The shoe retailer Deichmann wants to reduce costs for the disposal of shoe boxes by filing a lawsuit against a supervisory authority.
If that works, the prices for shoes could also fall somewhat. There will be an oral hearing at the Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court on Friday (10 a.m.), at which an expert opinion will first be presented and a judgment could follow around midday (file number 9 K 539/22).
What Deichmann criticizes about the disposal system – and why the process could also become relevant for consumers. The most important questions at a glance.
What’s the problem?
Deichmann sold around 90 million pairs of shoes in Germany last year. The shoes are stored in cardboard boxes. But what happens to them after you buy them? Typically they stay in the shop and the customer only takes the shoes with them, says Deichmann.
Although Deichmann itself takes care of the disposal of the cardboard boxes left in the shop and recycles them on its own, the shoe seller has to pay money to a waste service provider "dual system"which organizes the collection, sorting and recycling of waste from consumers’ households. Deichmann thinks that makes no sense; after all, hardly any boxes end up there – they stayed in the store.
The Central Packaging Register Office (ZSVR), a monitoring authority from Osnabrück, is responsible for this licensing requirement – i.e. the obligation to pay said waste service providers. It checks whether all those who place packaging on the market also pay for the collection, sorting and processing of the waste that ends up in the end consumer’s rubbish bin, i.e. in the blue bin for paper and cardboard.
Deichmann would like to be released from this payment obligation. Not only Deichmann, but the entire shoe industry is suffering from the problem, says Axel Augustin from the Federal Association of German Textile, Shoe and Leather Goods Retailers (BTE).
What does the authority say?
The Central Packaging Register Office has so far thwarted Deichmann’s plans – it considers the boxes to be
"subject to system participation"finally the boxes landed
"mostly" to private end consumers, especially since the shoe boxes sent via the online shop remained entirely with the consumer. The authority relies on an analysis by the Society for Packaging Market Research.
Before the court hearing, the ZSVR is calm. A spokeswoman says: “We welcome the fact that the classification of shoeboxes will now be decided in the first instance.” This creates legal certainty and clarity for everyone involved and strengthens equal competitive conditions.
What could change for consumers?
Deichmann complains that the company is currently paying twice: once for its own waste system and once for the costs of the dual system, even though this one "actually not burdened" I use cardboard waste from Deichmann. These are “costs that ultimately also affect consumers,” says the company. “Especially in difficult economic times, this is neither fair nor objectively justifiable.” Deichmann has its headquarters in Essen, which is within the jurisdiction of the Gelsenkirchen administrative court.
BTE association managing director Augustin points out that household disposal is significantly more expensive than the disposal of shoe boxes, which remain in the store as transport packaging and are picked up by a service provider. The licensing requirement increases costs within the shoe industry and therefore makes shoes more expensive, he says. Conversely, this means that if Deichmann and later other shoe retailers prevail against the authorities, the prices for shoes could fall slightly or at least remain stable.
What are Deichmann’s chances?
It’s hard to say, because there hasn’t been any other shoe retailer that has taken action against the licensing requirement. The authority has already faced a number of lawsuits from companies in other sectors, most of which it has won.
A few examples: A food manufacturer wanted to have the buckets in which mayonnaise was stored exempted from the system requirement and thus from the additional costs, but the Osnabrück Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit.
A pacifier manufacturer also failed in its plan to exclude pacifier boxes. Reason given by the Osnabrück Administrative Court: Pacifier boxes are not goods themselves, but simply packaging with which pacifiers are sold.
However, the lawsuit brought by a soap bubble manufacturer was successful, classifying the container in which the blowing ring is not just packaging, but as part of the toy, and thus prevailed before the Osnabrück administrative court.