Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt
Brevdato
Afsender
Modtagere
Akttitel
Identifikationsnummer
Versionsnummer
Ansvarlig
Vedlagte dokumenter
02-06-2023
Janne Birk Nielsen (Kontorchef, Cirkulær økonomi)
[email protected]
VS: Danish questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive
definition of recovery
430456
1
Amalie Hedeager Bruun
VS Danish questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive
definition of recovery
Questions regarding Waste Framework Directive 4 May
Dokumenter uden PDF-
version (ikke vedlagt)
Udskrevet
15. jun 2023
 MOF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 631: Spm. om status for administrationsgrundlag for indsigelser og proces i spørgsmål om nyttiggørelse ctr. bortskaffelse
2729021_0002.png
-- AKT 430456 -- BILAG 1 -- [ VS Danish questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive definition of recovery ] --
Til:
Cc:
Fra:
Titel:
Sendt:
Bilag:
[email protected] ([email protected])
Amalie Wang Norus ([email protected])
Janne Birk Nielsen ([email protected])
VS: Danish questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive definition of recovery
02-06-2023 13:57
Questions regarding Waste Framework Directive 4 May.docx;
Dear Mattia,
I hope this e-mail finds you well.
We have some questions regarding the definition of recovery in the Waste Framework Directive and the change to
the definition in 2008, please see our enclosed questions. We have reached out to the Waste Framework Directive
Team, however this is a matter of high importance for Denmark, so we would appreciate if the experts from your
team has the opportunity to take a meeting with our experts next week. Could one from your team contact: Amalie
Wang Norus,
[email protected]
or +45 22 72 74 52, regarding the meeting?
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further information.
Best regards,
Janne
Best regards
Janne Birk Nielsen
Head of Division l Cirkular Economy
+45 41 93 23 38 l
[email protected]
Ministry of Environment
The Departement
| Slotsholmsgade 12 | 1216 København K | Tlf. +45 38 14 21 42 |
[email protected]
|
www.en.mim.dk
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Instagram
|
LinkedIn
|
Youtube
Fra:
Amalie Wang Norus
Sendt:
1. juni 2023 14:19
Til:
'[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc:
Amalie Hedeager Bruun ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Christian Hust Stigel <[email protected]>
Emne:
SV: Danish questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive definition of recovery
Prioritet:
Høj
Dear waste framework directive team,
I hope that you have had the opportunity to look into our questions. We would really appreciate a meeting with you
sometime next week. Would Tuesday at noon work for you? Else will you please inform us your earliest convenience?
Kind regards,
Amalie
Amalie Wang Norus
| Cirkulær økonomi
+45 22 72 74 52 | +45 22 72 74 52 |
[email protected]
Ministry of Environment
Frederiksholms Kanal 26 | 1220 Copenhagen K | Tel. +45 38 14 21 42 |
[email protected]
|
www.mim.dk
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Instagram
|
LinkedIn
|
Privacy Policy
 MOF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 631: Spm. om status for administrationsgrundlag for indsigelser og proces i spørgsmål om nyttiggørelse ctr. bortskaffelse
2729021_0003.png
Fra:
Amalie Wang Norus
Sendt:
15. maj 2023 15:58
Til:
'[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc:
Amalie Hedeager Bruun ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Christian Hust Stigel <[email protected]>
Emne:
Danish questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive definition of recovery
Dear waste framework directive team,
I hope this e-mail finds you well.
Some colleagues and I have some questions regarding the Commissions understanding of the Waste Framework
Directive and the definition of recovery, please see the attached. I hope that you might be available for a meeting to
discuss our questions possibly on Monday at 11 am?
