Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:10
Date: 2020-01-16
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-15/19 — 1 
Case C-15/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
10 January 2019 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 December 2018 
Appellant: 
Ama — Azienda Municipale Ambiente S.p.A. 
Cross-appellant: 
Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal in cassation seeking the setting aside of a judgment upholding an 
arbitration decision ordering that an operator of a landfill site be reimbursed the 
additional costs necessarily incurred by that operator as a result of the emergence 
of a legal obligation making it responsible for the after-care of that landfill site, 
after its closure, for a period longer than that agreed contractually 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation of Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC, pursuant to 
Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred 
1. Do Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC 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 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-15/19 
 
2  
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’? 
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? 
AZIENDA MUNICIPALE AMBIENTE 
 
3 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of 
waste, which provides that: ‘Member States shall 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 ...’; Article 14, which 
provides that: ‘Member States shall take measures in order that landfills which 
have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of 
transposition of this Directive, may ... continue to operate ...’; recitals 3, 6, 10, 11 
and 25, the last of which provides that: ‘Whereas landfill sites that have been 
closed prior to the date of transposition of this Directive should not be subject to 
its provisions on closure procedure’. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 15 of Decreto Legislativo del 13 gennaio 2003, n. 36, Attuazione della 
direttiva 1999/31/CE relative alle discariche di rifuiti (Gazzetta Ufficiale della 
Repubblica Italiana n. 59 del 12 marzo 2003, Supplemento ordinario n. 40) 
(Legislative Decree No 36 of 13 January 2003, Transposition of Directive 
1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste) (Official Gazette of the Italian Republic n. 59 
of 12 March 2003, Ordinary Supplement No 40) (‘Legislative Decree 36/2003’), 
which provides that: ‘1. The amount due for landfill disposal shall cover the costs 
of the installation and operation of the site, the costs of the provision of the 
financial security and the estimated costs of the closure and after-care of the site 
for a period equivalent to that set out in Article 10(1)(i)’; Article 17, which 
provides that ‘Transitional and final measures ... 3. Within a period of six months 
from the date of entry into force of this decree, the holder of the permit referred to 
in paragraph 1 or the operator of the landfill site acting on his instruction shall 
present to the competent authority a site-conditioning plan on the basis of the 
criteria referred to in this decree, including the financial guarantees referred to in 
Article 14’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 A ‘public services contract’ dated 26 January 1996 exists between Azienda 
Municipale Ambiente S.p.A. (Ama) and Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti (Co.La.Ri.) 
(‘the Consorzio’). 
2 By an arbitration decision of 8 February 2012, Ama was ordered to reimburse to 
the Consorzio the additional costs involved, in particular, in also processing waste 
on public holidays, increasing night-time collection hours and, above all, 
extending the period of responsibility for after-care of the Malagrotta landfill site. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-15/19 
 
4  
3 More specifically, as regards that last aspect, the arbitration panel ordered that 
Ama pay to the Consorzio the sum of EUR 76 391 533.29 — which represents an 
adjustment of the original price of the service — on the ground that the legislation 
governing such matters (Directive 1999/31 and Legislative Decree 36/2003) 
extends the post-closure period of responsibility for the after-care of the 
Malagrotta landfill site to at least 30 years, instead of the 10 years agreed 
contractually. 
4 The Corte d’appello di Roma (Court of Appeal of Rome, Italy) (‘the appeal 
court’) upheld the arbitration decision by judgment of 22 April 2014. 
5 Ama has now brought an appeal against that judgment before the Corte [suprema] 
di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) based on six grounds, of which 
only the last raises a question of EU law and is declared admissible. 
Essential arguments of the appellant 
6 Ama complains that the appeal court has interpreted the legislation transposing 
Directive 1999/31 as meaning that the extension of the post-closure period of 
responsibility for after-care and associated costs also applies to landfill sites which 
are already in operation and to waste that has already been deposited. The 
application of Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 to pre-existing 
situations infringes the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, non-
retroactivity and reasonableness, given that Ama has already paid to the 
Consorzio, over the years, sums greatly exceeding the additional costs it 
complains of, and Ama’s financial stability would be jeopardised should the 
decision of the appeal court be upheld. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the reference 
7 It is necessary to establish whether the Malagrotta landfill site is subject to the 
obligation to provide after-care for a period of at least 30 years after its closure, as 
laid down in Article 10 of Directive 1999/31 and the corresponding provision of 
national legislation, that is, Article 15 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 and, if so, to 
establish how Ama should meet the new costs resulting from the extension. 
8 The appeal court, on the basis of the wording of those provisions and of Article 14 
of Directive 1999/31, read in conjunction with the corresponding provision of 
national legislation, that is, Article 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003, and recital 
25 of that directive, came to the view that that directive and Legislative Decree 
36/2003 also lay down general principles for all the landfill sites already in 
operation at the date of entry into force of at least the legislative decree 
transposing that directive, with regard to both the obligation to provide after-care 
for at least 30 years after closure of those sites and the financial burden of the 
adjustment of the costs resulting from that extension, relating to both waste yet to 
be deposited and waste already deposited. 
AZIENDA MUNICIPALE AMBIENTE 
 
5 
9 The referring court questions, nevertheless, whether the retroactive application of 
Articles 15 and 17 of Legislative Decree 36/2003 is strictly in line with Directive 
1999/31, although Article 17 limits the implementing measures to a transitional 
period and the financial impact that the extension has on the ‘permit holder’ is not 
well defined. 
10 It therefore asks the Court, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, to give a preliminary 
ruling on whether or not the provisions of Directive 1999/31 referred to above 
preclude the provisions of national legislation transposing them as interpreted and 
applied by the appeal court.