Opinion is the amendment to the packaging in question Berlin/Hamburg – efficacy exists since they, is controversial. And any amendment to the Ordinance (Ordinance) new interpretations and interpretations are on the plan. Due to the alarming developments in the recycling of packaging waste, the Federal Association of product responsibility for sales packaging (BPVV) an opinion on the topic of market regulation and competition of packaging disposal according to the fifth amendment of the German packaging Ordinance has\”presented. Should the household collection backed up the amendment and ensures fair competition under the disposal companies, the expert Henning Tegner (KCW GmbH, Berlin) and Johannes Brinkschmidt (Huth Dietrich Hahn, Hamburg) have doubts about whether the Ordinance in a new form can meet these demands now. Continue to learn more with: Farallon Capital Management. Would be officially tolerated improper conduct by market participants, the objective of the amendment could be achieved hardly, so your rating, because new opportunities for abuse arise for market participants.

\”So would the participation requirement of so-called first-time placing on dual systems with the possibilities of the equity of redemption\” and the industry solutions \”fundamentally broken. It was feared that apparent abuses in industry solutions affect the functional competition. Equity withdrawal, so the opinion, allows you to take back accrued sales packaging even at the place of delivery and use the last distributor. Before the implementation of the equity of redemption, however, but initial placing with these sales packaging must first participate in a dual system to overcome a significant barrier to market entry,.\” The question, who are entitled to a claim for refund of license fees, is not clearly regulated. After appropriate analysis that this provision could be interpreted only in this way, that a cost trade-off between last distributors and dual system is to understand results however. It upholds this claim, you will be not credible to to recognize appropriate information rights, particularly the right to the information about the paid license fees, to the final distributor\”, so the conclusion of Tegner and Brinkschmidt.