Skip to main content
Title:
ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer and between Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt+, Vereniging Stedelijk Leefmilieu Nijmegen and Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelderland, joined party: Elektriciteitsproductiemaatschappij Oost- en Noord-Nederland NV (Epon)
Party:
European Union
Netherlands
Region:
Europe
Europe
Type of document:
International court
Date of text:
June 15, 2000
Data source:
InforMEA
Court name:
European Court of Justice
Seat of court:
Luxembourg
Justice(s):
Edward,, D.A.O.
Moitinho de Almeida, J.C.
Sevón, L.
Gulmann, C.
Puissochet, J.-P.
Alber, S.
Reference number:
C-418/97
Abstract:
The Court gives indications on the distinction between waste and non-waste. It stresses that the concept of waste cannot be interpreted restrictively and that Member States can not use modes of proof which have the effect of restricting the scope of the directive. Not all substances treated by one of the methods described in Annex IIA (recovery) and B (disposal) of Directive 75/442 are to be regarded as waste: they could be raw materials instead. The mere fact that a substance undergoes an Annex IIB operation does not show that that substance has been discarded and needs to be regarded as waste. When determining whether the use of a substance as a fuel constitutes 'discarding', it is irrelevant that it may be recovered in an environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel without substantial treatment. 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 of 'discarding'. The same holds true for 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. The fact that a substance is the result of an Annex IIB recovery operation is only one of the factors which must be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether that substance is still waste. 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 (intention or requirement to) discarding, regard being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined. Joined cases C-418/97 and C-419/97)