracticable; 
(e) alternatively recovered or disposed of in another country by the 
competent authority of dispatch itself or by a natural or legal person on its 
behalf if all the competent authorities concerned agree. 
In cases of take-back as referred to in (a), (b) and (c), a new notification is to be 
submitted, unless the competent authorities concerned agree that a duly reasoned 
request by the initial competent authority of dispatch is sufficient (see the third 
subparagraph of Article 24(2)). The new notification is to be submitted by the 
person or authority listed in (a), (b) or (c) and in accordance with that order (see 
the fourth subparagraph of Article 24(2)). 
24 As regards disagreement on classification issues, if the competent authorities of 
dispatch and of destination cannot agree on the classification as regards the 
distinction between waste and non-waste, the subject matter is to be treated as if it 
were waste. That is to be without prejudice to the right of the country of 
destination to deal with the shipped material in accordance with its national 
legislation, following arrival of the shipped material and where such legislation is 
in accordance with Community or international law (see Article 28). 
25 Member States are to lay down the rules on penalties applicable for infringement 
of the provisions of the Waste Shipment Regulation and are to take all measures 
necessary to ensure that they are implemented (see Article 50(1)). 
The European Convention on Human Rights 
26 Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection 
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the European Convention’) 
provides that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of 
his possessions. No one is to be deprived of his possessions except in the public 
interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general 
principles of international law. The preceding provisions are not, however, in any 
way to impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to 
control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the 
payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
27 Under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
[…], everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 3. 2024 – CASE C-221/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, 
except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for 
by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The 
use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general 
interest. 
The Swedish legislative framework 
28 The Naturvårdsverket is the competent authority within the meaning of Article 53 
and the correspondent with the meaning of Article 54 of the Waste Shipment 
Regulation (see Chapter 8, Paragraph 2 of Avfallsförordningen [2020:614] (the 
Ordinance on waste) [2020:614]; ‘the Avfallsförordningen’)). The 
Naturvårdsverket is responsible for supervision under the Miljöbalken (the 
Environmental Code; ‘the Miljöbalken’) with regard to the Waste Shipment 
Regulation as regards matters for which it is the competent authority (see Chapter 
2, Paragraph 24 of the Miljötillsynsförordningen (the Ordinance on environmental 
supervision) [2011:13]; ‘the Miljötillsynsförordningen’)). 
29 If the Naturvårdsverket, in its capacity as a competent authority, becomes aware 
of or deals with a matter concerning a waste shipment covered by the Waste 
Shipment Regulation, it must inform the county administrative board concerned 
and the municipal committee concerned which performs tasks in the field of 
health and environmental protection (see Chapter 8, Paragraph 3 of the 
Avfallsförordningen. With regard to shipments of waste governed by the Waste 
Shipment Regulation, certain specified county administrative boards are also 
responsible for supervision in certain counties. In its supervision role, the county 
administrative board must co-operate with other county administrative boards 
concerned and with the Coast Guard, the Police Authority and the Customs 
Service (see Chapter 2, Paragraph 28a of the Miljötillsynsförordningen). 
Furthermore, each municipality exercises, through its committees, supervision 
within the municipality of, inter alia, waste management under Chapter 15 of the 
Miljöbalken (see Chapter 26, Paragraph 3 of the Miljöbalken). 
30 A supervisory authority has the option in an individual case of deciding on the 
orders necessary to enforce the Waste Shipment Regulation (see Chapter 26, 
Paragraph 9 of the Miljöbalken and also Chapter 1, Paragraph 4 and Chapter 19, 
Paragraph 10 of the Miljötillsynsförordningen). According to the travaux 
préparatoires, such an order may, for example, relate to an export ban or an order 
to submit relevant information such as producing evidence required under the 
Waste Shipment Regulation or needed to assess the legality of the shipment … 
31 The supervisory authority may decide to retain or dispose of waste if that is 
necessary to ensure compliance with a prohibition laid down in the Waste 
Shipment Regulation or compliance with an order issued pursuant thereto (see 
Chapter 26, Paragraph 13b of the Miljöbalken). 
