WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION The EU Waste Framework Directive

WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION The EU Waste Framework Directive
EU LEGISLATION ON WASTE WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION WASTE © 2010 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. The EU Waste Framework Directive

The EU-Waste Framework Directive Outline
Introduction Definition of waste Differentiation waste - by-products Waste hierarchy Producer responsibility and waste prevention Differentiation waste recovery / waste disposal National waste management structures Waste recovery requirements Targets for Re-use and Recycling Waste management planning Hazardous waste 2

Community Waste Strategy
The legal framework until Community Waste Strategy COM (2003)301, 27 May 2003 Framework Legislation Waste Framework Directive (Dir. 2006/12/EC) Hazardous Waste Directive Waste Shipment Regulation Dir.91/689/EEC (Reg. No 1013/2006) Waste Treatment Operations IPPC (2008/1/EC) Incineration Landfill 2000/76/EC (99/31/EC) This animated slide shows the developing framework of EU-waste legislation. After 12 December 2010 the new Waste framework directive will replace the old one. The Hazardous Waste Directive then will be integrated into the WFD as well as the Waste oils directive. When the new Directive on Industrial Emissions (IED) will be set into force, the waste incineration directive and the titanium dioxide directive will be integrated into this new Directive. The Directive on Hazardous waste will be integrated into the new Waste Framework Directive. Source: Communication from the Commission, Thematic Strategy on the prevention an recycling of waste, Annexe III, 2005 Waste Streams Waste Titanium Sewage Batteries and Packaging PCBs End - of - life Waste Restriction Mining oils Dioxide Sludge Accumulators and Dir.96/59/EC Vehicles electric of Waste Packaging Dir 2000/53 EC Dir Dir. Directive2006/66/EC and Hazardous Com (2003)319 Dir 78/176/EEC 75/439/EEC 86/278/EEC Waste electronic Substances Dir. 94/62/EC equipment Dir.2002/95EC Dir.2002/95EC 3

Community Waste Strategy
The legal framework after COM (2003)301, 27 May 2003 Framework Legislation Waste Framework Directive (Dir. 2008/98/EC) Waste Shipment Regulation (Reg. No 1013/2006) Waste Treatment Operations IPPC (IED) (2008/1/EC) Incineration (?) Landfill 2000/76/EC (99/31/EC) Waste Streams Sewage Batteries and Packaging PCBs End - of - life Waste Restriction Mining Sludge Accumulators and Dir.96/59/EC Vehicles electric of Waste Packaging Dir 2000/53/EC Dir. Directive2006/66/EC and Hazardous Dir. 2006/21/EC 86/278/EEC Waste electronic Substances Dir.2002/95/EC Dir. 94/62/EC equipment 4 Dir.2002/95/EC

Which Directive? Transposition by Member States by 12.12.2010
In force since DIRECTIVE 2006/12/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2006 on waste COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 15 July 1975 on waste (75/442/EEC) Repealed with effect from In force since This slide shows the time frame for the entry into force and the transposition limit for MS. Article 20 WFD 2008: „Directive 75/442/EEC is hereby repealed, without prejudice to Member States‚ obligations relating to the time‑limits for transposition into national law set out in Annex III, Part B. References made to the repealed Directive shall be construed as being made to this Directive and should be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IV.“ Important: 2008/98, Article 41 Repeal and transitional provisions: „Directives 75/439/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 2006/12/EC are hereby repealed with effect from 12 December 2010. The information link opens the text of the Directive. DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives Transposition by Member States by 5

The state of transposition
In 2009, 11 cases for structural and wide-spread failure to address illegal waste dumping, 10 for bad application, 4 related to waste planning, and 3 on non-conformity of national laws with directive 2006/12/EC were still pending. In 2006, the environment sector accounted for about one fifth of the total number of open cases concerning non-compliance with Community law under investigation by the Commission and remains the sector with the highest number of open cases. Self-explaining Source: EU-Commission, COM(2009) 633 final, 6

