Preventing Circular Illegalities: Clarifying the Mandatory Duty of Recovery and Disposal of Waste under the Waste Shipment Regulation

Introduction

“Another man’s trash is another man’s treasure” said AG Ćapeta when delivering her opinion. The Waste Shipment Regulation seeks to prevent a new form of “garbage imperialism” by establishing a control regime applicable to shipment of waste,  including a prohibition on exporting hazardous waste to, inter alia, the African continent, with the objective of reducing waste dumping in order to promote the sound and efficient management of waste, to protect the environment and human health, and to contribute to climate neutrality and to achieving a circular economy and zero pollution.

Nonetheless, waste trafficking, one today’s most serious environmental crimes, continues, with immense negative consequences on the environment, human health and the economies of importing countries. Waste dumping constitutes a loss for the EU since keeping secondary raw materials would enhance EU’s circular economy and recycling industry. The connection between the take-back obligation and the recovery and disposal of waste is instrumental for the environmentally sound disposal of waste. Nevertheless, the Regulation is not clear on this point, requiring CJEU’s interpretation, as discussed in the present case note.

Core Issue 

At issue in the present judgment was the interpretation of Article 24(2) of Regulation 1013/2006 (Waste Shipment Regulation). The article requires the notifier: de facto or de jure natural or legal person who carries out the shipment of waste and to whom the duty to notify is assigned, or, failing that, the competent authority of the country of dispatch, to take back waste that was illegally shipped. The Court had to clarify whether the take-back obligation also entails a duty to recovery and disposal of the waste in the context of two references for preliminary ruling from the Stockholm Court of Appeal.

The cases concerned two applicants (UQ and IC) who shipped, according to the competent authorities, waste and hazardous waste from Sweden to Cameroon and Congo via Belgium and Germany. The competent Swedish agency Naturvårdsverket thus declared that the applicants were conducting an illegal shipment of waste to third countries, in violation of Article 36 of the Waste Shipment Regulation. This triggered the take-back obligation under Article 24(2). The applicants requested Naturvårdsverket to take charge of the return process to Sweden but demanded that the content of the container be returned to them. Naturvårdsverket refused based on lack of sufficient evidence that they would carry out the recovery and disposal of the waste in an environmentally sound and acceptable manner. Thus, the agency disposed and recovered the waste, in agreement with the Belgian and German authorities, upon declaration that it was itself the notifier.

The applicants initiated proceedings against Naturvårdsverket. The court of first instance upheld the agency’s decision to take back the waste but annulled its decision regarding recovery and disposal, arguing that such action unduly restricted the applicants’ right to property without legal basis. Naturvårdsverket appealed the judgement before the Land and Environment Court of Appeal in Stockholm, which was uncertain whether the take-back obligation under Article 24(2) of the Regulation renders the competent authority the holder of the waste such that it may or must also recover or dispose of the waste, notwithstanding the opposition of the original sender. Additionally, if that is the correct reading of such obligation, the referring court wished to inquire on the compatibility with the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. 

The Court’s Decision

The Court starts with analysing the obligation under Article 24(2) of the Regulation, which is triggered in cases concerning illegal shipments of waste, classified as such under Article 36 of the Regulation, where the shipments were directed at third countries in the African continent, such as those at issue in the proceedings. It then proceeds to confirm the AG’s interpretation regarding the applicability the subparagraphs of Article 24(2), thereby concluding that the factual situation at issue concerns point (a) to (c), namely a situation where the waste has left the country of dispatch and requires “return” to that country. 

The Court proceeds with interpreting Article 24(2)(c) of the Regulation, deeming it the relevant in the dispute. Even though the subparagraph is silent as to whether the take-back necessarily involves recovery or disposal of the waste, taking into consideration the divergence between language versions, the Court interprets the provision in light of subparagraphs (d), together with reference to the purpose and general scheme of the Regulation. It deems the word “alternatively” in subparagraph (d) as implying that recovery and disposal must always take place, either after the take-back or in the absence thereof, where the latter proves to be impossible. Additionally, the Court recalls that the Regulation is designed to make the system of control of waste movements comply with the requirements of the Basel Convention, to which the Community became a party in 1993 by Decision 93/98. Article 9(2) of the Basel Convention refers to “waste being taken back or, if impractical, otherwise disposed of”. Thus, the Court suggest that the take-back obligation implies in itself the disposal of the waste concerned. Logically, disposal or recovery appear to be the aim following an illegal waste shipment.

Moreover, the Court interprets Article 24(2)(c) in line with the objectives of the Regulation, namely the protection of the environment and human health, as well as the environmentally sound management of waste. It follows that in the absence of a recovery and disposal obligation, linked with the take-back, there would be a risk for the waste to be illegally shipped over and over again, thereby undermining the objectives set out by the Regulation (and the Convention). Consequentially, the Court concludes that Article 24(2) (c) and (d) of the Waste Shipment Regulation are to be applied alternatively, point (d) being applied where (c) is not applicable; and that point (c) requires competent authorities of the dispatch country to recover or dispose of the taken back shipment, where they consider it to be illegal.

