Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:824
Date: 2020-10-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Waste;Pollution
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Translation  C-629/19 — 1 
Case C-629/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
23 August 2019 
Referring court: 
Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 August 2019 
Appellant: 
Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG 
Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’ 
Defendant authority: 
Landeshauptmann der Steiermark 
 
[…] 
Landesverwaltungsgericht    
Steiermark       
(Regional Administrative Court of Styria) […]  
Graz, 14 August 2019    
To the  
Court of Justice of the European Union  
[…] 
Request 
for a 
Preliminary Ruling 
under Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
2  
Parties in the main proceedings […]: 
a) Appellants: 1) Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG 
[…] 
2) Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’ 
(water association for the Gratkorn-Gratwein 
region, 
‘the Gratkorn-Gratwein Wasserverband’) […] 
b) Defendant authority: Landeshauptmann von Steiermark  
(Governor of Styria) 
[…] [Or. 2] 
In the proceedings concerning the appeal brought by Sappi Austria Produktions-
GmbH & Co KG and the Gratkorn-Gratwein Wasserverband against the decision 
of the Governor of Styria of 2 November 2015 […], the Regional Administrative 
Court of Styria […] made the following 
ORDER: 
  
I. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: 
1. Is sewage sludge to be regarded as waste in light of the exclusion under 
Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain 
Directives in conjunction with Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 
1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment and/or the Sewage 
Sludge Directive, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008? 
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: 
Does Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain 
Directives permit a substance to be classified as a by-product within the 
meaning of the concept of waste under EU law if, for process-related 
reasons, other substances which would otherwise have to be regarded as 
waste are added to that substance in a small proportion, if this has no 
effect on the composition of the substance as a whole and provides a 
significant benefit to the environment? 
II. The appeal proceedings shall […] be continued once the Court of Justice of the 
European Union has given a ruling. [Or. 3] 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
3 
Grounds 
I. 
Facts and procedure: 
By the contested decision, the Governor of Styria determined, after an extensive 
preliminary investigation pursuant to Paragraph 6(6) Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 
(Law on waste management 2002, ‘the AWG 2002’), that modifications to boiler 
11 of Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG, located on the site in […] 
Gratkorn, […] and the waste incineration plant owned by the Gratkorn-Gratwein 
Wasserverband, located on the same site, are subject to authorisation pursuant to 
Paragraph 37(1), (3) and (4) AWG 2002. This decision was based on the ground 
that, in the two plants, sewage sludge from the jointly operated waste water 
treatment plant of Sappi Austria Produktion GmbH & Co KG and the Gratkorn-
Gratwein Wasserverband was co-incinerated in order to obtain steam for 
supplying energy to the paper and cellulose plant of Sappi on the same site. 
In the decision, the defendant authority stated that although the majority of the 
sewage sludge used for incineration originated from a paper production process 
and that this proportion (approximately 97%) could be regarded as having by-
product status within the meaning of Paragraph 2(3a) AWG 2002, this did not 
apply to the proportion of sewage sludge arising from municipal waste water 
treatment. Objectively speaking, this sewage sludge remained waste, especially 
given that it did not arise from a paper production process. Since, according to the 
case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, there is no de minimis limit for the 
classification of a substance as waste, however, it was to be assumed that all the 
sewage sludge co-incinerated in the two plants described above was waste within 
the meaning of Paragraph 2(1) AWG 2002, and modifications to those plants were 
therefore subject to authorisation within the meaning of Paragraph 37(1), (3) and 
(4) AWG 2002. 
The two parties […] concerned brought an appeal against that decision before the 
Regional Administrative Court, in which they essentially argue that the sewage 
sludge referred to in the operative part of the decision was not waste pursuant to 
Paragraph 2(1) AWG 2002, as it arose in the context of an integrated paper and 
cellulose production process, which was planned as such from the beginning of 
the plant’s design phase, and the sewage sludge was used to recover energy for the 
paper production, whereby all the installations were operated by Sappi at the [Or. 
4] production site and it was only for organisational and legal reasons that they 
were owned by two different legal entities, which were also holders of the water 
permit for the waste water treatment plant and the industrial authorisation for 
boiler 11 and the waste incineration plant. 
