Uncertainty about the bill for quaternary treatment

The EU’s Advocate General, an important advisor to the European Court of Justice, wants to invalidate the EU’s plan to require pharmaceutical and cosmetics manufacturers to cover at least 80 percent of the costs of quaternary treatment to remove micropollutants at wastewater treatment plants. Eureau wants the polluter-pays principle to be upheld.

EU Advocate General Julianne Kokott argues in her opinion that the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive’s (UWWTD) approach to having the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry pay for at least 80 percent of the costs of expanding of advanced/quaternary wastewater treatment should be declared invalid. “The Advocate General’s opinion creates further legal uncertainty for wastewater operators. Eureau calls for clarity on the implementation of the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and stresses that the polluter pays principle must be upheld,” writes Eureau, the European trade association of water utilities, in a statement.

Court case over polluter-pays principle

The opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union, but the Advocate General’s words usually carry weight with the Court. The opinion comes after Poland brought an action in a case (C-193/25) in which the country argues that EU lawmakers violated the polluter-pays principle, equal treatment and proportionality, by requiring only two industries to bear the costs on the investments. The legal question is of how the costs of quaternary treatment should be distributed.

Legal uncertainty for wastewater operators

Eureau further writes: “The immediate priority is to await the final outcome of the legal proceedings. In parallel, we are assessing what the Advocate General’s opinion would mean for the enforceability of the Directive as a whole. Wastewater operators are now clearly facing even greater legal uncertainty. The important point is that the Advocate General upheld the extended producer responsibility in the Directive. If their opinion is confirmed in the final decision, the question of who needs to pay must be clarified urgently. The polluter pays principle must be upheld: the costs of removing pollution should not be passed on to consumers or water service operators.”

Current EU legislation has not been repealed by this opinion alone but remains in effect until a ruling is made in the case.

This article was published first by the Swedish platform for water professionals cirkulation.se