The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) is the legal basis for waste management in the EU,1 establishing the waste hierarchy of prevent, reuse, recycle/recover, disposal as the guiding principle of waste policy, as well as providing definitions for waste, recycling, and recovery; and requirements for waste management operations to be carried out without risk to human health and the environment.2 The Directive also establishes Member States’ responsibilities for waste management, by requiring them to prepare waste management plans, and one or more waste prevention programmes, and to manage waste in such a way that it does not endanger human health or harm the environment. In relation to Article 6, three primary issues are highlighted: (i) the cumulative conditions creating (unnecessary) bottlenecks; (ii) the fact that the conditions for End of Waste originally were intended to be operationalised through legislative acts, such as the regulation for iron scrap or glass cullet; and (iii) the fact that there is no clear indication of what level of proof the conditions stated in Article 6(1) requires and the ambiguity of its application implied by this in general.3

 

In Case C-254/19,12 the CJEU ruled that making a project’s approval last longer can be seen as a project under the Habitats Directive’s Article 6(3). People, firms, investors etc. need to check how it will affect protected areas. This ruling showed that if any project changes could harm a protected site, they need to be checked. This ensures that the directive does what it is supposed to do. The Birds Directive aims at protecting wild birds that live in the EU; also stipulates that certain areas should be labelled as Special Protection Areas (abbr. SPAs) for these birds.13 In particular, the following are banned: (i) deliberate destruction or capture of wild birds; (ii) deliberate damage to nests and eggs; (iii) taking or keeping eggs; (iv) deliberate disturbance which puts conservation at risk; and (v) keeping and hunting birds.. In the Case C-900/19,14 the CJEU decided that just because a bird capture method is traditional, it does not justify violating rules banning the capturing of protected bird species. Member States have to show that they have reviewed at all other options and are unable to find an alternative solution. They are also required to provide a sound explanation to support their the decision, using the best relevant scientific knowledge. This decision ensures that any exceptions are made by still following the rules, which helps guarantee the safety of wild birds.