”
Initial situation: private labels and packaging responsibility
\n\n
Retail companies that sell goods under a private label do not view themselves as merely downstream market participants when it comes to packaging disposal. Rather, what matters is who “places” the relevant sales packaging “on the market” and thereby triggers the associated obligations under packaging law. Against this background, the Federal Administrative Court had to decide on the classification of a retail company that had products distributed under its own brand.
\n
Decision of the Federal Administrative Court
\n
Subject matter of the proceedings
\n\n
The subject of the proceedings was the question of whether a retail company that offers goods under a private label is to be regarded, for the sales packaging used for that purpose, as an obligated manufacturer/distributor within the meaning of the provisions in force at the time and therefore must participate in a system for the take-back and recovery of packaging.
\n
Key finding
\n\n
The Federal Administrative Court held that a retail company that has products distributed as a private label can, in principle, be held responsible for the corresponding packaging. In the court’s assessment, it does not depend on whether the retail company physically manufactures or fills the packaging itself. Decisive is the attribution of the packaging to the private label and thus responsibility for the first placing on the market of the sales packaging in the legal sense.
\n
Classification of system participation
\n\n
Under the understanding of the provisions applied by the court, the obligation to participate in a take-back and/or recovery system is not intended to be circumvented by contractual outsourcing to upstream production or filling stages. If the goods are offered under the retail company’s private label, this can attribute the packaging to the retail company and thereby trigger system participation.
\n
Significance for retail companies with private labels
\n
Attribution of responsibility in outsourced production
\n\n
The judgment makes clear that operational manufacturing or filling services performed by third parties do not necessarily shift the legal attribution of responsibility. In the case of private labels, the retail company’s market role can lead to it being treated as the entity placing the packaging on the market, even if production and packaging are in practice carried out by other companies.
\n
Connection to the purpose of the packaging regulations
\n\n
The decision is connected to the purpose of the packaging provisions, which is to ensure the take-back and recovery of sales packaging and to allocate the associated burdens to the party that causes the packaging and brings it into circulation through marketing.
\n
Source
\n\n
The above content is based on the presentation of the decision “Retail company must participate in a take-back system for private-label packaging (30/09/2015)” on urteile.news:
\nhttps://urteile.news/BVerwG_BVerwG-7-C-1114_Handelsunternehmen-muss-sich-fuer-Eigenmarke-Verpackungen-an-Ruecknahmesystem-beteiligen~N21660
\n
Points of reference for legal classification in corporate practice
\n\n
The decision underscores that, in private-label concepts, the legal allocation of obligations in connection with sales packaging may depend significantly on the role of the retail company within the distribution model and on the labeling of the goods. For legal questions regarding the classification of such constellations in trade, professional support may be advisable. Information on legal advice in commercial law by MTR Legal attorneys can be found at the link provided.
“
