Judicial Responses in the Nineties to Dutch (and German) Shipments of Waste to Belgium in the Eighties
| Author | Luc Lavrysen |
| Published date | 01 September 1995 |
| Date | 01 September 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X9500200302 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Luc Lavrysen *
Judicial Responses in the Nineties to Dutch (and German)
Shipments
of
Waste to Belgium in the Eighties
§1. Introduction
1. Belgian criminal courts have recently convicted several persons of illegal waste trans-
actions. Some of these criminal cases are still pending before the Court of Appeal or
the Supreme Court. What these cases have in common is that they involved Dutch and
German shipments of waste to Belgium in the eighties. Belgium and Holland indeed
have quite a lot to do with each other as far as the environment is concerned. While
Holland is rightly extremely concerned about Belgian pollution of the transfrontier rivers
Meuse and Scheldt, and this has already led Dutch courts to passjudgment on Belgian
discharge practices, 1Belgium conversely is most concerned about the export of (part
of) the Dutch waste problem to Belgium. On the face of it, the laws of gravity operate
differently for waste water and for solid waste. While waste water moves downstream,
from Belgium to Holland, solid waste appears to move against the current, from Hol-
land to Belgium. Such at least was the case in the eighties. It subsequently turned out
that this phenomenon has far less to do with the laws of nature than with the laws of
*Legal Secretary at the Court of Arbitration, Brussels. Guest Professor of Environmental Law at the
University of Ghent. Acknowledgements to P. Morrens and N. De Sadeleer for their willingness to
provide most valuable comments on an earlier version of this contribution.
1. See for example: Court of The Hague, judgment of 19 November 1992, Tijdschrift voor Milieurecht
(1993),153; Kort Ceding (1993),15; Tifdschrift voorMilieuaansprakelijkheid (1993),131; President
Maastricht, judgment of 3 February 1993, Tijdschrift voor Milieurecht (1993), 155 with commentary
by M. Faure, 'Juridische prob1emen bij de bestrijding van grensoverschrijdende waterverontreiniging'
and J. Rutteman, 'De Nederlandse milieuorganisaties';
Milieu
en Recht (1993), 17; Tifdschrift voor
Milieuaansprakelijkheid (1993), 135 with commentary by De Vries; Court of 's-Hertogenbosch,
judgment of 31 May 1994, Tijdschrift voor Milieurecht (1994),280;
Milieu
en Recht Jurisprudentie
(1994/10),294 with commentary by Van Acht: Tifdschrift voorMilieuaansprakelijkheid (199512),60
and the commentaries by: J.M. van Dunne, 'Hard cases make bad law. De behoefte aan harde normen
op milieugebied. Het Hof Den Bosch in de Cockerill-Zaak (31 mei 1994)' and E.M. Berggren and
R.A. Taams, 'De Cockerill-zaak: de betekenis van een vergunning en een Europese Richtlijn voor
lozingen in de Maas', ibid., 41-45 and 46-52.
MJ 2 (1995) 219
IJudicial Responses in the Nineties
man, 2in other words, the environmental legislation in the two countries and the way
in which it had (not) been upheld.
The present article is structured as follows. First of all, I give an outline of the legisla-
tion and policy on waste in Belgium in the late seventies and early eighties against the
background of the Belgian institutional context (§ 2). Then I draw a picture of past
transfrontier shipments of waste and the response of the legislator and regulators to
these practices (§ 3). This response in
tum
sparked
off
all kinds of legal disputes, partly
in the light of Belgian constitutional law and European law (§ 4). Eventually there
recently followed some criminal convictions (§ 5). The article ends with some con-
clusions (§ 6).
§ 2. Legislation and Policy on Waste in the late Seventies/ early Eighties
A. BACKGROUND
2. In the early seventies, Belgium had no coherent legislation on waste, though certain
aspects
of
the waste issue were already regulated in a number
of
uncoordinated legal
provisions.
For
instance, since late 19703an operating licence issued by the Permanent
Deputation of the Province was required for the operation of depots and processing
plants for solid or liquid 'refuse' (domestic waste), in the framework of the regulation
on hazardous installations (the so-called ARAB or
RGPT
4) .
From
the autumn of
1977,5 such a licence was also required for the operation of depots and processing
plants for industrial waste. On the other hand, abuilding permit was required for the
storage of used vehicles and scrap. The discovery in October 1972
of
illegal dumps of
cyanogenic waste in a quarry in Hanneche and in Hasselt focused attention on the issue
of toxic waste. At the time it had already cost the Belgian state 29 million Belgian
francs to have the waste removed. Public opinion was roused and the government
decided to submit a bill on toxic waste. In October 1973, during the discussions on the
bill in Parliament, more toxic waste dumps were discovered in Bouillon and in Stavelot.
These events explain why Belgium enacted specific legislation on toxic waste 6even
before there were any relevant European directives; 7this legislation also provided for
2. Adapted from G. Vonkeman, Internationaal Milieubeleid. Wettenvan de aarde. Wetten voor de wereld,
Inaugural speech (Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, 1995).
3. Royal Decree of 11 September 1970.
4. ARAB is short for Algemeen Reglement op de Arbeidsbescherming in Dutch; in French it is RGPT
(Reglement General pour la Protection du Travail).
5. Royal Decree of 3 August 1977.
6. Act of 22 July 1974, Moniteur Beige, 1 March 1975.
7. W. Lambrechts, Milieurecht, (E. Story-Scientia, 1987), 236; P. Morrens, De
golf
en de zwemmer,
(Standaard, 1990), 31. '
220 MJ 2 (1995)
To continue reading
Request your trial