—

Annul 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 (‘PPWR’), in its entirety;

—

In the alternative, annul Article 29(1), (2), (3) and (4), point d) of the PPWR;

—

In the alternative, annul Article 29(1), (2) and (3), insofar as they address the packaging format ‘plastic crates’, and

—

Order the defendants to bear the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Union legislator has based the PPWR, in particular Article 29(1) to (4) of the PPWR, on an incorrect legal basis by basing it on the internal market legal basis (Article 114 TFEU) instead of on the environmental legal basis of Article 192 TFEU, although the regulation and in particular Article 29 of the PPWR obviously has an environmental focus.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 29 of the PPWR violates the obligation to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU, as the PPWR and the legislative documents do not contain any reasons for this provision, although it is of considerable importance and, in particular Article 29(4), point d) of the PPWR, is contrary to the regulatory objectives of the PPWR.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Article 29(2) of the PPWR violates the principle of proportionality insofar as the use of ‘plastic crates’ as single-use packaging for use in company-internal deliveries as transport packaging or sales packaging is prohibited, although this is not suit-able for achieving the objective of the regulation and, in addition, milder means were available.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 29(3) of the PPWR violates the principle of proportionality insofar that it prohibits the use of ‘plastic crates’ as single-use packaging for use as transport packaging or sales packaging, used for transporting products, in the case of deliveries within a Member State, although this is not suitable for achieving the objective of the regulation and, in addition, milder means were available.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 29(1) of the PPWR violates the principle of proportionality insofar that it imposes a minimum quota of 40 % for the use of ‘plastic crates’ when used as transport packaging or sales packaging, used for transporting products, although this is not suitable for achieving the objective of the regulation.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that Article 29(4), point d) of the PPWR violates the principle of equal treatment by discriminating against suppliers (such as the applicant) and manufacturers (such as the applicant’s customers) of single-use plastic crates, as compared to suppliers and manufacturers who use packaging made of other materials for the uses concerned, notably from cardboard.