Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

2 July 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Waste – Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 – Article 12(1)(a) – Directive 2008/98/EC – Shipment – Objections to shipments of waste destined for recovery – Power of the competent authority of the Member State of destination to raise objections to the shipment – Grounds – Non-compliance with national waste management plans )

In Case C‑447/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest-Capital Regional Court, Hungary), made by decision of 24 June 2025, received at the Court on 8 July 2025, in the proceedings

Surovina RECE d.o.o.

Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of I. Ziemele, President of the Chamber, S. Gervasoni (Rapporteur) and M. Bošnjak, Judges,

Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Surovina RECE d.o.o., by Z. Faludi, ügyvéd,

– Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal, by A. Bartus, Z. Szurovecz and R. Tarnai, acting as Agents,

– the Hungarian Government, by Zs. Biró-Tóth and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents,

– the Austrian Government, by J. Schmoll and P. Thalmann, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by I. Melo Sampaio, D. Milanowska and Zs. Teleki, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1), read in combination with recital 39 and Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Surovina RECE d.o.o., a Slovenian company, and Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal (Office of the regional government of Pest, Hungary) (‘the Hungarian authority’) concerning a decision by which that authority raised objections to shipments of waste from Slovenia to Hungary which Surovina RECE intended to carry out.

Legal context

European Union law

Regulation No 1013/2006

3 Article 12 of Regulation No 1013/2006, entitled ‘Objections to shipments of waste destined for recovery’, provides in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Where a notification is submitted regarding a planned shipment of waste destined for recovery, the competent authorities of destination and dispatch may, within 30 days following the date of transmission of the acknowledgement of the competent authority of destination in accordance with Article 8, raise reasoned objections based on one or more of the following grounds and in accordance with the Treaty:

(a) that the planned shipment or recovery would not be in accordance with Directive 2006/12/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9)], in particular Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10 thereof; or

(b) that the planned shipment or recovery would not be in accordance with national legislation relating to environmental protection, public order, public safety or health protection concerning actions taking place in the objecting country; or

…’

Directives 2006/12/EC and 2008/98

4 Directive 2006/12/EC was repealed, with effect from 12 December 2010, by Directive 2008/98, which provides that references to Directive 2006/12 are to be construed as references to Directive 2008/98.

5 Article 7(4) of Directive 2006/12 provides:

‘Member States may take the measures necessary to prevent movements of waste which do not comply with their waste management plans. They shall inform the [European] Commission and the Member States of any such measures.’

6 Recital 39 of Directive 2008/98 states:

‘According to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, Member States may take the measures necessary to prevent shipments of waste which are not in accordance with their waste management plans. By way of derogation from that Regulation, Member States should be allowed to limit incoming shipments to incinerators classified as recovery, where it has been established that national waste would have to be disposed of or that waste would have to be treated in a way that is not consistent with their waste management plans. It is recognised that certain Member States may not be able to provide a network comprising the full range of final recovery facilities within their territory.’

7 Article 16 of that directive, entitled ‘Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity’, provides, in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘By way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, Member States may, in order to protect their network, limit incoming shipments of waste destined to incinerators that are classified as recovery, where it has been established that such shipments would result in national waste having to be disposed of or waste having to be treated in a way that is not consistent with their waste management plans. Member States shall notify the Commission of any such decision. …’

8 Under Article 28 of Directive 2008/98, entitled ‘Waste management plans’:

‘1. Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities establish, in accordance with Articles 1, 4, 13 and 16, one or more waste management plans.

Those plans shall, alone or in combination, cover the entire geographical territory of the Member State concerned.

2. The waste management plans shall set out an analysis of the current waste management situation in the geographical entity concerned, as well as the measures to be taken to improve environmentally sound preparing for re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal of waste and an evaluation of how the plan will support the implementation of the objectives and provisions of this Directive.

3. The waste management plans shall contain …

…

4. The waste management plan may contain …

…

5. Waste management plans shall conform to …’

9 According to the correlation table between the provisions of Directive 2006/12 and those of Directive 2008/98, set out in Annex V to Directive 2008/98, Article 28 of Directive 2008/98 corresponds to Article 7 of Directive 2006/12.

