KVZ retec GmbH v Republik Österreich.
Date: 2007-03-01
46. A strict interpretation of the concept of animal carcases is, in addition, consistent with the case-law of the Court according to which the concept of waste cannot be interpreted restrictively (see Joined Cases C‑418/97 and C-419/97 ARCO Chemie Nederland and Others  [2000] ECR I-4475, paragraphs 37 to 40, and Case C-9/00 Palin Granit and Vehmassalon kansanterveystyön kuntayhtymän hallitus  [2002] ECR I‑3533, ‘ Palin Granit ’, paragraph 23), which implies a strict interpretation of the exceptions to the concept of waste.
47. It is however necessary to point out that an important legislative amendment occurred in this field with the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1). The 11th recital in the preamble to that regulation states that it is necessary to avoid duplication with Regulation No 1774/2002, which already contains provisions covering the overall consignment, channelling and movement (collection, transport, handling, processing, use, recovery or disposal, record keeping, accompanying documents and traceability) of animal by-products within, into and out of the Community.
51. The scope of the term ‘waste’, within the meaning of Directive 75/442, turns on the meaning of the term ‘discard’ in the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of that directive (see Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie  [1997] ECR I-7411, paragraph 26).
52. The method of treatment or use of a substance does not determine conclusively whether or not it is to be classified as waste. What subsequently happens to an object or a substance does not affect its nature as waste, which, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, is defined in terms of the holder discarding it or intending or being required to discard it ( ARCO Chemie Nederland and Others , paragraph 64).
59. Under Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1774/2002, that category of by-products must be disposed of as waste by incineration in an approved incineration plant. However, unlike Category 1 material, Category 3 material is not intended exclusively for disposal. In particular, Article 6(2)(c) to (f) provides that that material may be either processed into products of economic value or used as raw material in a petfood plant. Since disposal of such by-products as waste is thus optional, an absolute requirement to discard substances such as meat-and-bone meal in so far as they do not contain specified risk material cannot be inferred from Regulation No 1774/2002.
61. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the concept of ‘waste’ within the meaning of Directive 75/442 cannot be interpreted restrictively (see ARCO Chemie Nederland and Others , paragraphs 37 to 40, and Palin Granit , paragraph 23). It should also not be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reuse. The system of supervision and management established by Directive 75/442 is intended to cover all objects and substances discarded by their holders, even if they have a commercial value and are collected on a commercial basis for recycling, reclamation or reuse (see Palin Granit , paragraph 29).
63. However, whether it is in fact ‘waste’ within the meaning of Directive 75/442 must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of that directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined (see, to that effect, ARCO Chemie Nederland and Others , paragraph 88).