Case T-170/25: Action brought on 7 March 2025 – BGP Products and Others v Parliament and Council
Date: 2025-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, extended producer responsibility, freedom of association, pharmaceutical industry, polluter pays principle, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, producer's liability, wastewater, water treatment








C_202502686EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2686


19.5.2025






Action brought on 7 March 2025 – BGP Products and Others v Parliament and Council


(Case T-170/25)

(C/2025/2686)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: BGP Products SRL (Bucharest, Romania) and six others (represented by: K. Roox, M. Navin-Jones and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare null and void Articles 9, 10, 2(14), 2(17), 2(19), and Annex III, Annex I (Table 3, Part C) of Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment (1);










—


in the alternative to (i), declare null and void the relevant parts of Articles 9, 10, 2(14), 2(17), 2(19), and Annex III, Annex I (Table 3, Part C) of Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment; and,










—


order the defendants to pay the applicants’ 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 contested measures lack legal basis. The contested measures were adopted on the basis of Article 192(1) TFEU. However, this was the wrong and inappropriate legal basis. The contested measures are provisions primarily of a fiscal nature. The correct legal basis would have been Article 192(2)(a) TFEU. The contested measures were also adopted pursuant to the wrong and incorrect legislative procedure. Had the correct legal basis and correct procedure been used, it would have prevented adoption of the contested measures, and/or affected the determination of the content.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the principles of conferral and subsidiarity, and do not respect the division of competences between, on the one hand, the EU Institutions and, on the other hand, EU Member States.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the principle of proportionality, the right to conduct a business, the principle of equality before the law, and the freedom of association. The contested measures: (1) do not implement the polluter-pays principle. Instead, they undermine it, they prevent it from being implemented, and they compel EU Member States to act in breach of it. They also create a situation where certain polluters will never pay their pollution costs; (2) fragment the European Single Market and create an unjustified barrier to trade; (3) create a situation which is inappropriate and untenable for medicinal products; (4) breach Article 168(1) TFEU as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (5) violate the right to conduct a business; (6) violate the principle of equality before the law; (7) violate the freedom of association; and (8) are based on an Impact Assessment and Feasibility Report which are inaccurate and unreliable.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and fail to state the reasons.






(1)  OJ 2024 L 3019.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2686/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)