AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet.
Date: 2019-03-28
19


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.
20


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. It is common ground that no such rules have been adopted in relation to sewage sludge, such as that in the main proceedings, which has undergone a recovery operation.
21


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, as amended by Directive 98/48, so requires, to notify the Commission of technical standards and rules adopted in that regard.
23


In that regard, 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.
27


However, as the Advocate General has observed in point 44 of her Opinion, 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 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. In that context, it is for the Commission and, failing that, for the Member States, to take into account all relevant elements and the most recent scientific and technical knowledge in order to adopt specific criteria which allow the national authorities and courts to recognise end-of-waste status for waste which has undergone a recovery operation, which enables it to be used without endangering human health and without harming the environment.
29


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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 March 2013, Lapin ELY-keskus, liikenne ja infrastruktuuri, C‑358/11, EU:C:2013:142, paragraph 55).
30


Consequently, it must be held that Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98 does not allow a waste holder, such as Tallinna Vesi, to demand, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the recognition of end-of-waste status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State.