Waste Law
SOURCE: THE ENVIRONMENT EXCHANGE, MAY 2004
Food… like the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)… must be carefully chewed and properly digested. For, not only is the ECJ the ultimate arbiter on all issues of European Waste Law (reigning supreme over all UK courts and even Parliament), but the notion of the supremacy of EU law means that if UK law is out of step, you ignore it, and rely directly on Community law instead.
Take the Mayer Parry case. The ECJ said that “recycling” of waste has to involve a production process resulting in a new material/ product which has similar characteristics to the original. If it lacks similar characteristics, it remains waste. Mayer Parry actually lost because their product had impurities (meaning it’s characteristics weren’t sufficiently similar). Without impurities, they would have won. It appears that the UK position (that only steel manufacturers can be accredited as reprocessors) is highly suspect, and possibly challengeable. So, if you met the ECJ’s criteria, consider insisting on accreditation.
Consider also the Commission v Germany case. The ECJ confirmed that incineration can count as waste recovery (not disposal) if your main purpose is energy-generation, if the process produces more energy than it consumes, and if the majority of that energy is harnessed (with the majority of the waste being consumed in the process). This has absolutely nothing to do with minimum calorific values. The UK’s current position under the Substitute Fuels Protocol appears to be entirely illegal, so it’s just as well they are in the process of changing it. The fact remains that the ECJ gave judgement in February 2003, so what they said has been the law ever since. If you meet those criteria, you may well be recovering and not disposing.
So the moral is … to know your European Law – the rights it gives you – and to assert them – forcefully.
AUTHOR: VINCENT BROWN
Complete the details below to send a link to this page to a friend.