Case C‑335/16

VG Čistoća d.o.o.

v

Đuro Vladika

and

Ljubica Vladika

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 2008/98/EC — Recovery of waste management costs — Polluter-pays principle — Concept of ‘waste holders’ — Price charged for waste management — Special levy intended to finance capital investments)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 30 March 2017

Environment — Waste — Directive 2008/98 — Costs of disposing of waste borne by the holders — Application of the polluter-pays principle — National legislation providing for a tax calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by the users and not on the basis of the quantities actually produced — Lawfulness — Condition — Proportionate nature of costs — Assessment by the national court

(Art. 192 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/98, Arts 14 and 15(1))

Article 14 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a price calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection, as well as for the payment by users, in their capacity as waste holders, of an additional levy intended to finance capital investments necessary for the processing of waste, including the recycling thereof. It is, however, incumbent on the referring court to verify, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether this results in the imposition on certain ‘holders’ of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce. Accordingly, the national court may take into account, inter alia, criteria relating to the type of property that the users occupy, its surface area and use, the productive capacity of the ‘holders’, the volume of the containers provided to the users, and the frequency of collection, in so far as those parameters are liable to have a direct impact on the amount of the costs of waste management.

As EU law currently stands, there is no legislation adopted on the basis of Article 192 TFEU imposing a specific method upon the Member States for financing the cost of the disposal of urban waste, with the result that the cost may, in accordance with the choice of the Member State concerned, equally well be financed by means of a tax or of a fee or in any other manner. Accordingly, recourse to criteria of invoicing based on the volume of the container provided for users, calculated on the basis of, inter alia, the surface area of the property which they occupy and of its use, may provide a means of calculating the costs of disposing of that waste and allocating those costs among the various holders, in so far as this parameter is such as to have a direct impact on the amount of those costs (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2009, Futura Immobiliare and Others, C‑254/08, EU:C:2009:479, paragraphs 48 and 50).

(see paras 26, 32, operative part)