NATURVÅRDSVERKET 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
32 An illegal shipment of waste is punishable by a fine or a maximum of two years’ 
imprisonment for anyone who, intentionally or by negligence, ships waste in 
breach of the articles of the Waste Shipment Regulation which are relevant in the 
present case (see Chapter 29, Paragraph 4a of the Miljöbalken). For certain 
breaches of the Waste Shipment Regulation, an environmental penalty fee may be 
payable (see Chapter 11, Paragraphs 1 to 7 of Förordning [2012:259] om 
miljösanktionsavgifter (Ordinance [2012:259] on environmental penalty fees)). 
33 Waste may be seized by the police or public prosecutors in the circumstances set 
out in Chapter 27 of the Rättegångsbalken (the Code of Judicial Procedure; ‘the 
Rättegångsbalken’). Waste that has been seized may be declared forfeited 
following judicial proceedings, unless that is manifestly unreasonable and the 
property has been the subject of a crime, for example under Chapter 29, 
Paragraph 4a of the Miljöbalken (see Chapter 29, Paragraph 12 of the 
Miljöbalken). The authority which stores waste that can reasonably be assumed to 
be forfeited under Chapter 29, Paragraph 12 of the Miljöbalken and has been 
seized under Chapter 27 of the Rättegångsbalken may (1) immediately have the 
waste sold if there is a risk that the waste will be destroyed during storage, the 
storage entails excessive costs or there are other special reasons, and (2) destroy 
the waste if it cannot be sold or if it can be assumed that it will be put to criminal 
use or is otherwise unsuitable for sale (see Chapter 29, Paragraph 12a of the 
Miljöbalken). 
The need for a preliminary ruling 
34 The question arises in the present case as to whether a competent authority of 
dispatch, having effected a take-back of an illegal shipment of waste pursuant to 
Article 24(2)(c) of the Waste Shipment Regulation and the notification which, 
according to the third and fourth subparagraphs of that article, must precede such 
a take-back, is thereafter to be regarded as the holder of the waste and, under that 
regulation, may/must also recover or dispose of the waste, despite the opposition 
of the original sender. 
35 If the authority of dispatch has the right to recover or dispose of the waste in such 
a situation, the question also arises as to whether such a right is compatible with 
the protection of property since Article 24(2)(c) does not expressly state that the 
owner of the waste may be deprived of the right to his, her or its property 
following take-back. 
36 In summary, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal considers that it is not 
clear or has not been clarified how Article 24(2) is to be applied in a case such as 
the present one. In order to give judgment in the case, the Land and Environment 
Court of Appeal requires answers to the questions of interpretation set out below. 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
37 The Land and Environment Court of Appeal refers the following questions to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 3. 2024 – CASE C-221/24 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
1. Does a take-back under Article 24(2)(c) of the Waste Shipment 
Regulation include a requirement or possibility for the authority of dispatch 
to recover or dispose of the waste after take-back, where a notification and a 
movement document stating how the waste is to be treated in the country of 
destination have been drawn up for the return shipment? 
2. Under what circumstances may Article 24(2)(d) be applied by the 
authority of dispatch to recover or dispose of the waste in an illegal 
shipment of waste in the country of dispatch? How does point (d) relate to 
point (c), for example may take-back and recovery/disposal be effected 
pursuant to points (c) and (d) together or does the application of one point 
require that the procedure under the immediately preceding point has not 
been possible? 
3. If Article 24(2) of the Waste Shipment Regulation may be interpreted 
as meaning that, following take-back, the authority of dispatch has the 
ultimate power of disposal over the waste, even where the original sender 
wishes to regain the waste, is such an interpretation compatible with the 
protection of property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the 
European Convention?