{"id":13380,"date":"2022-09-07T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2022-09-07T05:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.haslinger-nagele.com\/?p=13380"},"modified":"2022-12-29T07:44:36","modified_gmt":"2022-12-29T06:44:36","slug":"breakthrough-in-by-products-and-waste-management-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.haslinger-nagele.com\/en\/breakthrough-in-by-products-and-waste-management-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Breakthrough in by-products and waste management law?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The recently published Opinion of Advocate General Medina has caused many in the waste management sector to sit up and take notice. In an ECJ case, the Advocate General arrives at results that were previously unthinkable in waste management enforcement.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Initial situation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The reason for the Austrian request for a preliminary ruling<\/a> is a decision<\/strong> by the Graz-Umgebung district authority. The decision stated that uncontaminated excavated material, which was handed over to farmers by a construction company and applied by them to land for agricultural purposes, constituted waste<\/strong> according to the Waste Management Act 2002 (AWG 2002<\/a>). It justified this by stating that the material had not lost its waste status under Section 5 AWG 2002 because formal criteria under BAWPL 2011<\/a> had not been met. This decision was contested by the construction company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questions for submission<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Higher Administrative Court Steiermark has suspended the appeal proceedings and submitted three questions to the ECJ. These questions are essentially based on whether it is contrary to the EU Waste Framework Directive that uncontaminated excavated material only loses its status as waste through a direct substitution of a primary raw material.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preliminary results<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Advocate General (“GA”) reaches the following conclusions in her Opinion<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n