What is waste? Why is the definition relevant in practice?
Keystone of all sectoral regulation Application of administrative obligations relating to collection, sorting, storage, transportation, treatment methods, recovery, disposal and international transfer depend on the definition of waste Penal sanctions! This slide highlights the legal relevance of the waste definition 7

What is waste? DIRECTIVE 2006/12/EC DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC
‘waste’ shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard; ‘waste’ means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard; Discards Intends to discard Is required to discard Subjective and objective elements This slide compares the definition of waste in the old and the new WFD. Except for the elimination of the reference to Annex I the definition remains unchanged. The relevant term is „to discard“. The definition contains subjective and objective elements. The concept of discard is interpreted by the Court of Justice in a broad way, making reference to the „effet utile“ jurisprudence and the general principles of precaution and prevention. The concept of „discard“ Teleological interpretation: broadly, „high level of protection“, principles of precaution and preventive action, effectiveness 8

What is waste? A is transporting used dilute hydrochloric acid on behalf of third parties without obtaining prior authorization. He is prosecuted for illegal transport of waste according to the national waste act. In his defence, A maintains, first, that the substances transported do not constitute waste within the meaning of the national waste Act which defines waste as including "any substance or object produced by human activity or natural processes which is, or is intended to be, abandoned." A is claiming that in this case the substances transported were capable of economic reutilization and were not therefore abandoned or intended to be abandoned. Is A right? This slide refers to the facts of the famous case Vessosso and Zanetti. 9

What is waste? 9 The answer (...) must therefore be that the concept of waste (...) is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization. ECJ, C-206/88, „Vessosso and Zanetti“ 13 The answer (...) must therefore be that national legislation which defines waste as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization is not compatible with Council Directives 75/442 and 78/319 . Case C-359/88 Zanetti and Others. 31 Finally, it should be borne in mind that the Court has already held that the definition of waste in Article 1 of Directive 75/442, as amended, is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which were capable of economic reutilization. 32 It follows from all those considerations that substances forming part of an industrial process may constitute waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended. Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie. The main findings in the Zanetti Case have become standing jurisprudence since then. In the Inter-Environnement Wallonie case the Court upholds and concretises his findings. 10

Contaminated soil – waste?
Facts of the case The Brussels‑Capital Region owns a building in which it had undertaken reno-vation measures. The renovation had to be halted on 18 January 1993 as the result of the discovery that water saturated with hydrocarbons was leaking into the cellar of the building from the wall which separates that building from the adjacent building, where a Texaco service station was at that time located. The hydrocarbon leak was the result of defects in the service station’s storage facilities. In the famous van der Walle case the Court held that contaminated soil may be considered as waste. The Brussels‑Capital Region took the view that decontamination measures should be paid by Texaco. 11

Proceedings were brought inter alia against Mr Van de Walle, Texaco’s managing director, before Criminal Courts. The Brussels‑Capital Region claimed damages in those proceedings. The court of appeal took the view that the national law in force imposed penalties under the condition that the actions of the accused constitute abandonment of waste. The court was in doubt, however, as to whether subsoil contaminated as the result of an accidental spill of hydrocarbons could be considered waste and stated that it doubted that that classification was possible, since the land in question had not been excavated and treated. It also pointed out that legal opinion differs as to whether the accidental spill of a product which contaminates soil is comparable to the abandonment of waste. How would the ECJ decide? 12

52 The same classification as ‘waste’ within the meaning of Directive 75/442 applies to soil contaminated as the result of an accidental spill of hydro-carbons. In that case, the hydrocar-bons cannot be separated from the land which they have contaminated and cannot be recovered or disposed of unless that land is also subject to the necessary decontamination. That is the only interpretation which ensures compliance with the aims of protecting the natural environment and prohibiting the abandonment of waste pursued by the Directive. Case C-1/03, van de Walle. Article 2 Exclusions from the scope 1.The following shall be excluded from the scope of this Directive: (...); (b) land (in situ) including unexcavated contaminated soil and buildings permanently connected with land; The slide shows, first, the findings of the Court in the van de Walle case and, second, that this jurisprudence was modified by the legislator. According to the new Art. 2 of the WFD 2008, contaminated land in situ is no longer considered as waste under the WFD. 13