Hungarian law

10 The Hungarian legislature adopted the a hulladékról szóló 2012. évi CLXXXV. törvény (Law No CLXXXV of 2012 on waste) (Magyar Közlöny 2012/160) in order to transpose Directive 2008/98 into national law.

11 Under Paragraph 20(1) of that law, in the version applicable to the main proceedings:

‘The waste management authority shall oppose the import, export or transit of waste for recovery or disposal under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.’

12 Paragraph 21(1) of that law, in the same version, provides:

‘In addition to the cases referred to in Paragraph 20 of this Law, the waste management authority shall also object to the import, export or transit of waste to Hungary where:

…

b) by reason of the waste to be imported into Hungary, waste produced in the territory of Hungary would be processed in a manner not compatible with the waste management plans.’

13 The 1704/2021. (X. 6.) Korm. határozat a 2021-2027 közötti időszakra szóló Országos Hulladékgazdálkodási Tervről (Government Decision No 1704 on the national waste management plan for the period 2021-2027) of 6 October 2021 (Magyar Közlöny 2021/184) provided for the adoption of a national waste management plan. According to that plan, the import of refuse-derived fuel of foreign origin must not jeopardise the recovery of national refuse-derived fuel.

The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

14 Surovina RECE submitted to the competent Slovenian authority a request for prior authorisation for 1 100 shipments, from Slovenia, the Member State of dispatch, to Hungary, the Member State of destination, of waste classified as ‘refuse-derived fuel’, representing a total of 25 000 tonnes of waste. It stated that that waste was intended for the production, by a company established in Hungary, of ‘solid recovered fuel’. That request was forwarded to the Hungarian authority, in its capacity as the competent authority of the Member State of destination.

15 By decision of 15 July 2024, the Hungarian authority objected to the shipments of that waste. It relied, in that regard, on Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1013/2006 and on Directives 2006/12 and 2008/98. According to the Hungarian authority, those shipments did not comply with the national waste management plan for the period 2021-2027, a planning instrument which was made mandatory by Directive 2008/98, under which the import of fuels of foreign origin was not to jeopardise the recovery of fuel of Hungarian origin. According to the information available to that authority, the quantity of refuse-derived fuels imported into Hungary in recent years has increased in such a way that it jeopardised the recovery of waste produced in Hungary.

16 Surovina RECE brought an action before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest-Capital Regional Court, Hungary), which is the referring court, seeking the annulment of that decision. It argued that the Hungarian authority could not raise objections to the shipments concerned on the basis of Regulation No 1013/2006 and Directives 2006/12 and 2008/98, since Directive 2008/98, which replaced Directive 2006/12, authorises such objections only in respect of shipments of waste destined for incinerators, which is not the case with the waste at issue in the main proceedings.

17 The Hungarian authority contended that the action should be dismissed on the ground that it had not raised any objections on the basis of Directive 2008/98 and that it had relied solely on Regulation No 1013/2006 and on the Hungarian legislation implementing it.

18 The referring court is uncertain as to the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, since that provision continues to refer to Directive 2006/12 and, in particular, to Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10 thereof. Article 7(4) of that directive made it possible to prevent shipments of waste which did not comply with national waste management plans, with the result that the authorities of the Member State of destination could, by applying Article 12(1)(a) of that regulation in conjunction with Article 7(4) of that directive, raise objections to a shipment of waste by relying on such plans. That court notes that Directive 2008/98, which replaces Directive 2006/12, does not, however, contain a provision equivalent to Article 7(4). It then asks whether, by applying Article 12(1)(a) in conjunction with Directive 2008/98, an authority of the Member State of destination has the option of objecting to a shipment of waste for recovery which is not in accordance with its waste management plan. It points out, in that regard, that Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98, which allows such authorities to limit, in order to protect their network, imports of waste destined to incinerators that are classified as recovery, refers to a situation different from that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the waste concerned is not destined to be incinerated. Lastly, it asks whether the right to object to a shipment of waste which does not comply with a national waste management plan does not follow from recital 39 of that directive, which sets out, in general terms, the possibility for Member States to ‘take the measures necessary’ to prevent any shipment of that nature. The referring court notes that, although recitals of an act have no normative value, that act may be interpreted in the light of them. It states, furthermore, that its questions do not concern the interpretation of Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006.