Referring to the case-law of the Court (Case C-114/01, Avesta Polarit Chrome 
OY, ECLI:EU:C:2003:448 and Case C-113/12, Brady, ECLI:EU:C:2013:627), it 
is stated that production residue and other substances fell outside the definition of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
4  
waste if they could either (in the case of internal waste) be used as part of the 
continuing process of production or could be used on the premises of any other 
economic operator, if that further use was ensured and such further use of the 
substance provided an economic benefit. In its decision of 23 January 2014 […], 
the Supreme Administrative Court followed this case-law and stated that the use 
of production residue from a plant’s own operations for energy production 
constituted ‘certain further use’, meaning that such production residue did not fall 
within the definition of waste. The municipal proportion of the sewage sludge, 
which amounted to 2% in purely arithmetical terms, did not in any way alter the 
properties of the substance and was also incapable of harming public interests in 
waste management within the meaning of Paragraph 1(3) AWG 2002, since a 
permissible further use of all the residuals that arose was ensured. 
After conducting a preliminary investigation and public hearing, the adjudicating 
Regional Administrative Court initially allowed the appeal and, in a judgment of 
19 December 2016 […], found that modifications to boiler 11 of Sappi Austria 
Produktions-GmbH & Co KG[…] and the waste incineration plant owned by the 
Gratkorn-Gratwein Wasserverband, […] are not subject to authorisation pursuant 
to Paragraph 37(1), (3) and (4) AWG 2002, BGBl (Federal Law Gazette) I 
102/2002, as amended. 
In a judgment of 27 February 2019 […], the Supreme Administrative Court 
allowed the appeal on a point of law brought, ex officio, by the Federal Minister 
of Agriculture and Forestry, the Environment and Water Management […] against 
the contested judgment of the Regional Administrative Court and annulled it on 
the ground of illegality. [Or. 5] 
In the grounds, the Supreme Administrative Court states that: 
In accordance with Article 5 of the Waste Framework Directive, paragraph 2(3a) 
AWG 2002 lays down the conditions under which a substance or object — which 
while resulting from a production process, is not the primary aim of that 
process — may be regarded as not being waste but as being a by-product. It is 
clear from the introductory wording of that provision that the substance or object 
must arise from a production process. The appellant on a point of law correctly 
states that the sewage sludge in question arises during the joint treatment of 
industrial and domestic/municipal waste water in the waste water treatment plant 
operated by the second respondent. 
Waste water, and therefore also the industrial waste water of the first respondent, 
is not waste pursuant to point 1 of Paragraph 3(1) AWG 2002. In general, waste 
water is understood to refer to water, the properties of which have been altered by 
domestic, industrial or other uses. Within the meaning of the legislation pertaining 
to water, waste water is water that has been discarded by someone. It may be 
contaminated water (for instance kitchen waste water, domestic waste water, 
industrial waste water), but also slightly contaminated water or even 
uncontaminated water (e.g. rainwater). The Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959 (Act 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
5 
regulating the law on water 1959, the ‘WRG 1959’) (in particular Paragraph 30 et 
seq.) lays down more detailed rules for the preservation and protection of waters 
(including groundwater). From the point at which the constituents have been 
filtered out of the waste water and are no longer present in it, it is no longer 
possible to refer to waste water constituents within the meaning of point 1 of 
Paragraph 3(1) AWG 2002. The exclusion pursuant to point 1 of Paragraph 3(1) 
AWG 2002 is no longer applicable to such substances […]. Therefore, if sewage 
sludge arises as a waste water constituent from the treatment of waste water 
required pursuant to the WRG 1959, there is therefore no production residue from 
a production process, because that waste water treatment, whether it be in a 
sewage treatment plant on the premises of a company or in a municipal sewage 
treatment plant, cannot be regarded as being part of a production process. Rather, 
the waste water treatment is a treatment method used to ensure that wastewater is 
discharged into water bodies in accordance with the protection objectives of the 
WRG 1959. The fact that the sewage sludge arising from the waste water 
treatment is used for the production operations of the first respondent (and is 
therefore recovered and not disposed of) after mechanical dewatering by means of 
incineration in the aforementioned incineration plants does not provide any 
indication of whether the sewage sludge used in that way had previously arisen as 
a by-product in the context of a production process. A [Or. 6] fundamental 
condition for the existence of a by-product within the meaning of Paragraph 2(3a) 
AWG 2002 has therefore not been satisfied. 