Kind regards,
Amalie
Amalie Wang Norus
| Cirkulær økonomi
+45 22 72 74 52 | +45 22 72 74 52 |
[email protected]
Ministry of Environment
The Department
| Frederiksholms Kanal 26 | 1220 Copenhagen K | Tel. +45 38 14 21 42 |
[email protected]
|
www.mim.dk
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Instagram
|
LinkedIn
|
Privacy Policy
 MOF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 631: Spm. om status for administrationsgrundlag for indsigelser og proces i spørgsmål om nyttiggørelse ctr. bortskaffelse
2729021_0004.png
-- AKT 430456 -- BILAG 2 -- [ Questions regarding Waste Framework Directive 4 May ] --
15 May 2023
Assessing whether an operation is a recovery operation or a
disposal operation
The Danish case
In Denmark, we are phasing a challenging situation regarding a Danish company importing oily
wastewater for recovery. It concerns shipments of waste, which consists of only about 3% oil for
recovery, while the remaining part of the shipment is destined for a disposal operation. In processing
these notifications, some broader questions regarding the Waste Framework Directive have occurred.
We are looking into what constitutes recovery, and how to assess whether a shipment is destined for
recovery or disposal and therefore have a few questions we hope to get your view on.
Recovery
According to the 2008 Waste Framework Directive Article 3 (15) “recovery” is defined as “any
operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials
which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil
that function, in the plant or in the wider economy.”
According to the Court as set out in case C-147/15 this definition “corresponds to the definition
developed in the Court’s case-law, according to which 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 enabling natural resources to be
preserved”.
a.
Do you interpret Article 3 (15) of the Waste Framework Directive as meaning that recovery can
comprise situations where the waste is not recovered in the plant itself but prepared for
recovery at another place than the initial plant, ie. out in the wider economy?
b. Can an operation be considered a recovery operation if the waste does not replace other
materials at the plant, e.g. the waste is treated at the plant and the outcome (product) of the
treatment is recycled elsewhere in the wider economy, replacing other materials there?
c.
In assessing whether or not recovery can comprise situations in which the recovery takes place
other places than at the plant do you then take the ruling in C-147/15 into account?
Assessing whether a shipment is destined for recovery or disposal
We have had notifications where part of the waste was to be recovered and part of the waste was to be
disposed of, and we are wondering how you would assess such notifications.
Miljøministeriet • Frederiksholms Kanal 26 • 1220 København K
Tlf. 38 14 21 42 • CVR 12854358 • EAN 5798000862005 • [email protected] • www.mim.dk
 MOF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 631: Spm. om status for administrationsgrundlag for indsigelser og proces i spørgsmål om nyttiggørelse ctr. bortskaffelse
a.
How do you assess whether a shipment is destined for recovery or disposal? Which criteria do
you take into account when determining the principle result of the operation?
b. Furthermore, to what extent do the criteria differ depending on the type of waste or the type of
operation?
The Court has in case C-458/00 ruled that “[t]he shipment of waste in order for it to be incinerated in
a processing plant designed to dispose of waste cannot be regarded as having the recovery waste as its
principal objective”.
a.
Do you consider the design of the plant an important criteria in the assessment of whether a
shipment is destined for recovery or disposal?
b. How would you assess the design of a plant?
c.
Do you have plants which perform both recovery and disposal operations?
According to the Court in case C-147/15 “the fact that the operator of the quarry at issue in the main
proceedings acquires [the] waste in exchange of payment to the waste producer or holder may indicate
that the main objective of the operation in question is the recovery of such waste”.
a.
Would you consider payment on the part of the waste producer to indicate that the shipment is
destined for disposal?
b. Do you accept import of waste for recovery where the treatment facility receives payment for
the recovery of the waste? Or is this only in rare cases?
Which operation?
In case C-116/01 the Court has held that “the treatment process as a whole is not to be assessed as a
single operation, but each phase must be classified separately for the purpose of implementing the
[Waste Shipment Regulation] when it constitutes a distinct operation in itself”.
a.
How do you assess whether a phase constitutes a distinct operation in itself?
b. Would you consider the judgement to be applicable also where the 'first' operation is for
example separation or sorting?
In such a small quantity that the provision of new specialized disposal
installations within that State would be uneconomic
According to the Waste Shipment Regulation Article 11 (3) “In the case of hazardous waste produced in
a Member State of dispatch in such a small quantity overall per year that the provision of new
specialised disposal installations within that Member State would be uneconomic, paragraph 1(a) shall
not apply”.
a.
How would you assess whether hazardous waste in a Member State of dispatch is produced in
such a small quantity overall per year that the provision of new specialised disposal
installations within that Member State would be uneconomic?
2