Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Provincia di Cuneo and ARPA Piemonte.
Date: 2019-10-24
31


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 within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive when it has undergone a recovery, including recycling, operation (judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 19).
32


Under Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/98, the rules for the application of paragraph 1 of that article are to be made by the Commission for the purpose of the adoption of specific criteria for determining end-of-waste status (judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 20). It is common ground that such rules have not been adopted at the European Union level as regards the used vegetable oils at issue in the main proceedings.
33


In such circumstances, Member States may, as is clear from the wording of Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98, decide on a case-by-case basis whether certain waste has ceased to be waste, while being obliged, where 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 (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18), so requires, to notify the Commission of technical standards and rules adopted in that regard (judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 21).
34


It must be noted that the measures adopted on the basis of Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98 –– in the same way as the EU regulations adopted on the basis of paragraph 2 of that article –– 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 (judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 23).
37


Furthermore, it should be recalled that the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 –– which must be met by the specific criteria which make it possible to determine which waste ceases to be waste within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive when it has undergone a recovery, including recycling, operation –– cannot, in themselves, make it possible directly to establish that certain waste or certain categories of waste must no longer be regarded as such (judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
38


Consequently, it must be held that Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98 does not, in principle, allow a waste holder to demand the recognition of end-of-waste status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 30).
42


It must be ensured that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings 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 laid down in Article 4 of that directive, or, as is stated in recitals 8 and 29, 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2019, Tallinna Vesi, C‑60/18, EU:C:2019:264, paragraph 27).
45


Nevertheless, in accordance with settled case-law, the Court may provide the national court with all indications which may assist it in resolving the dispute before it (judgment of 26 October 2017, BB construct, C‑534/16, EU:C:2017:820, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).