In the case of the sewage sludge that is the subject of these proceedings, the 
Administrative Court incorrectly assumed the existence of a by-product pursuant 
to the aforementioned provision and, on that basis, incorrectly found that 
Paragraph 37 AWG 2002 was not applicable to the incineration plants that are the 
subject of these proceedings. 
The Regional Administrative Court of Styria, which is now once again competent 
in the second stage of the proceedings, now expresses doubts as to the 
interpretation of the concept of waste for the sewage sludge in question and as to 
whether its status as a by-product is lost because, for reasons of procedural 
efficiency, a small percentage of it consists of other substances from municipal 
waste water disposal that are added to it, substances for which a substitute would 
otherwise have to be found from elsewhere for process-related reasons — as a 
result of which the composition of the by-product is not altered — which is why 
this question of interpretation is referred, for the purpose of clarification, to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union, which has competence in such matters. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
6  
 
II. 
The relevant legal position is as follows: 
3. Provisions of EU law: 
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (‘Waste Directive’) 
Recital 1 
Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 
2006 on waste establishes the legislative framework for the handling of waste in 
the Community. It defines key concepts such as waste, recovery and disposal and 
puts in place the essential requirements for the management of waste, notably an 
obligation for an establishment or undertaking carrying out waste management 
operations to have a permit or to be registered and an obligation for the Member 
States to draw up waste management plans. It also establishes major principles 
such as an obligation to handle waste in a way that does not have a negative 
impact on the environment or human health, [Or.7] an encouragement to apply 
the waste hierarchy and, in accordance with the polluter-pays principle, a 
requirement that the costs of disposing of waste must be borne by the holder of 
waste, by previous holders or by the producers of the product from which the 
waste came. 
[…] 
Recital 26 
The polluter-pays principle is a guiding principle at European and international 
levels. The waste producer and the waste holder should manage the waste in a 
way that guarantees a high level of protection of the environment and human 
health. 
Recital 27 
The introduction of extended producer responsibility in this Directive is one of the 
means to support the design and production of goods which take into full account 
and facilitate the efficient use of resources during their whole life-cycle including 
their repair, re-use, disassembly and recycling without compromising the free 
circulation of goods on the internal market. 
Recital 28 
This Directive should help move the EU closer to a ‘recycling society’, seeking to 
avoid waste generation and to use waste as a resource. […] 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
7 
Recital 29 
Member States should support the use of recyclates, such as recovered paper, in 
line with the waste hierarchy and with the aim of a recycling society, and should 
not support the landfilling or incineration of such recyclates whenever possible. 
Recital 30 
In order to implement the precautionary principle and the principle of preventive 
action enshrined in Article 174(2) of the Treaty, it is necessary to set general 
environmental objectives for the management of waste within the Community. By 
virtue of those principles, it is for the Community and the Member States to 
establish a framework to prevent, reduce and, in so far as is possible, eliminate 
from the outset the sources of pollution or nuisance by adopting measures 
whereby recognised risks are eliminated. [Or. 8] 
Article 3 
Definitions 
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: 
1. ‘waste’ means any substance or object which the holder discards or 
intends or is required to discard; 
[…] 
Article 4 
Waste hierarchy 
1. The following waste hierarchy shall apply as a priority order in waste 
prevention and management legislation and policy: 
(a) prevention; 
(b) preparing for re-use; 
(c) recycling; 
(d) other recovery, e.g. energy recovery; and 
(e) disposal. 
[…] 
Article 5 
By-products 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
8  
1. A substance or object, resulting from a production process, the 
primary aim of which is not the production of that item, may be 
regarded as not being waste referred to in point (1) of Article 3 but as 
being a by-product only if the following conditions are met: 
(a) further use of the substance or object is certain; 
(b) the substance or object can be used directly without any further 
processing other than normal industrial practice; 
(c)  the substance or object is produced as an integral part of a 
production process; and [Or. 9] 
(d) further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all 
relevant product, environmental and health protection 
requirements for the specific use and will not lead to overall 
adverse environmental or human health impacts. 
