In the present case, waste was reprocessed to make a fuel (Cemfuel) for use by the cement industry. The applicant argued that the fuel was not waste for the purposes of the Council Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste because it was the equivalent of a raw material, whereas the Agency argued that the burning of the fuel represented part of the recovery process. The judge held that the fuel remained waste on grounds that reflected the two arguments used by the European Court of Justice in the ARCO judgment. First, the act of burning was seen as a clear act of discarding. The second ground was the need to ensure the effectiveness of the Directive. On this point, the judge suggested that 'the production process used for Cemfuel is not sufficient to cause its constituent parts to cease to be waste' in that they still existed even though in a different form. It was decided that Cemfuel was hazardous waste and thus was subject to the requirements of Council Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste. He also pointed out that Cemfuel was potentially harmful to the environment, a fact which meant that 'the regulation of the holding and use' of Cemfuel under the Directive was 'appropriate', and that to hold otherwise would undermine the effectiveness of the Directive.