Waste or by-product? Facts of the case
ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd (hereinafter ARCO) applied to the competent authority) for authorisation to export to Belgium t of LUWA-bottoms. LUWA bottoms are one of the by-products of the manufacturing process used by ARCO. In addition to propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol, that manufacturing process produces a flow of hydrocarbons containing molybdenum. The molybdenum comes from the catalysts used to produce propylene oxide. The molybdenum is extracted from the flow of hydrocarbons in a dedicated plant and the process produces the substance which ARCO describes as LUWA-bottoms. Those LUWA-bottoms, which have a calorific value of between 25 and 28 MJ/kg, are destined for use as a fuel in the cement industry. The distinction between waste and non waste has still a prominent relevance in practice. In particular the difference between waste and by-products is a never ending story. In the ARCO case the Court held that a substance deriving from a production process that can be used in an environmentally sound way as a fuel in a combustion process could nevertheless constitute waste. Remark to the trainer: In order to save time, the slides may be left aside and instead just the courts result (slide 16) can be presented. 14

Waste or by-product? ARCO states that in its view LUWA-bottoms are not waste. Because the fact that a substance is recovered in an environmentally responsible manner and without substantial treatment constitutes a cogent argument that the substance in question is not waste. It states that LUWA-bottoms, whose calorific value is comparable to that of first-grade coal compounds, can be used as to 100% as fuel without further treatment. Their use in the cement industry is an environmentally responsible option, since in that case the molybdenum has no negative effects on the environment but during the process is immediately and completely immobilised and bound up in the cement. 15

Waste or by-product? The competent authority stated that the LUWA bottoms constituted waste and that ARCO would need to notify the shipment under the WSR. ARCO lodged an appeal against that decision before the Court. The Court is unsure as to whether the shipment of LUWA-bottoms to Belgium is covered by the Waste Shipment Regulation, because the Court doubts whether that substance constitutes waste for the purposes of the Regulation. What du you think? 16

Waste or by-product? ECJ 64 (...), 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, (...) 65 (...) the concept of waste 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. Case C-418/97 and C-419/97 ARCO Chemie. The Courts main findings in the ARCO case. 17

Waste or by-product? Art. 5 A substance or object, resulting from a production process, the primary aim of which is not the production of that item, may be regarded as not being waste referred to in point (1) of Article 3 but as being a by-product only if the following conditions are met: (a) further use of the substance or object is certain; (b) the substance or object can be used directly without any further processing other than normal industrial practice; (c) the substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production process; and (d) further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all relevant product, environmental and health protection requirements for the specific use and will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. The slides shows the text of the new Art. 5 of the directive. The approach of the legislator is different from the Courts approach: Wheras the court always tries to define waste, Art. 5 defines the term by-product and thus a non-waste. Only if all the four conditions are met, a substance may be regarded as a by-product, otherwise it has to be considered as waste. Most of these criteria are derived from the ECJ rulings. There are nevertheless two differences: Under (b) there has been added “other than normal industrial practice”, this means if there is further processing, which can be considered as a “normal industrial practice” the substance could be considered nevertheless as a by-product. Criterion (d) is new. 18

Waste or by-product? Criteria Integral part of the production process
Further use is certain without further treatment „other than normal industrial practice“  what does this mean? Further use is lawful Relevance of economic value? Economic value as such does not exclude waste ( standing jurisprudence since Vessoso and Zanetti) But: The absence of economic value is an argument in favour of waste ( case van de Walle: „a burden which the holder seeks to discard“) The slides sums up the criteria for differentiating waste from by-product and also clarifies the relevance of the economic value of the substance. 19

When does waste cease to be waste?
94 (...) 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. 95 The fact that the substance is the result of a complete recovery operation for the purposes of Annex IIB to the directive is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether the substance constitutes waste and does not as such permit a definitive conclusion to be drawn in that regard. The Courts ruling in the ARCO Chemie case on the question of the end-of-waste status. Case C-418/97 and C-419/97 ARCO Chemie. 20

