Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2021:499
Date: 2021-06-17
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-315/20 — 1 
Case C-315/20 
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:  
13 July 2020 
Referring court:  
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
10 October 2019 
Appellant:  
Regione Veneto 
Respondent:  
Plan Eco Srl 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The dispute concerns the question whether or not it is possible to ship to a 
Member State of the European Union mixed municipal waste which does not 
contain hazardous waste and which has been mechanically treated, where that 
treatment has not substantially altered the original properties of the waste.  
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Article 267 TFEU. 
Question referred 
‘In a case where mixed municipal waste which does not contain hazardous waste 
has been mechanically treated at a facility for the purpose of energy recovery 
(operation R1/R12 under Annex C to the Codice dell’Ambiente (Italian 
Environment Code)) and, following the treatment operation, it appears, in theory, 
that the treatment has not substantially altered the original properties of the mixed 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-315/20 
 
2  
municipal waste, to which is assigned the code EWC 19.12.12., which the parties 
do not contest; 
for the purpose of the judgment as to the legitimacy of the objections to the 
request for prior consent for shipment of the treated waste to a production facility 
in a Member State of the European Union for use in co-combustion or other 
means of generating energy, raised by the competent authority in the country of 
origin on the basis of the principles of Directive 2008/98/EC, and specifically 
objections such as those, in this case, based: 
- on the principle of protection of human health and the environment 
(Article 13); — on the principle of self-sufficiency and proximity laid down in 
Article 16(1), according to which “Member States shall take appropriate 
measures, in cooperation with other Member States where this is necessary or 
advisable, to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal 
installations and of installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste 
collected from private households, including where such collection also covers 
such waste from other producers, taking into account best available 
techniques”; — on the principle, also laid down in the final sentence of the second 
subparagraph of Article 16(1), according to which “Member States may also limit 
outgoing shipments of waste on environmental grounds as set out in Regulation 
(EC) No 1013/2006”; — on recital 33 of Directive 2008/98/EC, according to 
which, “for the purposes of applying Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 … on 
shipments of waste, mixed municipal waste as referred to in Article 3(5) of that 
regulation remains mixed municipal waste even when it has been subject to a 
waste treatment operation that has not substantially altered its properties”: 
does the European Waste Catalogue and its classifications (in the present case, 
EWC 19.12.12., designating waste produced by mechanical treatment facilities for 
recovery operations R1/R12), interfere — and, if so, in what terms and to what 
extent — with the rules [of EU law] on the shipment of waste which, prior to 
mechanical treatment, was mixed municipal waste; 
and, in particular, with regard to shipments of waste resulting from the treatment 
of mixed municipal waste, do the provisions of Article 16 of Directive 
2008/98/EC and recital 33 thereof, specifically concerning the shipment of waste, 
take precedence over the classification based on the European Waste Catalogue; 
specifying, if the Court of Justice deems it appropriate and useful, whether that 
catalogue is regulatory in nature or whether it is simply a technical certification 
intended for the uniform traceability of all waste?’ 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, in particular 
recital 33 and Articles 13 and 16 thereof. 
REGIONE VENETO  
 