2. On the basis of the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, measures 
may be adopted to determine the criteria to be met for specific 
substances or objects to be regarded as a by-product and not as waste 
referred to in point (1) of Article 3. Those measures, designed to 
amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, 
shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 39(2). 
Article 6 
End-of-waste status 
1. Certain specified waste shall cease to be waste within the meaning of 
point (1) of Article 3 when it has undergone a recovery, including 
recycling, operation and complies with specific criteria to be 
developed in accordance with the following conditions: 
(a) the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes; 
(b) a market or demand exists for such a substance or object; 
(c) the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the 
specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and 
standards applicable to products; and 
(d) the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse 
environmental or human health impacts. 
The criteria shall include limit values for pollutants where necessary and shall 
take into account any possible adverse environmental effects of the substance or 
object. [Or. 10] 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
9 
2. […] 
3. […] 
4. Where criteria have not been set at Community level under the 
procedure set out in paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may decide 
case by case whether certain waste has ceased to be waste taking into 
account the applicable case-law. They shall notify the Commission of 
such decisions in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a 
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical 
standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services 
where so required by that Directive. 
Article 13 
Protection of human health and the environment 
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste 
management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming 
the environment and, in particular: 
(a) without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals; 
(b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; and 
(c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special 
interest. 
4. Provisions of national law: 
Law on waste management 2002 
Paragraph 1(1): 
In accordance with the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainability, 
waste management shall be oriented in such a way that 
1. harmful or detrimental effects on humans, animals and plants, their 
livelihoods and their natural environment are avoided, or, otherwise, [Or. 
11] effects detrimental to general human well-being are kept to a minimum; 
2. emissions of atmospheric pollutants and climate-relevant gases are kept to a 
minimum; 
3. resources (raw materials, water, energy, landscape, areas of land, landfill 
capacity) are preserved; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
10  
4. in the context of material recovery, the waste or the substances obtained 
from that waste do not pose a risk greater than that posed by comparable 
primary raw materials or products made from primary raw materials; and 
5. only waste the deposit of which does not pose a threat to future generations 
is retained. 
Paragraph 1(3): 
The collection, storage, transport and treatment as waste is in the public interest 
if, otherwise, 
[…] [certain exhaustively listed protected interests (such as, for example, health, 
environment, public safety, landscape, etc.) would be endangered]. 
Paragraph 2(1): 
(1) For the purposes of this Federal Law, waste means any movable property 
1. which the holder intends to discard or has discarded, or 
2. whose collection, storage, transport and treatment as waste is necessary in 
order not to harm public interests (Paragraph 1(3)). 
Paragraph 2(3): 
In any case, regulated collection, storage, transport and treatment within the 
meaning of this Federal Law is not necessary for reasons relating to the public 
interest (Paragraph 1(3)) if [Or. 11] 
1. according to prevailing opinion, an object is new, or 
2. according to prevailing opinion, it is being used in the manner intended for 
it. 
[…] [special provision for agriculture] 
Paragraph 2(3a): 
A substance or object, resulting from a production process, the primary aim of 
which is not the production of that item, may be regarded as not being waste but 
as being a by-product only if the following conditions are met: 
1. further use of the substance or object is certain; 
2. the substance or object can be used directly without any further processing 
other than normal industrial practice; 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
11 
3. the substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production 
process; and 
4. further use is permitted, in particular, the substance or object can be used 
safely for its intended useful purpose, no protected interests (cf. 
Paragraph 1(3)) are harmed by the use and all relevant legal provisions are 
complied with. 
Paragraph 6(6): 
[…] [responsibility of the Governor to determine, inter alia, whether a plant or 
modification to that plant is subject to authorisation pursuant to Paragraph 37 
AWG] 
Abfallverbrennungsverordnung (Ordinance on waste incineration — AVV) 
Paragraph 2(1):[Or. 13] 
This Ordinance shall apply […] to […] [certain industrial plants] 
[…], 
in which solid or liquid waste is incinerated or co-incinerated. 
