HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
Europe – In its judgment of 2 July 2026 (Case C-447/25, Surovina RECE d.o.o. v Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Member State of destination of a shipment of waste intended for recovery, but not incineration, may lawfully object to that shipment where it is contrary to a national waste management plan established in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98/EC.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was asked to give a preliminary ruling by the Budapest-Capital Court concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, read together with Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. The dispute arose between the Slovenian company Surovina RECE and the Hungarian authorities, which had refused to authorize the transfer of waste intended for recovery.
Surovina RECE sought authorization to transport approximately 25,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel from Slovenia to Hungary, where the waste would be processed into solid recovered fuel by a Hungarian company.
The Hungarian authorities objected to the planned shipments on the ground that they were incompatible with Hungary’s National Waste Management Plan for the period 2021–2027. According to the authorities, increasing imports of waste-derived fuel could undermine the recovery of waste generated within Hungary.
Surovina RECE challenged this decision before the Hungarian courts. The company argued that Directive 2008/98 permits restrictions based on national waste management plans only for waste intended for incineration, whereas the waste at issue was intended for recovery through a different process.
The referring court questioned the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006. That provision still refers to Directive 2006/12, which has since been repealed and replaced by Directive 2008/98, thereby creating uncertainty as to the applicable legal framework.
More specifically, the national court asked whether the Member State of destination may object to shipments of waste intended for recovery, but not incineration, solely because the shipments would be inconsistent with its national waste management plan.
The Court first observed that Article 16 of Directive 2008/98, which allows Member States to restrict imports of waste destined for recovery by incineration, was not applicable because the waste concerned was not intended for incineration.
The Court then examined the wording of Article 12 of Regulation No 1013/2006. It held that the references to Directive 2006/12 must now be understood as referring to the corresponding provisions of Directive 2008/98, in particular Article 28, which governs national waste management plans.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the competent authorities may object to a shipment of waste where the planned transfer is inconsistent with a waste management plan established in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98.
This interpretation is supported by Recital 39 of Directive 2008/98, which states that Member States may adopt the necessary measures to prevent waste shipments that are incompatible with their waste management plans. Although recitals are not legally binding, they provide important guidance regarding the legislature’s intent.
The Court also noted that earlier waste directives expressly allowed Member States to prevent waste movements that conflicted with their waste management plans and found no indication that the EU legislature intended to remove this ground of objection when adopting Directive 2008/98.
Furthermore, the Court referred to Regulation (EU) 2024/1157, applicable from 21 May 2026, which explicitly authorizes competent authorities to object to waste shipments that are inconsistent with national waste management plans. This confirmed the Court’s interpretation of the previous legislation.
The Court emphasized that this interpretation is consistent with the objectives of EU waste law, namely the protection of the environment, the promotion of waste recovery over disposal, and the effective implementation of national waste management plans.
However, the Court stressed that any objections raised by a Member State must be based on specific and individualized reasons relating to each proposed shipment or to a group of shipments sharing the same characteristics. Such objections must therefore satisfy the requirements of proportionality and judicial review.
The Court ultimately held that Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, read in the light of Recital 39 of Directive 2008/98, allows the Member State of destination to object to the transfer of waste intended for recovery, but not incineration, where the transfer would be inconsistent with a
To access the judgment, click the following link: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62025CJ0447.