3 
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, in particular recital 21 and Articles 2, 3, 4 
and 12 thereof. 
Provisions of national law cited 
Decreto legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 (Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 
2006) (Codice italiano dell’ambiente (Italian Environment Code)), and in 
particular Article 182a thereof, which, in accordance with Directive 2008/98 and 
the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity laid down therein, provides for the 
recovery of mixed municipal waste at the nearest suitable facility to the place of 
production or collection; and Article 184, which highlights the fact that, following 
its amendment, it no longer classifies as ‘special’ the ‘waste derived from the 
mechanical selection of municipal solid waste’; Annex D, which contains the 
European Waste Catalogue (EWC). 
Outline of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The dispute concerns the prior consent requested under Article 4 of Regulation 
No 1013/2006 by the transport company Plan-eco Srl (‘Plan-eco’) from the 
Veneto Region to export waste treated at a facility owned by the company Futura 
Srl (‘Futura’) and to be sent to a cement factory in Slovenia for use in co-
combustion. The waste was classified by the company that treated it (the waste 
producer) under EWC code 19.12.12, on the basis of the European Waste 
Catalogue contained in Annex D to the Italian Environment Code, since it is waste 
produced by a mechanical treatment facility and composed of mixed materials, but 
not containing hazardous substances. The parties agree on this classification. The 
dispute arose because the Veneto Region refused to grant export authorisation. In 
response to that refusal, Plan-eco brought an action before the Tribunale 
Amministrativo Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) for the Veneto 
Region, which granted its application. The Veneto Region subsequently appealed 
against that decision to the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), the 
referring court. 
Principal arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
2 According to Plan-eco, the waste to be shipped is special waste since it is 
produced from the mechanical treatment of other waste. The waste is identified by 
the EWC code 19.12.12., which designates waste produced by treatment facilities 
through the recovery of the original waste, derived from a business activity aimed 
at converting waste into fuel. This argument was accepted by the Regional 
Administrative Court, which contrasts EWC 19, which identifies special waste 
produced from industrial and service activities, with EWC 20, which identifies 
municipal waste, including waste from mixed collection. According to the 
Regional Administrative Court, the EWC code 19.12.12. classifies as special 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-315/20 
 
4  
waste any municipal waste that has undergone a special process in order to be 
transformed into a different product. 
3 According to the Veneto Region, the European Waste Catalogue — in this case 
Annex D to the Italian Environment Code — corresponds to technical 
certification, but does not constitute a regulatory proposal and contains cross-
cutting chapters, given that there is no unambiguous correlation between the EWC 
and the classification of waste as municipal or special. Therefore, not all waste 
classified under EWC code 20 is municipal waste, and code 19 does not 
exclusively cover special waste. In the case at issue, the Veneto Region claims 
that the same EWC code 19.12.12. can be assigned to waste produced by 
mechanical treatment facilities, irrespective of whether it was originally municipal 
or special waste, because the classification of the waste, following treatment, 
depends on whether the original properties of the waste have been altered. It 
submits that this argument is supported by recital 33 of Directive 2008/98, which, 
specifically with regard to the shipment of waste, provides that mixed municipal 
waste remains mixed if the treatment has not substantially altered its properties. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
4 The referring court notes that there is no doubt as to the veracity of the facts. It is 
common ground that the waste, which Futura subjected to mechanical treatment 
for recovery purposes, was originally — that is to say, before such treatment — 
mixed municipal waste. Following treatment, this waste was correctly classified 
under EWC code 19.12.12, a fact which the parties do not contest. The Veneto 
Region has based its refusal to authorise cross-border shipment to another EU 
Member State on the argument that the classification of the waste as mixed 
municipal waste should be considered material for the movement of the waste, 
regardless of the EWC code assigned, when the mechanical treatment of the 
original waste has not substantially altered its original properties. That appears to 
be the case here. 
5 In the light of the facts as established, the referring court is unsure whether the 
classification EWC 19.12.12., correctly assigned to the waste to be shipped 
(according to Annex D to the Italian Environment Code), since it was produced by 
means of mechanical treatment in a facility, should be considered decisive, 
irrespective of whether that mechanical treatment substantially altered the 
properties of the waste, which was originally mixed municipal waste (with 
consequent recognition of the right to export that waste as special waste); or 
whether the original nature of the treated waste, where the mechanical treatment 
has not substantially altered its original properties, is decisive, with the result that 
the EWC classification of the waste resulting from the treatment would be 
material only in the event of the waste losing its original properties (with the 
consequent validity, in the present case, of the export ban imposed by the Veneto 
Region). 
REGIONE VENETO  
 
5 
6 The solution to the dilemma involves the interpretation of provisions of EU law, 
which are duly referred to by the national court in the text of the question referred, 
and thus requires the intervention of the Court of Justice.