Paragraph 2(1a): 
[…] [exclusion of certain incineration plants that use special purification 
techniques] 
Paragraph 2(1b): 
[…] 
Paragraph 2(2): 
This Ordinance shall not apply to: 
1. plants treating only the following wastes: 
[…] 
c) fibrous vegetable waste from virgin pulp production and from production 
of paper from pulp, if it is incinerated at the place of production and the 
heat generated is recovered; 
[…] [Or. 14] 
III. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
12  
1. The Regional Administrative Court of Styria is prompted by doubts with 
respect to the compatibility with EU law of Paragraph 2 AWG 2002 to 
submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. 
2. […] [general statements regarding the admissibility of the request for a 
preliminary ruling] 
The interpretation of Paragraph 2 AWG 2002 is material to the decision to be 
given, for the following reasons: 
3. According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the concept of waste 
under EU law is a Community concept. The Member States do not have the 
possibility of creating, in addition to the concept of waste under EU law, a 
different, narrower national concept of waste. The Austrian concept of 
waste, provided for in Paragraph 2(3a) AWG 2002, must [Or. 15] be 
interpreted in conformity with the Directive. In cases where the national 
concept of waste differs from the concept of waste under EU law, the 
national concept of waste is superseded by that in Directive 2008/98/EC 
(‘Waste Directive’) (cf. CJEU, Case C-304/97, Tombesi, 
ECLI:EU:C:1999:152). 
4. Pursuant to point (1) of Article 3 of the Waste Directive, ‘waste’ means any 
substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to 
discard. In this regard, the Court of Justice has always stated that the 
definition of waste must be interpreted widely in order to ensure a high level 
of protection with regard to the Union’s objectives in the area of 
environmental policy (cf. CJEU, Case C-418/97, ARCO Chemie, 
ECLI:EU:C:2000:318; CJEU, Case C-9/00, Palin Granit Oy, 
ECLI:EU:C:2002:232; CJEU, Case C-235/02, Saetti, ECLI:EU:C:2004:26; 
CJEU, Case C-457/03, Niselli, ECLI:EU:C:2004:707; CJEU, Case 
C-252/05, Thames Water Utilities, ECLI:EU:C:2007). 
5. The Court of Justice has emphasised on several occasions that the question 
of whether or not a material is waste must be assessed in the light of the 
individual circumstances, and that decision must be taken by the competent 
authority on a case-by-case basis (cf. CJEU, Case C-418/97, ARCO Chemie, 
ECLI:EU:C:2000:318; CJEU, Case C-9/00, Palin Granit Oy, 
ECLI:EU:C:2002:232; CJEU, Case C-235/02, Saetti, ECLI:EU:C:2004:26; 
CJEU, Case C-457/03, Niselli, ECLI:EU:C:2004:707; CJEU, Case 
C-252/05, Thames Water Utilities, ECLI:EU:C:2007). The sewage sludge 
created in the present case is obtained from the production of pulp as an 
integral part of the continuing process of production. As a result, the fibrous 
sewage sludge originates entirely from paper and pulp production and would 
not exist without it. 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
13 
6. In accordance with Article 5 of the Waste Framework Directive, 
paragraph 2(3a) AWG 2002 lays down the conditions under which a 
substance or object — which while resulting from a production process, is 
not the primary aim of that process — may be regarded as not being waste 
but as being a by-product. The Administrative Court takes the view that the 
sewage sludge that is the subject matter of these proceedings meets the 
cumulative conditions laid down in that provision, at least in so far as it 
originates from the production process. In addition, the Regional 
Administrative Court takes the view that the addition of municipal waste 
water is not detrimental either, since, on the one hand, it does not alter the 
composition of the substance arising during production and, on the other 
hand, it would have to be replaced by something else. 
7. The referring court also has doubts as to whether, even if sewage sludge 
were not to have the status of a by-product, sewage sludge itself constitutes 
‘waste’ within the meaning of the definition of waste under EU law. [Or. 
16] 
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, even if a material is to be 
regarded as production residue, it does not necessarily constitute waste. If 
such a material has characteristics that make it capable of economic 
reutilisation, this indicates that it should not be considered as waste. The 
Court of Justice has established three cumulative criteria for the 
classification of production residue as a by-product. If the further use of a 
material is a certainty and not a mere possibility, and if it can be used again 
without any further processing and as part of the continuing process of 
production, that material does not constitute waste (CJEU, Case C-9/00, 
Palin Granit Oy, ECLI:EU:C:2002:232). 
