Rejected consumer goods – are they “waste”?

4 August 2019 by

As invidual consumers we are constantly exhorted to separate the goods and substances we want to get rid of into “rubbish” destined for landfill or items for recycling. Clearly we have to pay attention to this to avoid material going into landfill that could be recycled or turned into energy, but not only that; we need to be aware of the cost of goods being manufactured that never see the light of day at all, because by virtue of being mixed by less pristine goods, they count as waste, with all the consequences that entails.

In a recent ruling the CJEU considered the question of retail goods that have been returned by consumers or become redundant in the seller’s product range: Openbaar Ministerie v Tronex BV C-624/17.

The case should raise alarm bells. When we return an item against a refund of the purchase price we do not think we are discarding it. The CJEU ruling turned on the application of Article 3(1) of the Waste Directive 2008/98/EC, which provides that

‘“waste” means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard’.

Individual consumers are clearly not liable under waste legislation for returning goods. But the concept of waste forms the basis of a criminal penalty for possession in EU member states.  So once those items reach the retailer the situation changes, because it may or may not become “waste” in their hands.

There is an excellent report of this judgment in the latest CMS newsletter. As the article points out, this definition “strongly divides opinion”. Carnwath LJ put this problem in a nutshell in 2007 when he observed that “a search for logical coherence in the ECJ case law on [this] point [is] probably doomed to failure.” (OSS Group Ltd v Environment Agency [2007] EWCA Civ 611.)

The subjective “intention to discard” could be a useful guide to the status of material in the hands of the original producer but it was hard to apply to the status of material in the hands of someone who bought it for recycling or reprocessing, or who put it to some valuable use. In no ordinary sense was such a person ‘discarding’ or getting rid of the material, and his intention was precisely the opposite.

Unfortunately, the ECJ continued to insist that the “discarding” test remained applicable, even when the “holder” was an end-user whose only subjective intention was to use, not to get rid of, the materials.

Subsequent cases have revealed a similar inclination by the ECJ to regard substances as “waste” until they have actually been recycled into usable products or incinerated, producing energy. This applies even if the party holding the waste has bought it for recycling or reprocessing or who puts it to some other valuable use. As Carnwath LJ said,

In no ordinary sense is such a person “discarding” or “getting rid of” the material. His intention is precisely the opposite.

The instant case concerned the EU Waste Shipments Regulation No 1013/2006 and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive 2012/19/EU (“WEEE Directive”).

The facts, briefly, are as follows. Tronex BV operates a wholesale residual stock business. Five years ago it was found to be planning a consignment of electrical equipment which it had bought from retailers and wholesalers, to be shipped in a container to a third party in Tanzania. The consignment consisted of small domestic appliances such as kettles which had been returned by consumers under a product guarantee, on the one hand, and goods which, because of a change to the product range, for example, were or could no longer be sold (normally), on the other. A number of the boxes in which the appliances were packaged carried a notice stating their defects. The glass in some of the glass kettles was damaged. The shipment was to take place without notification or consent in accordance with the Waste Shipment Regulation.

The Dutch court referred the question to the CJEU of whether appliances which had a value to the holder but which were a burden to retailers who would rather get rid of them were “waste”. The main issue before the Luxembourg Court was whether Tronex could be penalised for having prepared an illegal shipment of waste.

The test for the relevant waste legislation is whether the object or substance in question is no longer of any use to its holder and therefore constitutes a burden which the holder will seek to discard. If that is the case, there is a risk that the holder will dispose of the object or substance in his possession in a way capable of causing harm to the environment, in particular by surrendering possession of it, dumping it or disposing of it in an uncontrolled manner. As AG Kolkott noted in her Opinion, this could not be assumed to be the case here, since Tronex sold the electrical appliances and thus hoped to make some financial gain from their supply.

But that is not the end of the matter. Although it is in principle for domestic courts to decide on the evidence whether the holder of a substance or article intends to discard it, and hence whether it is waste, this is not a subjective question. It must be interpreted with due regard for the aim pursued by recital 6 of the Waste Directive, which is to minimise the negative effects of the generation and management of waste on human health and the environment.