Regarding the compatibility of this interpretation with the applicants’ property right, the Court considers that, in light of the alternative nature of the intervention by the authorities under Article 24(2), giving the notifier precedence in respect to the take-back obligation, it cannot be held that it constitutes a deprivation of the applicants’ possession for the purposes of Article 17(1) of the Charter.  It can be argued, nonetheless, that it constitutes a limitation in the exercise of the right to property. However, pursuant to Article 52(1) of the Charter, the Court considers the restriction, the possibility of which is provided by law, to be justified by an objective of general interest (the protection of the environment and human health), proportionate and appropriate. Less restrictive measures such as entrusting the applicants (notifiers) to recover or dispose the waste themselves, would not have constituted an appropriate measure for the purpose of preserving the environment and human health, given the high risk of recurring illegal shipments taking place repeatedly. Finally, the Court notes that the protection of human health takes place over economic considerations, regardless of the potential, or even substantial, negative economic consequences on certain operators; this is further emphasised under Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. In the Court’s view, this is counterbalanced by the possibility, for the applicants, to make use of their rights to effective judicial review by appealing the decision to recover and dispose of the taken-back waste. 

Critical Reflection

The CJEU clarification on the matter is applauded, especially taking full regard of the Green Deal’s objectives and the second EU Circular Economy Action Plan. It can surely be seen as a win not only in light of EU circular economy, but for environmental and social sustainability at large. Through illegal waste dumping, the EU is constantly losing valuable resources, thus impairing its aim at achieving a circular economy. This ruling, albeit not departing substantially from the letter of the law, enhances legal certainty for competent national authorities and somewhat also raises the bar for operators. On the other hand, recycling comes with costs for all the parties involved. A relevant question would be whether third countries should join the EU circular economy.

The clarification should be applauded also considering the recent revision of the Regulation, which entered into force on 20 May 2024, to align with the Green Deal aim of stopping illegal EU waste exporting, which necessarily required revising and strengthening the rules on waste shipments, especially with due regard to illegal exports. Waste trafficking constitutes one of the most serious environmental crimes and poses huge problems for the EU. Illegal waste shipments are estimated to account for 15–30% of all waste transfers, with a potential annual value of up to €9.5 billion, creating serious risks to human health and the environment. In 2023, estimates indicate that 35.1 million tonnes of waste were illegally exported from the EU to non-EU countries. It is thus apparent that a more efficient and effective control was needed.

However, despite endowing the Commission and OLAF with stronger inspections and enforcement powers, the new Regulation still did not fully clarify the relationship between the taking-back obligation and its consequences. Article 25, which replaces the previous Article 24,  mandates that the dispatch authority, in case of an illegal shipment that can be imputed to the notifier, ensure that the waste is taken back by the notifier for disposal or recovery or, where impracticable (or if no notification was submitted in the first place) by a person deemed to be the notifier, by the competent authority of dispatch or by a natural or legal person on its behalf in order to arrange for its disposal or recovery. This phrasing shall be read in light of both the judgement in Naturvårdsverket and the environmental goals of the Regulation. The conclusion could, then, only be that the take-back obligation is inherently linked to the actor’s duty to either make arrangements or performing himself the disposal or recovery of the waste.

The establishment of this connecting obligation is pivotal for the environmentally sound management of waste at the EU level. In the absence of it, environmental resources would be lost due to the uncertainty or inability of the different operators with regards to their respective obligations. Moreover, there would be an incentive for economic operators to attempt recurring illegal shipments after the first take-back has taken place. Finally, this would require authorities to store the illegal shipment, thereby creating additional potential damage to the environment, instead of efficiently promoting a circular economy based on the safe recovery, recycling or reuse of materials.

Conclusion 

The judgment aligns with the environmental policy objectives of protecting the environment and human health, with the aim of achieving a high level of environmental protection, as prescribed by the Waste Management Regulation,Article 191 TFEU and 37 of the Charter. 

It contributes to the achievement of such objectives by reinforcing legal certainty and clarifying the consequences and the responsibilities of the take-back obligation. It thereby ensures that waste is managed in an environmentally sound way, thus preventing it from being unsustainably moved back and forth the globe or having it rotting away somewhere with adverse consequences for the environment and human health.

Reference list

Legislation

Regulation (EC) 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste [2006] OJ L 190/1 (Waste Shipment Regulation)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 [2024] OJ L 1157/1 (New Waste Shipment Regulation)

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/391

Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Community, of the Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (Basel Convention) [1993] OJ L 39/1

United Nations Environment Programme, Decision adopted by the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, Decision III/1 – Amendment to the Basel Convention (UNEP/CHW.3/35, 28 November 1995) (Ban Amendment)

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) [1950] 213 UNTS 222

Articles and blog posts

Garruto L I and Grassin S, ‘Fighting Waste Trafficking in the EU: A Stronger Role for the European Anti-Fraud Office’ (2024) 19(2) eucrim

Meyermans Spelmans E, ‘Taking Back Waste From an Illegal Shipment? One Shall Recover or Dispose as Well: Naturvårdsverket (C-221/24 and C-222/24)’ (EU Law Live, 4 November 2025) <https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-taking-back-waste-from-an-illegal-shipment-one-shall-recover-or-dispose-as-well-naturvardsverket-c-221-24-and-c-222-24/> accessed 7 March 2026

Nikander C, ‘The E-Waste Column no.172’ (LinkedIn, 2025) <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/christine-nikander_theewastecolumn-wasteshipments-cjeu-activity-7394328143978942465-X3fc> accessed 7 March 2026

Case law and opinions

Joined Cases C-221/24 and C-222/24 Naturvårdsverket v UQ and IC [2025] ECLI:EU:C:2025:818

Cases C-221/24 and C-222/24 Naturvårdsverket v UQ and IC [2025] ECLI:EU:C:2025:818, Opinion of AG Ćapeta

Case C-511/08 Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:189

Joined Cases C-379/08 and C-380/08 ERG and Others [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:127

Case C-254/23 INTERZERO and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C:2025:569