ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (C-418/97) and Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt+ and Vereniging Stedelijk Leefmilieu Nijmegen v Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelderland (C-419/97).
Date: 2000-06-15
36 It follows that the scope of the term waste turns on the meaning of the term discard (Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Région Wallonne [1997] ECR I-7411, paragraph 26).
37 The Court has held that that term must be interpreted in light of the aim of the directive (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-206/88 and C-207/88 Vessoso and Zanetti [1990] ECR I-1461, paragraph 12).
38 In that regard, the third recital in the preamble to Directive 75/442 states that the essential objective of all provisions relating to waste disposal must be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste.
39 It should further be pointed out that, pursuant to Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 174(2) EC), Community policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection and is to be based, in particular, on the precautionary principle and the principle that preventive action should be taken.
40 It follows that the concept of waste cannot be interpreted restrictively.
41 Finally, it should be noted that in the absence of Community provisions, Member States are free to chose the modes of proof of the various matters defined in the directives which they transpose, provided that the effectiveness of Community law is not thereby undermined (see in particular, in that regard, Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor and Others v Germany [1983] ECR 2633, paragraphs 17 to 25 and 35 to 39; Case 222/82 Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, paragraphs 17 to 21; and Case C-212/94 FMC and Others v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1996] ECR I-389, paragraphs 49 to 51).
42 The effectiveness of Article 130r of the Treaty and the directive would be undermined if the national legislature were to use modes of proof, such as statutory presumptions, which had the effect of restricting the scope of the directive and not covering materials, substances or products which correspond to the definition of waste within the meaning of the directive.
57 On the other hand, there is no need to have recourse to the criterion of whether the use of the substance is similar to a common method of waste recovery.
64 As the Court has already pointed out, 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 Article 1(a) of the directive, is defined in terms of the holder discarding it or intending or being required to discard it.
65 Just as the concept of waste is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilisation (see Vessoso and Zanetti, cited above, paragraph 9), it is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of being recovered as fuel in an environmentally responsible manner and without substantial treatment.
66 The environmental impact of the processing of that substance has no effect on its classification as waste. An ordinary fuel may be burnt without regard to environmental standards without thereby becoming waste, whereas substances which are discarded may be recovered as fuel in an environmentally responsible manner and without substantial treatment yet still be classified as waste.
67 As the Court observed in paragraph 30 of the Inter-Environnement Wallonie judgment, cited above, moreover, there is nothing in the directive to indicate that it does not apply to disposal or recovery operations forming part of an industrial process where they do not appear to constitute a danger to human health or the environment.
70 In the absence of specific Community provisions on proof of the existence of waste, it is for the national court to apply the provisions of its own legal system in that regard, while taking care that the objective and effectiveness of the directive are not undermined.
73 The fact that that use as fuel is a common method of recovering waste and the fact that those substances are commonly regarded as waste may be taken as evidence that the holder has discarded those substances or intends or is required to discard them within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the directive. However, whether they are in fact waste within the meaning of the directive must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined.
Part (c) of the second question in Case C-418/97
83 On the other hand, certain circumstances may constitute evidence that the holder has discarded the substance or intends or is required to discard it within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the directive.
84 That will be the case, in particular, where the substance used is a production residue, that is to say a product not in itself sought for use as fuel.
87 The same will apply where the substance is a residue whose composition is not suitable for the use made of it or where special precautions must be taken when it is used owing to the environmentally hazardous nature of its composition.
88 It follows that the answer to part (c) of the second question in Case C-418/97 must be that the fact that a substance used as fuel is the residue of the manufacturing process of another substance, that no use for that substance other than disposal can be envisaged, that the composition of the substance is not suitable for the use made of it or that special environmental precautions must be taken when it is used may be regarded as evidence that the holder has discarded that substance or intends or is required to discard it within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the directive. However, whether it is in fact waste within the meaning of the directive must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined.
Part (a) of the second question in Case C-419/97
94 In that regard, it should first be noted that even where waste has undergone a complete recovery operation which has the consequence that the substance in question has acquired the same properties and characteristics as a raw material, that substance may none the less be regarded as waste if, in accordance with the definition in Article 1(a) of the directive, its holder discards it or intends or is required to discard it.
97 The answer to part (a) of the second question in Case C-419/97 must therefore be that the fact that a substance is the result of a recovery operation within the meaning of Annex IIB to the directive is only one of the factors which must be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether that substance is still waste, and does not as such permit a definitive conclusion to be drawn in that regard. Whether it is waste must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, by comparison with the definition set out in Article 1(a) of the directive, that is to say the discarding of the substance in question or the intention or requirement to discard it, regard being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined.