The Opinion is the first substantive judicial assessment of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme established by Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment (recast) (UWWTD).

The Opinion follows a series of challenges that the UWWTD has faced since its implementation on 1 January 2025.

Also on the judicial front, several appeals remain pending before the CJEU, following the dismissal of industry actions challenging the EPR scheme in February 2026.

In addition, on 20 May 2026, the Irish High Court referred preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the validity of the core EPR provisions.

In the political arena, the European Parliament (the Parliament) adopted on 18 June 2026 Resolution 2026/2652(RSP) (Resolution) calling on the European Commission (the Commission) to suspend the implementation of the EPR provisions of the UWWTD and undertake a new impact assessment by the end of 2026.

This briefing provides an overview of key developments to date.

Advocate General Recommends Annulment of Specific UWWTD Provisions

On 10 March 2025, Poland brought an action for annulment of Article 9(1) UWWTD, read together with Annex III, arguing that the EPR scheme unfairly singles out pharmaceutical and cosmetic producers and imposes disproportionate costs on these industries in breach of the polluter-pays principle.

On 3 September 2026, Advocate General Kokott delivered the Opinion, in which she considered the challenge to be admissible and concluded that the rules allocating the costs to pharmaceutical and cosmetic producers are severable from the UWWTD’s quaternary treatment requirements.

The Advocate General acknowledged the EU legislature’s broad discretion in making complex environmental, economic, and social assessments.

However, she stressed that the institutions must consider the relevant circumstances and establish the basic facts underpinning their legislation.

In her view, they had not adequately justified requiring two product groups to bear at least 80% of the relevant costs.

She therefore found that the assessment of the facts was manifestly inadequate and, in certain respects, manifestly erroneous. Accordingly, she recommended that the CJEU annul Article 9(1)(a) and Annex III of the UWWTD.

If the CJEU follows that recommendation, the current sectoral allocation and the obligation for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors to finance at least 80% of quaternary-treatment costs would fall away, while the requirement to introduce quaternary treatment would remain.

The EU legislature could then adopt a revised allocation after addressing the evidentiary shortcomings identified in the Opinion.

Importantly, however, the Opinion is not binding on the CJEU.

Private Appeals on Standing Pending

On 18 February 2026, the General Court of the European Union (the GC) dismissed three sets of actions for annulment lodged in March 2025 against the UWWTD EPR provisions:

(i)             Joined Cases T-156/25 et al., Accord Healthcare France SAS and others v Parliament and Council, consist of fourteen challenges brought by pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies;

(ii)            Case T-158/25, Fédération européenne d’associations et d’industries pharmaceutiques (EFPIA) v Parliament and Council; and

(iii)           Case T-169/25, Cosmetics Europe v Parliament and Council.

In each case, the GC held the actions to be inadmissible for lack of individual concern. The substance of the actions was not addressed.

Appeals from the generic manufacturers against these judgments are pending in Case C-411/26 P, Dermapharm and Others v Parliament and Council, and in Case C-412/26 P, BGP Products and Others v Parliament and Council. Both appeals concern standing and do not place the validity of the EPR scheme directly before the CJEU.

Neither EFPIA nor Cosmetics Europe appealed the judgment that concerned them, and the prescribed time limit has now passed.

Preliminary Reference to CJEU from Irish High Court

Having been unable to establish standing to bring direct actions for annulment before the GC, the pharmaceutical sector may have found an alternative pathway to the CJEU.

The Irish High Court referred questions regarding the validity of Articles 9 and 10 and of Annex III of the UWWTD to the CJEU. This reference for preliminary ruling was registered as Case C-614/26, Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association and Medicines for Ireland.

Interestingly, the Irish High Court made the reference even before Ireland had transposed the UWWTD, so the proceedings concern the validity of the EU provisions that will underpin future national implementing measures.

Political Pressure Has Not (yet) Changed Law

On 18 June 2026, the Parliament adopted a Resolution, calling on the Commission to prepare a new impact assessment by the end of 2026, issue a communication by the end of July 2026 on the independent study and the flexibilities available under the UWWTD, and temporarily suspend the EPR and related quaternary-treatment obligations while the assessment is completed.

The Resolution is non-binding. The Commission has not taken any of the requested steps.

Next Steps

EU Member States are still required to transpose the UWWTD by 31 July 2027 with EPR obligations set to apply to in-scope producers by 31 December 2028, unless the CJEU or the EU legislature changes that position.

The next milestone is the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-193/25. Stakeholders should also watch out for any Commission assessment or legislative proposal, further procedural developments in Case C-614/26 and the two pending appeals on standing.