Background
Surovina RECE, a Slovenian company, sought authorization to ship 25,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel (waste) in 1,100 shipments to Hungary for conversion into solid recovered fuel. The Hungarian environmental authority objected to the shipments, relying on Hungary’s national waste management plan for 2021-2027, which provides that imports of foreign-derived fuel must not jeopardize the recovery of domestically produced fuel. Surovina RECE challenged the objection, arguing that under Directive 2008/98/EC, authorities could only block waste shipments destined for incineration, not those destined for other forms of recovery.
The referring Hungarian court was uncertain whether Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006—which references the now-repealed Directive 2006/12/EC—permitted Member States to object to waste shipments on the basis of national waste management plans established under the successor Directive 2008/98/EC. The court needed guidance on whether this ground for objection survived the transition between directives and whether it applied to recovery operations beyond incineration.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Justice held that Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, read in light of recital 39 of Directive 2008/98, permits a Member State of destination to raise objections to waste shipments from another Member State destined for recovery—including non-incineration recovery—where the shipment would not comply with the destination state’s waste management plan established under Article 28 of Directive 2008/98.
The Court reasoned that Article 12(1)(a) references Article 7 of the repealed Directive 2006/12, which allowed Member States to prevent waste movements non-compliant with their waste management plans. Under the correlation table in Annex V of Directive 2008/98, this reference now corresponds to Article 28 of the successor directive. The legislative history showed no intent to eliminate this objection ground, and recital 39 of Directive 2008/98 explicitly confirms that Member States may take measures to prevent non-compliant shipments. The Court emphasized that waste management plans are the primary instrument for implementing EU waste policy and that permitting objections based on them ensures their effectiveness and compliance with the waste hierarchy, which prioritizes recovery over disposal.
Key Takeaways
- Member States retain the authority under Regulation 1013/2006 to block incoming waste shipments that conflict with their approved national waste management plans, regardless of whether the waste is destined for incineration or other recovery methods.
- The Court’s interpretation maintains continuity between the repealed and current waste directives, confirming that provisions allowing objections based on waste management plans were preserved in the transition from Directive 2006/12 to Directive 2008/98.
- Objections must be grounded in specific, documented facts particular to each shipment and supported by a waste management plan established in compliance with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98; Member States cannot impose blanket bans without such justification.
- The Court’s decision affirms the binding force of national waste management plans and recognizes the legitimate interest of Member States in protecting the viability of their domestic waste recovery infrastructure.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a critical ambiguity in EU waste regulation that directly affects the cross-border movement of recyclable materials. For waste management companies seeking to export materials within the EU, the ruling confirms that destination countries retain meaningful veto power over incoming shipments when imports would undermine domestic waste management strategies. This has significant implications for the circular economy and waste-to-energy sectors, particularly for secondary fuels and recovered materials markets.
The judgment also reinforces the legal status of waste management plans as enforceable policy instruments rather than mere planning documents. By interpreting Article 12(1)(a) to protect compliance with these plans, the Court ensures that Member States can effectively implement the EU waste hierarchy—which prioritizes recovery and recycling of domestic waste over disposal—even when faced with lower-cost imported waste streams. This supports environmental protection and sustainable waste management across the EU.