Packaging law case rulings have shaped how products are designed, labelled and handled across Europe.
Drawing on decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and General Court, this article explains clear precedents that influence packaging waste rules today.
Go deeper with GlobalData
You’ll encounter key court judgments that clarify what counts as packaging, how extended producer responsibility works, and how free‑movement rules can affect packaging obligations.
Introduction: what stability case law gives to packaging rules
Ever‑evolving at EU and national level, packaging regulations may seem technical. But underlying legal decisions bring consistency.
Case law with relevance to packaging and packaging waste—especially ECJ rulings on Directive 94/62/EC and its successor Regulation—provides stable interpretation of terms like “packaging”, sets out when member states fail in obligations, and confirms how free movement of goods interacts with packaging rules.
Understanding those cases gives long‑term clarity for businesses, policy makers and informed consumers alike.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataLabelling, recycled content and what constitutes packaging
The ECJ has interpreted the term “packaging” broadly: for example, labels directly affixed to fruit or vegetables may be considered packaging under Directive 94/62 unless they meet strict criteria.
The Court held that simply hanging a label on produce can count as packaging depending on whether it contributes to containment, handling or presentation of the product.
Separately, cases such as Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack established that plastic carrier bags handed to customers—even if free—are packaging and that the obligation applies to the producer of the goods, not just packaging manufacturers.
Cases on member states’ failures and recycling targets
Numerous ECJ judgments have found that Member States failed their obligations under the Packaging Waste Directive by not transposing essential rules or not reporting waste‑management plans.
For instance, in Commission v Italy and Commission v France, the Court ruled that failure to include packaging waste chapters or to share plans with the Commission breached Article 14 of the Directive.
Similarly, in Commission v United Kingdom, shortcomings in waste management plans relating to packaging were also held to breach obligations.
These rulings have driven consistent enforcement across the EU for packaging waste recovery and recycling targets.
Free movement, packaging format rules and marketing effects
Free movement of goods theory intersects with packaging requirements in notable cases. In Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA (1983) the Court struck down a Belgian rule requiring margarine to be cube‑shaped packaging, judging it disproportionate to consumer protection aims and unlawful under TFEU Article 34.
Likewise, in Commission v Italy (C‑14/00), a rule forcing chocolates with vegetable fats to be called “substitutes” was held unjustified—it increased packaging costs and created obstacles to trade.
Why these case law rulings still matter today
These legal precedents shape how the new EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) is interpreted and applied.
The PPWR introduces lifecycle requirements for packaging design, recyclability, recycled content, bans on unnecessary packaging formats, harmonised material labels and scope for extended producer responsibility.
Case law confirms the legal meaning of packaging, the responsibility attached to producers, and the limits of member state flexibility.
As national authorities and companies prepare for stricter recyclability criteria, minimum recycled‑content targets and deposit systems, these rulings remain anchors: they clarify who is responsible, what counts as packaging, and how to avoid infringing free‑movement and environmental obligations.
The takeaway: Enduring relevance for packaging policy and business
Having case law with relevance to packaging and packaging waste is a foundation for coherent regulation across the EU.
The ECJ and General Court decisions have clarified definitions, confirmed state obligations and balanced environmental aims with trade freedoms.
As the PPWR takes effect and Member States enforce tighter rules on packaging waste, these precedents will continue to guide compliance and legal interpretation.
Anyone interested in sustainable packaging policies can rely on this body of case law as an evergreen reference.