8. Even on the basis of the narrow interpretation of the term ‘production 
process’ adopted by the Court of Justice (cf. CJEU, Case C-9/00, Palin 
Granit Oy, ECLI:EU:C:2002:232; CJEU, Case C-457/03, Niselli, 
ECLI:EU:C:2004:707; CJEU, Case C-121/03, Commission v Spain, 
ECLI:EU:C:2005:512), the referring court takes the view that these criteria 
have been met. Due to the fact that the sewage sludge is an integral part of 
the emission-neutral, seamlessly continuous incineration carried out to 
generate steam in the paper production process, the sewage sludge is 
permanently and immediately reused. In fact, the plant in the main 
proceedings is designed in such a way that the sewage sludge is fed from the 
sewage treatment plant into the steam generation system on conveyor belts, 
24 hours a day, in a closed system. 
9. In the event that the Court of Justice takes the view that sewage sludge is to 
be regarded as waste within the meaning of point (1) of Article 3 of 
Directive 2008/98/EC, the national court raises further doubts surrounding 
the request for a preliminary ruling. Even if sewage sludge were to be 
regarded as waste based on the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 8. 2019 — CASE C-629/19 
 
14  
it would have reached end-of-waste status before the internal incineration of 
the sewage sludge to generate steam. 
10. Accordingly, the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 sets 
out the conditions to be met by the specific criteria which make it possible to 
determine which waste ceases to be waste when it has undergone a recovery, 
including recycling, operation. In this regard, the Court of Justice stated that 
the EU legislature specifically provided that Member States are entitled to 
adopt measures relating to end-of-waste status of a substance or object, 
without, however, specifying the nature of those measures (CJEU, Case 
C-60/18, Tallinna Vesi AS, ECLI:EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 23). In that 
regard, it must be noted [Or. 17] that these measures result in the end-of-
waste status of waste and, therefore, in the end of the protection that the law 
governing waste guarantees as regards the environment and human health. 
Those measures must therefore comply with the requirements laid down in 
paragraph 1(a) to (d) of Article 6 and, in particular, take account of any 
possible adverse impact that the substance or object concerned may have on 
the environment and on human health. 
The referring court does not fail to recognise that, in its case-law, the Court 
of Justice has stated that the Member State is also entitled to take the view 
that some waste cannot cease to be waste and to refrain from adopting 
legislation concerning waste status (CJEU, Case C-60/18, Tallinna Vesi AS, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 26). However, the Court of Justice takes 
the view that the Member State must ensure that such abstention does not 
amount to an obstacle to the attainment of the objectives set by Directive 
2008/98, such as encouraging the application of the waste hierarchy, or 
encouraging the recovery of waste and the use of recovered material in order 
to preserve natural resources and to enable the development of a circular 
economy (CJEU, Case C-60/18, Tallinna Vesi AS, ECLI:EU:C:2019:264, 
paragraph 27). This does not appear to be the case for the referring court 
based on the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, since the sewage 
sludge is conveyed by means of a closed, automated system within the plant, 
the sewage sludge is also used without interruption and this process does not 
present a risk to the environment or human health. In addition, this approach 
also pursues the objective of waste prevention and the substitution of fossil 
raw materials. This production process has given the referring court serious 
doubts as to the compatibility with EU law of the national authority’s 
negative finding. [Or. 18] 
IV. 
1. There is an obligation incumbent on all authorities and courts in the Member 
States to interpret all law in conformity with the relevant directive in such a way 
as to ensure that the objective pursued by that directive is not undermined by the 
interpretation of national law (cf. CJEU, Case 14/83, Von Colson and Kamann, 
ECLI:EU:C:1984:153). However, since the correct application of EU law is not so 
SAPPI AUSTRIA PRODUKTION AND WASSERVERBAND ‘REGION GRATKORN-GRATWEIN’ 
 
15 
obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt and it is therefore not 
possible to interpret the national law in conformity with the directive at issue, the 
aforementioned questions are referred for the request for a preliminary ruling 
under Article 267 TFEU. 
Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark 
[…]