Advocate General rejects targeting of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics sectors as sole funders of urban wastewater treatment upgrade 

• The CJEU (Court of Justice of the EU) Advocate General recommends annulling the UWWTD provisions attributing the financial burden of the EPR scheme to solely pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors. According to the Opinion, this selection is based on a manifest error of assessment.  

• Cosmetics Europe welcomes the Opinion. Independent studies estimate that cosmetics’ contribution to urban wastewater micro pollution is 1–2%, not 26%.  

Cosmetics Europe welcomes today’s Opinion of the Advocate-General in the case brought by the Republic of Poland against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case C-193/25).  

“Today’s Opinion of the Advocate General is a signal that flawed policymaking cannot stand in the EU and must be corrected,” said John Chave, Director General of Cosmetics Europe. “Cosmetics Europe has long argued that the evidence shows that the cosmetics industry is only a minor contributor to urban wastewater micropollution in the EU and as such cannot be held responsible for micropollution it does not generate. We are pleased to see the Advocate General’s Opinion concludes that the figures used to include the cosmetics industry in the EPR scheme were taken forward without a scientifically rigorous comparison with other groups of manufacturers”. 

The Advocate General recommends that the relevant provisions of the Directive (Article 9(1)(a) and Annex III) be annulled.  

Cosmetics Europe has long pointed out that the UWWTD EPR scheme as it currently stands is based on a flawed methodology that attributes micropollutants in a way that does not accurately reflect real-world emissions. A growing body of independent evidence, including studies by DHI, ECT Oekotoxikologie, Ricardo, and Cosmetics Europe’s own verification, already consistently shows that cosmetics’ contribution is minor, likely around 1–2% or less. A recent peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Sciences Europe  journal points to the same conclusion. The 26% figure cited in the European Commission’s Impact Assessment is based on flawed data, including banned substances, substances not used in cosmetics, such as the insecticide permethrin, and ubiquitous substances, such as common dietary fats, wrongly attributed to only one sector.  

The cosmetics industry fully understands the importance of ensuring clean urban wastewater in Europe and remains committed to contributing our fair share under a framework that accurately reflects the cosmetic industry’s impact. 

Cosmetics Europe notes that the Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court, and we await the final judgement in due course.