96 If a complete recovery operation does not necessarily deprive an object of its classification as waste, that applies a fortiori to an operation during which the objects concerned are merely sorted or pre-treated, such as when waste in the form of wood impregnated with toxic substances is transformed into chips or those chips are reduced to wood powder, and which, since it does not purge the wood of the toxic substances which impregnate it, does not have the effect of transforming those objects into a product analogous to a raw material, (...) The Courts ruling in the ARCO Chemie case on the question of the end-of-waste status. Case C-418/97 and C-419/97 ARCO Chemie. 21

The waste hierarchy Prevention Prevention Re-use Recycling Recovery
Disposal Prevention Re-use Recycling Other recovery Disposal Art. 4 new Art. 3 (1) (old) The slide shows the new hierarchy of waste compared to the one in the old directive. 22

The waste hierarchy Is the waste hierarchy legally binding?
Arguments in favor Arguments against Wording of Art. 4: The following waste hierarchy shall apply as a priority order in waste prevention and management legislation and policy Consideration 7: „(...) re-use and material recycling should be preferred to energy recovery from waste, where and insofar as they are the best ecological options.“ Art. 4 (2) See also Art. 10 (2), 11 (2)  principle of proportionality The following slides give arguments in favour and against the binding character of the waste hierarchy. The wording „shall apply ... in waste management legislation“ is an argument for the binding character. On the other hand, consideration 7 of the Directive gives priority to re-use and recycling only where and insofar as they are the best ecological options. We may therefore conclude, that the waste hierarchy does not constitute an absolute priority but leaves a discretionary power to the member States. This is approved by Art. 4 (2) which states that Member States shall take measures to encourage the options that deliver the best overall environmental outcome. Under Art. 10 and 11 Member states shall take measures („as appropriate“) to promote recovery, re-use and recycling. Also the setting up of separate collection systems is under the condition that this is technically, environmentally and economically practicable. 23

European recycling society with a high level of resource efficiency
collection recycling disposal raw materials production production use Aim: European recycling society with a high level of resource efficiency This slide shows the idea of a European recycling society which derives from Art. 11(2) of the Directive. „European recycling society“ 24

Extended Producer Responsibility
Aim: Strengthen the re-use and the prevention, recycling and other recovery of waste Legislative and non-legislative measures: Acceptance of returned products Financial responsibility Design of products (reduce impact, suitable for multiple use, technically durable etc.) The concept of extended producer responsibility is newly laid down in Art. 8 of the Directive. The slide shows its aim and the measures which may be taken by the MS in order to strengthen re-use, prevention and recovery. The concept is legally rather weak in so far as it is at the discretion of the MS to implement it („may“). 25

Prevention Report on prevention by the end of 2011
Art. 9 Report on prevention by the end of 2011 Action plan for ruther support measures By the end of 2014: Waste prevention and decoupling objectives for 2020 Waste prevention programmes established by MS (Art. 29) This slide shows the implications deriving from Art. 9 of the Directive concerning the prevention of waste. 26

Recovery or disposal? Is coprocessing of waste in cement kilns to be regarded as a recovery or a disposal activity? The distinction between recovery and disposal is still a crucial legal issue, as there are fare-reaching legal consequences linked to these concepts. What do you think? 27

Recovery or disposal? The combustion of waste constitutes a recovery operation under point R1 (…) where its principal objective is for the waste to fulfil a useful function as a means of generating energy, replacing the use of a source of primary energy which would have had to have been used to fulfil that function. The following slides show the findings given by the Court of Justice in the Case Commission ./. Germany dealing with incineration of waste in cement kilns. The Court gives 3 criteria that have to be fulfilled so as to consider the incineration as a recovery process. 28

Recovery or disposal? In particular, the use of waste as a fuel in cement kilns may be classified as a recovery operation if the main purpose is to enable the waste to be used as a means of generating energy, it takes place in conditions which give reason to believe that it is indeed a means to generate energy, the greater part of the waste is consumed during the operation and the greater part of the energy generated is recovered and used. ....the second and the third condition. 29

