Companies from Germany and Italy have brought three cases before the General Court of the European Union, seeking the annulment of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) "in its entirety", arguing that the regulation’s legal basis is "incorrect" and violates the EU principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
All three filings allege the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers based the PPWR – particularly Article 25(1) – on an "incorrect legal basis". They argue the regulation was improperly grounded in the internal market framework, despite its clear environmental objectives, which they claim would have required the use of the EU’s environmental legal basis.
The internal market framework allows for majority voting, which makes it easier to pass laws, whereas environmental policy often requires unanimity in the Council for certain measures.
The companies want the entire regulation annulled, but each case puts forward an alternative resolution, such as voiding specific articles.
Single-use plastic
In its 13 April filing, Italian plastic fabrication company ILIP takes issue with Article 25, which restricts the use of certain packaging formats, as outlined in Annex V, from 1 January 2030. The restrictions primarily target single-use plastic packaging used, for example, for unprocessed fresh fruit and vegetables, food items in the hotel, restaurant, catering and accommodation sectors, and very lightweight plastic carrier bags.
ILIP claims that the PPWR’s lack of explanation for banning these packaging types "violates" the obligation for the legislator to state a reason for the ban as outlined under Article 296(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU).
If the entire article cannot be annulled, ILIP said it wants single-use plastic packaging and its use for unprocessed fresh fruit and vegetables to be removed from its scope.
Additionally, ILIP said Article 25 violates:
- the principle of equal treatment, by discriminating against suppliers and manufacturers of single-use plastic packaging compared to suppliers and manufacturers of packaging made of other materials; and
- the principle of proportionality, by banning certain single-use plastic packaging, even though such a ban "is not suitable" for achieving the objective of the regulation. ILIP did not expand on why it finds the ban unsuitable.
Reuse targets
In a separate legal filing on the same day, German packaging systems company Schütz, along with seven other companies, said Article 29 – relating to reuse targets – should be annulled.
The companies argue that Article 29(2) is "disproportionate", as it considers intermediate bulk containers to be single-use packaging when used as transport or sales packaging, despite often being used multiple times. Article 29 requires companies using transport or sales packaging for transporting products to ensure the material is "reusable within a reuse system" from 1 January 2030.
This is "not appropriate for achieving the objective pursued by the provision and, moreover, less onerous means are available", the filing said, but it did not elucidate on other means.
The companies would like to see these provisions within the article annulled or at least remove the packaging category of intermediate bulk containers from its scope.
Plastic fabrication company Ecoplastica, in its 14 April filing, raised similar issues with Article 29 but related to plastic crates. It added that the exemption for cardboard boxes from the reuse targets violates the principle of equal treatment by discriminating against suppliers of single-use plastic crates. At the least, it would like to see plastic crates removed from its scope.
The European Parliament and the Council now have two months to present a defence from the date the cases were published in the Official Journal, which was 6 June for all three cases.
PACKAGING PLUS: This article is part of a new, weekly news service from the Chemical Watch News & Insight team covering packaging regulations around the world. Click here for more details about this new content.