Key takeaway
What This Development Means
Cosmetics Europe's court case against Directive (EU) 2024/3019 challenges the logic and fairness of the EU’s extended producer responsibility model. The outcome will influence future regulatory strategies and cost-sharing mechanisms across multiple industries.
What is extended producer responsibility (EPR) and how does it affect cosmetics under Directive (EU) 2024/3019?
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) makes producers financially responsible for the environmental impact of their products. Under Directive (EU) 2024/3019, cosmetic companies would help fund advanced wastewater treatments to remove pollutants.
How could the court case impact other industries?
If the court annuls the EPR rules for cosmetics, other sectors like pharmaceuticals or textiles might avoid similar obligations. Conversely, a ruling in favour of the EU could accelerate broader application of EPR schemes across the chemicals industry.
Source basis: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62025TN0169
Cosmetics Europe has launched a legal action against the European Union, challenging parts of Directive (EU) 2024/3019 that impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) on cosmetic manufacturers. Filed on 7 March 2025, the case highlights major compliance and cost implications for stakeholders across the chemicals value chain.
Legal Basis For The Challenge
Directive (EU) 2024/3019, adopted in November 2024, recasts the urban wastewater treatment rules. It introduces an EPR scheme aimed at tackling micropollutants by requiring certain industries—including cosmetics—to contribute financially to advanced wastewater treatment technologies.
Cosmetics Europe, the industry’s main representative body, argues that the inclusion of cosmetics in this regulatory framework lacks sufficient justification. In its legal submission (Case T-169/25), the association seeks the annulment of Articles 9, 10, Annex III, and part of Article 30.1(c) of the Directive.
Key Concerns Raised By Cosmetics Europe
The legal challenge is underpinned by six core arguments. These include claims of a failure to provide adequate reasoning for targeting the cosmetics sector and reliance on inaccurate data. The association also contends that the Directive violates EU principles such as legal certainty, proportionality, and the polluter-pays principle.
Critically, the lawsuit warns that affected companies face significant financial burdens without clear evidence that the benefits of so-called quaternary wastewater treatment justify the cost. Moreover, producers are reportedly unclear about their obligations, introducing regulatory uncertainty at a time of intensifying compliance pressure across the chemicals ecosystem.
Related Articles
EU Chemicals Legislation Simplification: MEPs Push To Cut Administrative Burden While Maintaining Safety
MEPs have advanced plans to simplify EU chemicals legislation under the Omnibus VI package, targeting reduced administrative burden and improved competitiveness. While easing compliance, the reforms maintain strong safety standards, introducing digital labelling, stricter cosmetics controls, and updated fertiliser rules that will reshape compliance strategies across the chemicals value chain.
EU Cosmetics Simplification Proposal Could Prolong Exposure To Carcinogens
Health groups warn an EU “Chemicals Omnibus” draft could delay removal of newly classified carcinogens from cosmetics, extending consumer exposure.
EU Cosmetics CMR Substances Update: Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/78 Sets New Ingredient Limits
EU cosmetics CMR substances update: Regulation (EU) 2026/78 sets new ingredient limits and deadlines from 1 May 2026.
