Political debate over the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) remains ongoing despite court rulings rejecting industry cases. While complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds due to lack of legal standing, Poland’s annulment action has been admitted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Polish MEP, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (EPP), has been involved in the country’s case preparation. Her expectation is that the process will take 18-30 months, during which time political pressure will be maintained. In her view, securing a clear Commission response on a potential “stop the clock” mechanism for UWWTD implementation is therefore crucial.

“The EFPIA case rejection was purely procedural, so the court did not address the merits or evaluate arguments on the directive itself,” she told Euractiv. “In practice, the decision does not close the political debate on the proportionality of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanism or the reliability of the impact assessment data used.”

Directive under fire

Poland lodged an annulment action (C-193/25) against the directive at the CJEU, arguing that it breaches core EU principles. The government claims the EPR scheme unfairly burdens pharma and cosmetics with 80% of the micropollutant treatment costs, violating the polluter-pays principle and proportionality.

Central to Poland’s case is what it says is the Commission’s flawed impact assessment. Industry data show that pharma contributes <1% to wastewater toxicity (per EMA-compliant lab tests), contradicting models that attribute 58% to just four substances.

Costs are underestimated by 4-10 times (€5-11bn/year EU-wide), warns Kopeć of Medicines for Poland, risking access to medicines and competitiveness.

EPP pushes debate

“The pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors do not challenge the principle of funding wastewater treatment or the idea of EPR”, Łukacijewska told Euractiv. They emphasise that the system should reflect the actual contribution of individual sectors to pollution and be based on proportionality. “They are ready to pay costs, but only for substances genuinely originating from their activities,” she added.

She underlined the need for clarity from the Commission on a possible “stop the clock” mechanism for UWWTD. This would temporarily halt implementation, allowing time for a fresh impact assessment and accurate estimation of sectoral shares, ensuring future rules are grounded in reliable data while preserving proportionality.

The EPP group plans to file an oral question to the Commission to trigger a plenary debate. “The most probable scenarios are now a slot in the March Brussels mini-plenary, or if agenda space is insufficient, a shift to the full April plenary session,” she said.

The group aims for the debate to culminate in a resolution, with drafting led by German MEP Oliver Schenk, a member of both the public health and environment committees. The EPP deemed it essential to involve both committees, given the topic’s overlap between public health and environmental policy.

[VA, BM]