Art. 6 (1) Dir 2008/98/EC „certain specified waste“, criteria: Comitology procedure (a) The substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes; (b) a market or demand exists for such a substance or object; (c) the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products; and (d) the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. The new system according to the Directive: For certains specified wastes, the Commission may define criteria when wast ceases to be waste. The decision ist taken under the Comitology procedure. Member States may decide case by case Art. 6 (4) 30

Recovery or disposal? It follows that, where the use of waste as a fuel meets the conditions laid down in point R1 of Annex II B to the directive, it must be classified as a recovery operation, without the need to take into consideration criteria such as the calorific value of the waste, the amount of harmful substances contained in the incinerated waste or whether or not the waste has been mixed. ... the conclusion. (see paras C-228/00, Com / Germany) 31

Recovery or disposal? Is waste that ist deposited in a former salt-mine to secure hollow spaces (mine-sealing) to be regarded as a recovery or a disposal activity? 69 „However, it does follow from Article 3(1)(b) and the fourth recital of the Directive that 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 conserving natural resources.“ ECJ, Case C-6/00, 27 February 2002. What do you think? Are Annexes I an II of some help? The same question arose in a case where waste was dumped in a former salt-mine. The Court affirms the criterion of „useful purpose“: If the waste replaces other materials and thus natural resources are conserved, it is recovery. 32

Recovery or disposal? 37 The combustion of waste therefore constitutes a recovery operation where its principal objective is that the waste can fulfil a useful function as a means of generating energy, replacing the use of a source of primary energy which would have had to have been used to fulfil that function. 44 The Commission has not adduced any evidence in the context of its action which shows that, the principal objective of the operation in question was the recovery of waste. (...) such as the fact that the waste in question was intended for a plant which, unless it was supplied with waste, would have had to operate using a primary energy source, (...) ECJ, Case C-458/00, 13 February 2003 Incineration of municipal solid waste – recovery or disposal? 17 Following a complaint referred to it by NTMR, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on 22 October 1999 requesting that Member State to submit its observations within a period of two months on the charge that the competent Luxembourg authorities had infringed the provisions of the Regulation and the Directive by refusing to classify as a recovery operation incineration of waste in a non-industrial incineration plant where the energy generated during incineration is recovered in full or in part. 18 As the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not responded to that letter of formal notice, the Commission sent it a reasoned opinion by letter of 4 April 2000 in which it found that that Member Sate had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation, Article 1(f) and point R1 of Annex II B to the Directive and, where appropriate, Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC). In the same letter the Commission called upon the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to take the necessary measures in order to comply with the reasoned opinion within a period of two months from the date of notification of the reasoned opinion. 33

Recovery or disposal? Incineration of municipal solid waste – recovery or dispoal?  Annex II, R 1  energy efficiency criteria applicable for incineration facilities of municipial solid waste, not applicable for hazardous waste incinerators  adaptation to technical process may be done in comitology procedure, Art. 38 (1). Art. 3 Discard  act, intention or obligation 34

National waste management structures
Including Municipal waste incinerators in the recovery concept may have an impact on national waste management structures. Municipal waste  free movement of goods, but: Art. 3 (5) Waste shipment Regulation!  Art. 16 WFD: Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity Mixed municipal waste  Art. 16 Sorted waste  Art. 106 II TFEU (former 86 II EC-Treaty) The revision of the recovery definition may have a negative impact on the national waste management structures as waste for recovery may easily be shipped within the EU. Therefore, Art. 3 (5) WSR and Art. 16 of the Directive provide that municipal waste is subject to the (more strict) disposal provisions of the Regulation. Art. 16 allows also the restriction of incoming recovery waste for incineration under certain conditions. These provisions apply only for „mixed“ household waste. For sorted waste the general rules apply. 35

Art. 106 TFEU (former Art. 86 EC) 2. Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, insofar as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community. Note for the trainer: The following two slides should only be used if there are particular questions on the legal status of sorted household waste. There is the position of german officials, that national restrictions concerning sorted household waste is in compliance with Art. 106 TFEU and the Courts findings in the Case C-360/96. 36

