This article was first published in the chemicals policy briefing Toxic-Free for EU No 142, which you can consult here.
(3 September 2026) Advocate General Kokott of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) questioned the robustness of the calculation used to make producers of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics pay for urban wastewater clean-up.
Under the 2024 Urban wastewater treatment directive, an extended producer responsibility scheme (EPR) was introduced to finance the removal of micropollutants that are hazardous to health or the environment in low concentrations. The agreed EPR scheme targets the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, which the Commission’s impact assessment found responsible for most of the pollution.
Poland brought an action against the provisions, questioning their proportionality, and persuaded the Advocate General that the Commission’s calculation might have overestimated the role of both sectors. Kokott recommended removing the targeted sectors.
The cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries welcome the opinion, saying they are ready to contribute their “fair share”.
The German chemicals industry association, VCI, used this opportunity to call for removing the polluter-pays principle and financing the clean-up costs by increasing water prices for consumers.
Kokott did not recommend that the ECJ reject the concept of extended producer responsibility, as Poland had requested in addition.
- ECJ, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott on the case (3 Sept. 2026)
- Cosmetics Europe, reaction to the opinion (3 Sept. 2026)
- EFPIA, reaction to the opinion (3 Sept. 2026)
- VCI, reaction to the opinion (4 Sept. 2026)
- Eur-Lex, Urban wastewater treatment directive (27 Nov. 2024)