19 In those circumstances, the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest-Capital Regional Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation [No 1013/2006], in conjunction with recital 39 and Article 16(1) of Directive [2008/98], be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of destination may raise objections to the shipment of waste from a different Member State, the Member State of dispatch, where that waste is not destined for incinerators but is destined for recovery, on the basis that the intended shipment would not comply with the waste management plan of the Member State of destination?’

Consideration of the question referred

20 It should be borne in mind that, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and will enable the national court to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it (judgment of 30 April 2026, Lidl Italia (Unfair commercial practices concerning food), C‑301/25, EU:C:2026:357, paragraph 25).

21 Furthermore, in the context of that procedure, based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court, any assessment of the facts of the case is a matter for the national court, which must determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court, whilst the Court is empowered to give rulings on the interpretation or the validity of an EU provision only on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it. Therefore, it is for the national court to check, where appropriate, the accuracy of the facts relevant to the resolution of the dispute before it (judgment of 30 May 2018, Dell’Acqua, C‑370/16, EU:C:2018:344, paragraphs 31 and 32).

22 In the present case, it should be noted that while Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98 – which the referring court mentions in its question – allows Member States to limit, on the basis of their national waste management plans, incoming shipments of waste in order to protect their waste treatment network, it refers only to ‘waste destined to incinerators that are classified as recovery [operations]’.

23 The Commission submits, in its observations, that the waste at issue in the main proceedings, that is to say, ‘refuse-derived fuel’, is intended to be converted, through incineration, into ‘solid recovered fuels’, a process which constitutes a recovery operation. Nevertheless, the assessment of the facts, including, in the present case, the destination of the waste, is a matter for the national court, as is apparent from paragraph 21 above. The referring court refers, in its question, to waste destined for recovery without incineration. The Hungarian authority also states that it opposed the shipment of the waste at issue without relying on Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98. Consequently, the interpretation of the latter provision does not appear to be relevant for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings.

24 Therefore, it must be held that, by its question, the referring court asks whether Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, read in the light of recital 39 of Directive 2008/98, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of destination may raise objections to the shipment of waste from another Member State, destined for recovery without being incinerated, on the ground that that shipment would not comply with the waste management plan of the Member State of destination.

25 According to settled case-law, the interpretation of provisions of EU law requires account to be taken not only of their wording, but also of their context and the objectives pursued by the legislation of which they form part (judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 29 July 2024, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others, C‑623/22, EU:C:2024:639, paragraph 94). The legislative history of a provision of EU law may also reveal elements that are relevant to its interpretation (judgment of 8 May 2025, Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen and Sogent, C‑236/24, EU:C:2025:321, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

26 First, it is apparent from the wording of Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006 that Member States may raise reasoned objections to a planned shipment of waste destined for recovery where the planned shipment or recovery would not be in accordance with Directive 2006/12. That provision mentions, on a non-exhaustive basis, as shown by the use of the term ‘in particular’, certain articles of that directive. Since Directive 2008/98 replaced, as from 12 December 2010, Directive 2006/12, the references to the latter are to be construed as references to Directive 2008/98 and are to be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex V to Directive 2008/98. According to that correlation table, the reference in Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006 to Article 7 of Directive 2006/12 must be understood as referring now to Article 28 of Directive 2008/98, a provision which governs the establishment, by the Member States, of waste management plans.

27 It thus follows from the wording of Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006 that the competent authorities of destination and dispatch may object to a shipment of waste which is not in accordance with Directive 2008/98 and, in particular, Article 28 thereof. That is the case where the shipment concerned does not comply with one or more waste management plans adopted in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98.

28 Second, that interpretation is supported by the context of Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006. It is supported, in particular, by recital 39 of Directive 2008/98, also cited by the referring court in its question, which states that, ‘according to [Regulation No 1013/2006], Member States may take the measures necessary to prevent shipments of waste which are not in accordance with their waste management plans.’ While that recital has no binding legal force, it may nevertheless provide elements of interpretation which are likely to shed light on the intention of the author of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 November 2021, Regione Veneto (Shipment of mixed municipal waste), C‑315/20, EU:C:2021:912, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

29 It may also be noted that, prior to Directive 2008/98, Article 7(4) of Directive 2006/12, and also Article 7(3) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), provided, in similar terms, that ‘Member States may take the measures necessary to prevent movements of waste which do not comply with their waste management plans.’

