Judge retires to consider commingling JR verdict

A verdict on the governments interpretation of the Waste Framework Directive on commingled recycling collections is due within weeks, after the Judicial Review hearing at Cardiff Administrative Court ended yesterday.

The hearing had been scheduled to last four days but ended after only two after both sides had presented their cases to the judge.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom heard representations from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Welsh Government, the claimants, six members of the Campaign for Real Recycling, and the Environmental Services Association and Local Government Association.

The judge is set to produce a ruling on the dispute, which may determine the future of commingled recycling collections. It is thought that it could be up to a month before a ruling is made.

The case could also be referred to the European Courts of Justice, although the judge said he would use his discretion if he decides to send the case to Europe, as it would most likely prolong the outcome of the case until after the 2015 date when the requirements for separate collection come into force.

In the afternoon session on Monday, the claimants outlined their case, arguing that the Revised Waste Framework Directive had been transposed into UK law incorrectly. Their argument focused in particular on the governments interpretation of when it is technically, environmentally and economically practical to permit commingled collections (see letsrecycle.com story).

Interpretation

Responding on behalf of Defra and the Welsh Government yesterday, Clive Lewis QC, said that the regulations accurately reflected the provisions of the Directive. He added that under the governments interpretation of the Directive, separate collections would only be necessary if commingled collection can not produce high enough quality recycling.

He also pointed to the Directives requirement for Member States to reach a 50% reuse and recycling rate by 2020, which he claimed may not be possible unless commingled collections are allowed, as they tend to capture greater volumes of material.

Quality

Meanwhile, Mr Lewis argued that the Directive was set up with the purpose of promoting high quality recycling among Member States, rather than dictating the method to do so, which would breach the European Unions principle of proportionality.

In addition he added that the case should not be a matter for the courts in 2013, adding that the Environment Agency would have the power to take action if local authorities are found not to be compliant with the terms of the Directive after 2015.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom also questioned the assertion of the Member States should be responsible for deciding whether commingled collections are TEEP, rather than individual local authorities.

The case was brought to the courts by six CRR members: Ardagh Glass Ltd, DS Smith Paper Ltd, Novelis UK Ltd, Palm Recycling Ltd, Smurfitt Kappa Ltd and UK Recyclate Ltd.