Contributi parti interessate
Tramite il sito web TRIS tu e la tua organizzazione potrete facilmente condividere le vostre opinioni su qualsivoglia notifica.
A causa dello stato della notifica o della fine della sospensione, al momento non accettiamo ulteriori contributi per questa notifica tramite il sito web.
(EN) EUROPEN, the European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment on 24-07-2025 EUROPEN’s comments on TRIS notification 2025/0279/DK (Denmark)
Contribution File
English
(224.68 KB - PDF)
Download (EN) Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry on 19-08-2025 FESI comments on TRIS notification 2025/0279/DK
FESI is concerned that the Danish draft order on packaging, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and packaging waste introduces several unilateral requirements that conflict with the objectives and provisions of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and risk creating unjustified barriers to trade within the Single Market.
The draft order:
Alters definitions of key terms (e.g. “composite packaging,” “making available”) in ways that diverge from PPWR, undermining harmonised interpretation and creating national market-specific obligations.Establishes unilateral market access conditions for packaging placed on the Danish market, including essential requirements, specific rules for glass, plastic crates, pallets, and carrier bags, that are not foreseen in PPWR.Introduces conflicting documentation, labelling, and EPR fee modulation requirements , including a traffic light system for recyclability that pre-empts EU-wide criteria due to apply in 2030.Imposes disproportionate administrative burdens (e.g. 14-day pre-registration, monthly updates) on operators, contrary to the Waste Framework Directive’s proportionality and internal market provisions.These measures contravene:
Article 4 PPWR , prohibiting Member States from restricting market access for packaging compliant with EU rules.Articles 34–36 TFEU , by creating unjustified obstacles to intra-EU trade.Article 114(5) TFEU , as Denmark has not demonstrated the specific, evidence-based environmental grounds required to justify national measures after EU harmonisation.Articles 8a(1)(d) and 8(3) of the Waste Framework Directive , by placing a disproportionate burden on producers and undermining the proper functioning of the internal market.In addition, we wish to draw attention to a translation error in Annex 1: the Danish text PAP which is commonly used in the industry has been incorrectly translated into English as CARDB . This should be corrected to reflect the original intended material classification PAP.
Conclusion:
