In a significant legal challenge filed on 10 March 2025, the Republic of Poland has contested parts of the EU's Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (EU) 2024/3019. The dispute targets new extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations that require pharmaceutical and cosmetic producers to finance micropollutant removal. This move raises major concerns across the chemicals value chain regarding equitable policy enforcement and escalating compliance costs.
Extended Producer Responsibility Under Fire
The Polish government has brought Case C-193/25 before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), seeking the annulment of Article 9(1) and Annex III of Directive 2024/3019. These sections impose financial liability on medicinal and cosmetic product manufacturers for micropollutant removal during urban wastewater treatment. Warsaw argues that the directive breaches the 'polluter pays' principle outlined in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It claims the directive unfairly singles out certain industries while excluding other polluters from bearing similar burdens.
Disproportionate Costs and Limited Justification
Poland further contends that the directive violates the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). According to Polish legal representatives, the costs imposed by the EPR rules are not matched by the environmental benefits delivered. The lack of supporting scientific and economic analysis, they argue, weakens the legitimacy of the directive. If the contested provisions cannot be separated from the wider EPR framework, Poland is requesting a broader annulment—targeting Articles 2(20), 9, 10, 30(1) (second paragraph, points c and g), and Annex III.
Legal Challenge Signals Friction in EU Green Policy Rollout
Poland’s move underscores growing friction in how environmental legislation is being rolled out across the European Union. While the bloc continues to champion ambitious goals under the European Green Deal, this case highlights the pushback from member states concerned about uneven economic impacts. The outcome of the challenge could set a legal precedent for future EPR measures and influence the legislative drafting of similar environmental policies in upcoming directives.