30 In that regard, an analysis of the legislative history of Directive 2008/98 does not show any indication that the EU legislature intended to remove, in that directive, the ground of objection to the shipment of waste based on non-compliance with national waste management plans.

31 Furthermore, Article 12(1)(b) of 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 (OJ L, 2024/1157), applicable from 21 May 2026, expressly provides that the competent authorities of the Member States may raise objections to shipments of waste for recovery where ‘the waste concerned will not be treated in accordance with waste management plans or waste prevention programmes drawn up by the countries of dispatch or destination, respectively, pursuant to Articles 28 and 29 of Directive 2008/98/EC’.

32 It follows that Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98, can be interpreted only as allowing Member States to take the measures necessary to prevent movements of waste which are not in accordance with their management plans.

33 Third, the interpretation set out in paragraph 27 above is also supported by the objectives pursued by Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006 and the legislation on waste of which that provision forms part.

34 It should be borne in mind that that regulation seeks to establish a harmonised set of procedures whereby movements of waste can be limited in order to ensure the protection of the environment (judgments of 16 December 2004, EU-Wood-Trading, C‑277/02, EU:C:2004:810, paragraph 34, and of 12 December 2013, Ragn-Sells, C‑292/12, EU:C:2013:820, paragraph 49).

35 It should also be borne in mind that the national waste management plans provided for in Article 28 of Directive 2008/98 include an analysis of the current waste management situation in the geographical entity concerned, in particular with regard to waste generation and waste streams and existing disposal and recovery installations. Those plans must also determine the measures necessary to ensure, under environmentally sound conditions, the preparation of waste for re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal and evaluate how those plans will support the implementation of the objectives and provisions of that directive. Under Article 28(1) of that directive, those plans must also comply with the waste hierarchy, laid down in Article 4 thereof, under which recovery is to be preferred to disposal, and ensure the protection of the environment, as stated in Article 13 of that directive.

36 In the present case, the Hungarian waste management plan for the period 2021-2027 indicates the waste treatment capacities available in Hungary, including the capacity to recover the secondary fuels at issue in the main proceedings. In view of those capacities and the increase in imports of those secondary fuels, which may have led to the disposal of national waste of the same kind in landfills, that plan provides that such imports must not jeopardise the recovery of national waste. According to the Hungarian authority which objected to the shipment of the waste at issue, that plan was communicated to the Commission.

37 The failure to implement the measures provided for in the Hungarian plan is liable to undermine the objective of favouring the recovery of national waste over its disposal, in accordance with the waste hierarchy set out in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98. It would also deprive national waste management plans of their effectiveness, whereas they are the main instrument for implementing EU waste legislation in the Member States.

38 Furthermore, since Member States are required, under Article 33(1) of Directive 2008/98, to inform the Commission of their waste management plans, the Commission is in a position to determine whether those plans comply with the objectives and provisions of the EU legislation on waste (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 May 2000, Sydhavnens Sten & Grus, C‑209/98, EU:C:2000:279, paragraph 99), a compliance obligation which is, moreover, laid down in Article 28 of that directive. It is in any event for the national courts to check the compliance of those plans with EU law, if necessary, following a reference for a preliminary ruling. It should also be stated, in order to give a useful answer to the referring court, that it will also be for that court to verify that, in accordance with the case-law (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 December 2013, Ragn-Sells, C‑292/12, EU:C:2013:820, paragraph 64), objections based on the national waste management plan are based on specific grounds particular to each planned shipment or to each set of shipments with the same characteristics.

39 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, read in the light of recital 39 of Directive 2008/98, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of destination may raise objections to the shipment of waste from another Member State, destined for recovery without being incinerated, on the ground that that shipment would not comply with the waste management plan of the Member State of destination, where that plan has been established in accordance with Article 28 of that directive.

Costs

40 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in the light of recital 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of destination may raise objections to the shipment of waste from another Member State, destined for recovery without being incinerated, on the ground that that shipment would not comply with the waste management plan of the Member State of destination, where that plan has been established in accordance with Article 28 of that directive.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: Hungarian.