Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/2903

(Case T-197/25)

(C/2025/2903)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicants: Česká asociace odpadového hospodářství, z.s. (Prague, Czech Republic), Sdružení komunálních služeb České republiky, z.s. (Prague), OZO Ostrava s.r.o. (Ostrava, Czech Republic), Marius Pedersen a.s. (Hradec Králové, Czech Republic), AVE CZ odpadové hospodářství s.r.o. (Prague) (represented by: K. Oberfalcerová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—find Article 50(1) to (7) and (9) to (12) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) to be null and void;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that Regulation 2025/40 is discriminatory

—Regulation 2025/40 creates unequal conditions on the recycling market since it favours producers of packaging and producer responsibility organisations to the detriment of the applicants and other entities concerned. The applicants are deprived of access to vital raw materials (PET, aluminium and steel), which are now to be under the control of producers or producer responsibility organisations. That leads to a distortion of competition, the waste of previous investments and a weakening in the competitiveness of the entities concerned. That situation is in complete contradiction to the declared aims of Regulation 2025/40 concerning a level playing field on the internal market.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty

—Regulation 2025/40 has retroactive effects since it imposes new obligations on entities which have already carried out investments in order to fulfil previous objectives on the basis of the foregoing legal rules. In particular, a dramatic increase in the collection of metal packaging from 0 % to 80 % in the course of a few months is objectively unachievable and infringes the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. It also creates legal uncertainty for Member States since the Commission’s implementing acts, which will not be issued until 2027, prevent the Member States from determining in a timely fashion whether they fulfil the conditions for exemption from the mandatory deposit system. Regulation 2025/40 de facto imposes a deposit system as the only solution, even though the present infrastructure would, with a realistic deadline, be able to achieve the desired objective.

3.Third plea in law, alleging disregard for the derogation negotiated by the Czech Republic with respect to aluminium packaging

—Regulation 2025/40 takes up the recycling objectives of the original directive, European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) however, it systematically ignores the applicable derogations which the Member States (including the Czech Republic) obtained after complicated negotiations. The Czech Republic thus agreed a derogation for the recycling of aluminium (35 % by 2029 and 50 % by 2034), on the basis of which it has adapted its national legislation and its investments. Regulation 2025/40 arbitrarily disregards that derogation, thus infringing the principle of legal certainty and undermining the legitimate expectations of the States and private entities. Moreover, that approach invalidates the very rationale of the negotiating process in the framework of Directive 94/62/EC and causes legal chaos.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of subsidiarity and that Regulation 2025/40 is disproportionate

—Regulation 2025/40 unjustifiably impinges on the powers of the Member States since it not only sets out objectives for recycling (which it takes up from Directive 94/62/EC) but also the specific technological solution – a mandatory deposit system. The regulation thereby infringes the principle of subsidiarity since Member States could achieve those objectives by means of effective methods of their own. The regulation is, furthermore, disproportionate: a jump in the requirement for the collection of 80 % of metal packaging by 2026 does not leave time to adapt and disregards the declarations in Regulation 2025/40 itself on the need for a transition period (see recitals 20, 22 and 137). The imposition of a single solution without proof of its necessity or of added value at the level of the European Union (Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union) thus conflicts with EU principles.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a risk of financial damage

—The deposit system transfers vital recycling material into the control of a narrow group of entities. The applicants, as processors, are deprived of a source of revenue and of return on their investments in recycling technology. That approach infringes the principles of free competition and of a level playing field on the EU internal market.

—

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 (OJ L 2025/40, p. 1) (‘Regulation 2025/40’).

European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2903/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—