EFTA Court asked whether RDF tender clarification breaches waste and procurement law

The District Court of Reykjavik (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) has asked the EFTA Court for an advisory opinion on whether a clarification of a tender criterion concerning the export and import of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) breaches EU waste-shipment and public-procurement rules. The request, dated 30 March 2026 and received at the Court Registry the same day, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 20 August 2026 under reference C/2026/4511.

The case, registered as Case E-6/26, pits the Icelandic waste company Íslenska gámafélagið ehf. against the municipal waste operator Sorpa bs. The dispute turns on a clarification issued by the defendant in Annex 4 of the tender documents on 9 May 2023, which explained the selection criterion in Article 0.2.17 of the specifications.

The contested clarification

The clarification states that the qualification requirement “refers to experience in export/import e.g., that the bidder has cross border experience in transporting RDF for energy recovery e.g., exporting and/or importing RDF between countries.” The referring court notes that this clarification effectively treats the word “export” (útflutningur) as meaning the same as “import” (innflutningur).

The national court asks whether that reading conflicts with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, in particular Articles 2(30) and 2(31), or with Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, notably the procurement principles set out in its Article 18, or with other provisions of EEA law.

Five questions referred

The request puts five questions to the EFTA Court:

• Whether the clarification of the word “export” conflicts with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 or Directive 2014/24/EU and the principles of procurement in Article 18.
• Whether the defendant exceeded what was permissible in the conduct of the procurement procedure by providing that clarification.
• Whether Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 requires that, for consent to a waste shipment, the notifier be subject to the jurisdiction of the EEA State from which the shipment originated.
• Whether the notifier and the carrier of the waste must be the same entity.
• Whether the consignee of waste cannot be the notifier, and cannot obtain consent for a transboundary shipment without the involvement of the exporter who is the notifier.

Why it matters

The advisory opinion will clarify how the EEA’s waste-shipment regime interacts with public-procurement rules when contracting authorities define experience criteria for cross-border waste transport. The ruling will be of direct relevance to waste operators and contracting authorities across the EEA, setting the boundaries for how tender criteria may be clarified without distorting competition or circumventing the consent requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.

Source: Official Journal of the European Union, C/2026/4511, 20 August 2026, C series (official reference: C/2026/4511).