EU Regulatory Update: New Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.09.12
EU Member States have until February 14, 2014 to implement into their national laws the new WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU which was recently published in the Official Journal.
The new WEEE Directive introduces significant changes to Directive 2002/96/EC to improve collection, re-use and recycling of used electronic devices including:
- revising collection and recovery targets: from 2016, EU member states must collect annually 45% of the average weight of EEE placed on their national markets; from 2016, EU member states are to achieve a 65 % collection rate (with certain exceptions);
- widening the scope of EEE covered by the legislation;
- providing for collection at large retail shops of small WEEE free of charge to end-users; and
- introducing tighter controls on illegal shipments of e-waste from the EU.
In order to obtain assistance for compliance with WEEE legislation or any other EU regulatory issues, please contact the professional listed to the left, or your regular Crowell & Moring contact.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