So although the appliances had a value to Tronex, it was significant that they were otherwise a burden to retailers which would rather just get rid of them.

The CJEU’s judgment

The Court ruled that “the shipment to a third country of a consignment of electrical and electronic appliances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which had been initially intended for retail sale but which were returned by the consumer or which, for various reasons, were sent back by the retailer to the supplier, [should] be regarded as a “shipment of waste” within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the [Transfrontier Shipments of Waste Regulation], read in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof and Article 3(1) of the [Waste Framework Directive],

where that consignment contains appliances the good working condition of which has not been previously ascertained or which are not adequately protected from transport damage. Such goods which have become redundant in the Seller’s product range and which are in their unopened original packaging, on the other hand, must not, without indications to the contrary, be regarded as waste.

The concept of ‘waste’, continued the Court, must not be understood as excluding substances and objects which have a commercial value and which are capable of economic reutilisation (judgment of 12 December 2013, Shell Nederland, C‑241/12 and C‑242/12).

As the CMS article points out, most of the guidance in this ruling is already very well known. “However one particular part of the ruling is written in such a way that it may cause confusion, and maybe even consternation for regulators.” The Court commented for instance:

  • Articles can be waste even if they have a residual value, and the electrical appliances in question were clearly an example of this, as both Tronex and Tronex’s customer paid money for them.
  • The fact that appliances which are no longer fit for the purpose originally intended by the earlier holders (the retailers, wholesalers etc.), or cannot be used for the original purpose without repair, is a factor to consider and indicates a waste status. The WEEE Directive broadly refers to these as features that might distinguish a waste electrical product from an electrical product.
  • The packaging of the appliances can be taken into account. In this instance, some appliances were in their original packaging and others had no packaging at all. Again, the WEEE Directive is relevant here, as it provides that packaging (or absence of packaging) can be an indicator whether such appliance could be waste. 
  • The defective/non-defective nature of appliances, whether they can be sold without being repaired and whether their reuse is certain, are also factors.
  • How the consignor and consignee decide to describe the consignment may be a factor but of course not determinatively so.

The confusion consequent on these criteria is obvious. The Dutch company’s consignment was a mixed bag; it was not a homogenous composition of either waste or non-waste appliances. As CMS observes,

Our experience is that in such circumstances, regulators will not see it as their duty to try and separate different fractions of a single consignment and regulate in respect only of the waste fraction. Instead they are more likely to regard the whole consignment as a consignment of waste (i.e. mix waste with non-waste and the resultant whole is likely to be waste). In addition to the above ruling, this is what the ECJ stated at paragraph 31 of its judgment: “… the mere fact that the seller and the buyer have categorised the sale as being that of a consignment and that that consignment contains appliances which must be regarded as waste does not mean that all the appliances contained in that consignment constitute waste”.

We shall have to see how the Dutch appeal court, and more widely the regulators and the waste management sector react to this ECJ ruling. Certainly for those countries which operate a duty of care in respect of waste, this aspect of the ECJ ruling may well cause confusion rather than provide clarity.

Any consumer product organisation that proposes to contract with a party in terms of returned products will need to be alert to that party’s potential management of these products to avoid prosecution under waste law provisions.

This is a hard nut to crack but if left to abstract referrals to the CJEU we are not going to make any further headway on the problem of waste. How each country goes about waste collection is of course a matter for sovereign governments, but it should not be beyond the wit of policy makers to sort out the most efficient way to prevent overcautious application of EU legislation and the unnecessary costs involved.

1 comment;


  1. spamletblog says:

    I can see this question of mixture of functioning and non-functioning items resulting in the whole lot being called ‘waste’ will discourage those involved in refurbishing, and typical ‘breaker yard’ activities, where, typically, repaired of even wholly ‘new’ items can be made from the good parts of damaged ones.

    Maybe ‘Brexit’ will prove a great relief to UK recycling!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: