Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3074

10.6.2025

(Case T-248/25)

(C/2025/3074)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dynaplast (Saint-Florentin, France), Nespak SpA società generale per l’imballaggio (Massa Lombarda, Italy), Veripack Embalajes, SL (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: R. van der Hout, V. Lemonnier, C. Wagner and S. Walter, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—Annul Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) (‘PPWR’), in its entirety;

—In the alternative, annul Article 25 and Annex V of the PPWR;

—In the alternative, annul Article 25(1) in conjunction with Annex V No. 2 of the PPWR, insofar as it prohibits the placing on the market of the packaging formats and use cases mentioned therein, and

—Order the defendants to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Union legislator has based the PPWR, in particular Article 25(1) in conjunction with Annex V of the PPWR, on an incorrect legal basis by selecting the internal market legal basis (Article 114 TFEU) instead of on the environmental legal basis of Article 192 TFEU, although the regulation and in particular Article 25(1) thereof obviously has an environmental focus.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that Article 25(1) in conjunction with Annex V of the PPWR violates the principle of equal treatment by discriminating against suppliers (such as the applicants) and manufacturers (such as the applicants’ customers) of the single-use plastic packaging covered by the regulation, as compared to suppliers and manufacturers who use packaging made of other materials for the uses concerned.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that Article 25(1) in conjunction with Annex V No. 2 of the PPWR violates the obligation to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU, as the PPWR and the legislative documents do not contain any reasons for this ban, although it is of considerable importance and contrary to the regulatory objectives of the PPWR.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 25(1) in conjunction with Annex V No. 2 of the PPWR violates the principle of proportionality by prohibiting the placing on the market of certain single-use plastic packaging, although this is not suitable for achieving the objective of the regulation.

—

(1) OJ L, 2025/40.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3074/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—