52 In this case it is undeniable that the removal and treatment of household refuse may be regarded as constituting a need in the general interest. Since the degree of satisfaction of that need considered necessary for reasons of public health and environmental protection cannot be achieved by using disposal services wholly or partly available to private individuals from private economic operators, that activity is one of those which the State may require to be carried out by public authorities or over which it wishes to retain a decisive influence. Case C-360/96, Gemeente Arnhem/BFI Holding See note on the previous slide. 37

Waste recovery requirements
Recovery operations must be in accordance with Art. 4 and 13 Responsibility for waste management  Art. 15 Permit requirements  Art. 23 Minimum standards for the protection of human health and the environemet  Art. 27  comitology procedure This slide gives an overview on a number of waste recovery requirements that are to be found in the cited Articles of the Directive. 38

Targets for Re-use and Recycling
Art. 11 High quality  separate collection By 2015: at least paper, metal, plastic and glass Targets: By 2020: a minimum of overall 50% by weight of paper, metal, plastic and glass from household shall be re-used and recycled By 2020: non-hazardous construction and demolition waste 70% This slide shows the new targest for Re-use and Recycling. This quantitative approach is new compared to the old directive. 39

Waste Management Planning
Waste management plans Waste prevention programmes Evaluation Public participation Cooperation This slide gives an overview on the waste management planning instruments as laid down in chapter V of the Directive. 40

Waste management plans shall cover the entire territory of the MS provide analysis to current situation contain measures for improvement content  at least Art. 28 para 3 a) - e). This slide explains the details concerning waste management plans. Waste management plans existed already under the old directive. The Court of justice hold in the joined cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 Commune de Braine-le-Château and Michel Tillieut and Others, although MS have the obligation to set up such plans, which also have to specify appropriate sites, the absence of waste management plans does not hinder the issuing of permits for a disposal installation on a specific site. 41

Waste prevention programmes Shall be integrated into WMP or other programmes or may stand as separate programmes Objectives Measures  Annex IV Benchmarking and monitoring This slide explains some aspects of waste prevention programmes. Waste prevention programmes are a new instrument under the Waste Framework Directive 2008. „The aim of such objectives and measures shall be to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impacts associated with the generation of waste.“ (Art. 29 para 2 (2)). 42

Hazardous waste Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste
Directive 2006/12/EC of 5 April 2006 Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste Hazardous waste is now integrated into Directive 2008/98. According to Art. 41 of Directive 2008/98, Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste is repealed with effect from 12 december 2010. Directive 2008/98 43

General provisions: Art. 17-21
Hazardous waste Definition: Art. 3 (2), Annexe III; list of hazardous waste, Art 7  decision 2000/532/EC  update  comitology-procedure General provisions: Art This slide shows how hazardous waste is defined unter the Directive. Beside the general definition in Art. 3 (2) the list of waste established by Decision 2000/532/EC is of utmost relevance in this respect. The list is binding as far as the determination of hazardous waste is concerned (hazardous waste is marked with an asterisk in this list). The list is updated by the Commission in accordance with the comitology procedure. 44

Hazardous waste Control of hazardous waste (Art. 17)
Production, collection, transportation, storage, treatment  Art. 13 Traceability from production to final destination  chronological record (Art. 35) Hazardous waste should not be mixed (Art. 18) Labelling, packaging, identification document This slide gives an overview on obligations concerning the management of hazardous waste. 45

More information Further references:
N. de Sadeleer, EC Waste Law or How to Juggle with Legal Concepts, Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 6/2005, 458. N. de Sadeleer, Case van de Walle, Common Market Law Review 43: , 2006. Carlos da Silva Campos, Waste, Product and By-produt in EU Waste Law, ELNI-Review 2/2007, 28. Frank Petersen, Entwicklungen des Kreislaufwirtschaftsrechts, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 17/2009, 1063. G. Roller, Amended Comitology Decision, ELNI-Review 1/2007,39. G. Roller, Comitology in Environmental Policy, in: H. Hofmann and A.Türk (eds.), EU Administrative Governance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2006,115 ff. 46

WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION The EU Waste Framework Directive

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION The EU Waste Framework Directive"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION The EU Waste Framework Directive

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION The EU Waste Framework Directive"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback