Case T-237/25: Action brought on 11 April 2025 – Fleggaard and Others v Parliament and Council
Date: 2025-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: beverage, environmental protection, free movement of goods, legal basis, metal waste, packaging, plastic waste, right of establishment, right to work, waste recycling








C_202503302EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3302


24.6.2025






Action brought on 11 April 2025 – Fleggaard and Others v Parliament and Council


(Case T-237/25)

(C/2025/3302)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Fleggaard GmbH (Harrislee, Germany), Scandinavian Park Petersen KG (Handewitt, Germany), Scandlines Bordershop Puttgarden GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Christiansen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 50 and Annex X of 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, 22.1.2025);










—


order the European Parliament and the Council 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: incorrect legal basis.
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (1) is based exclusively on the internal market competence (second sentence of Article 114(1) TFEU), although it also, and primarily, concerns the environmental competence (Article 192(1) TFEU).










2.


Second plea in law: absence of involvement of the Committee of the Regions.
The Committee of the Regions was not properly involved, which is an infringement of essential procedural requirements.










3.


Third plea in law: breach of the freedom to conduct a business.
The mandatory deposit under Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 disproportionately interferes with the applicants’ freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). (2) The introduction of a mandatory deposit, without ensuring the interoperability of the deposit systems in regions with high transboundary business and the corresponding repayment of the deposit at the place where customers from neighbouring countries reside, leads to economic disadvantages that jeopardise the applicants’ existence. This represents a means of achieving an environmental objective that is not appropriate, not necessary and also not proportionate.










4.


Fourth plea in law: breach of the freedom to choose an occupation.
For the same reasons, the mandatory deposit also infringes the applicants’ freedom to choose an occupation (Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).










5.


Fifth plea in law: breach of the free movement of goods (Article 34 et seq. TFEU).
The mandatory deposit affects domestic and imported goods differently, hinders intra-EU trade and cannot be justified by overriding requirements relating to environmental protection.






(1)  OJ L 2025/40.

(2)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3302/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)