Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl.
Date: 2016-07-28
29


It must be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision or be given priority over the other language versions. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all EU languages. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgment of 17 March 2016 in Kødbranchens Fællesråd, C‑112/15, EU:C:2016:185, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
36


Since Directive 1999/31 does not define the term ‘recovery’, reference must be made to the definition of that term as set out in Article 3(15) of Directive 2008/98. That directive, which repealed, with effect from 12 December 2010, the relevant provisions of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9), and for which the time limit for transposition expired on that same day, applies ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings, since the notice of commencement of activity that Edilizia Mastrodonato submitted to the Province of Bari under the simplified procedure applicable to waste recovery operations is dated 19 January 2012 (see, by analogy, judgment of 23 March 2006 in Commission v Austria, C‑209/04, EU:C:2006:195, paragraphs 56 and 57).
38


Thus, that definition corresponds to the definition developed in the Court’s case-law, according to which the essential characteristic of a waste recovery operation is that its principal objective is that the waste serves a useful purpose in replacing other materials which would have had to be used for that purpose, thereby enabling natural resources to be preserved (judgment of 27 February 2002 in ASA, C‑6/00, EU:C:2002:121, paragraph 69).
39


It follows that the main objective of the recovery operation must be the conservation of natural resources. Conversely, if the conservation of natural resources constitutes only a secondary effect of an operation the principal objective of which is the disposal of waste, this cannot affect the classification of that operation as a disposal operation (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 February 2003 in Commission v Luxembourg, C‑458/00, EU:C:2003:94, paragraph 43).
41


That being said, it must be possible to classify any waste treatment operation as either a ‘disposal’ or a ‘recovery’ operation, and, as is apparent from Article 3(19) of Directive 2008/98, a single operation may not be classified at the same time as both a ‘disposal’ and a ‘recovery’ operation. Consequently, as is the case in the main proceedings, in a situation where, having regard solely to the terms of the operations in question, a waste treatment operation cannot be brought within one of the operations or categories of operations referred to in Annexes I and II to the directive, such operations must be classified on a case-by-case basis in the light of the objectives and definitions set out in the directive (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 February 2002 in ASA, C‑6/00, EU:C:2002:121, paragraphs 62 to 64).
43


This may be the case if, on the one hand, it is established that the backfilling of the quarry in question would have taken place even if such waste had not been available and, accordingly, other materials would have had to be used (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 February 2002 in ASA, C‑6/00, EU:C:2002:121, paragraph 69).
44


In this context, the referring court must take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the backfilling operation in order to determine whether the operation would have gone ahead even in the absence of waste other than extractive waste. Thus, for instance, the fact that the operator of the quarry at issue in the main proceedings acquires such waste in exchange of payment to the waste producer or holder may indicate that the main objective of the operation in question is the recovery of such waste (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 February 2003 in Commission v Luxembourg, C‑458/00, EU:C:2003:94, paragraph 44).
46


Article 10(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2008/98 require Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that recovery operations are carried out without harming the environment and without endangering human health, which presupposes that the waste may be used in place of other materials in the same conditions of environmental protection (see, by analogy, judgment of 22 December 2008 in Commission v Italy, C‑283/07, not published, EU:C:2008:763, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).