On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility for batteries and waste batteries and packaging and packaging waste

The European Commission has submitted a proposal suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility (EPR) for batteries and waste batteries and for packaging and packaging waste (the "EPR Suspending Proposals"). The proposal targets a single administrative measure — the obligation for non-EU producers to designate an authorised representative — under Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 (the “Batteries and waste batteries Regulation”) and Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (the “Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation”).

While acknowledging the need to reduce administrative burden, the proposal does so in a narrowly targeted and isolated manner, offering no systemic solution to the structural challenges of the current EPR framework. For these reasons, rejection of the Commission’s proposal is considered the appropriate course of action.

This fragmented, single-measure approach is of very limited legislative value and fails to deliver the comprehensive reform that economic operators and Member States require. A temporary suspension of one obligation, without addressing the wider regulatory architecture, does not constitute meaningful simplification and does not achieve the proposal's stated objective in any substantive or durable manner.

Furthermore, the Commission has formally announced its intention to submit comprehensive EPR legislation in 2026 as part of the forthcoming Circular Economy Act. The introduction of a narrow suspensory measure ahead of that package is premature and risks introducing unnecessary legal uncertainty into a regulatory area already subject to significant change. Any extension of the legislative process resulting from rejection is a reasonable and proportionate trade-off for achieving a more effective and durable legal framework, rather than accepting the very limited value the current proposal offers.

It bears emphasis that the obligation to appoint an authorised representative is not merely a procedural formality. For Member States and their national competent authorities, knowing the identity of an authorised representative is a crucial prerequisite for effective enforcement and oversight of EPR obligations. The authorised representative constitutes the primary point of contact between a non-EU producer and the national EPR system: it ensures traceability, legal accountability, and the ability to collect producer fees and verify compliance. Suspending this requirement, even temporarily, would create enforcement gaps across the single market. Member States would be deprived of a fundamental tool for ensuring that producers not established in the Union fulfil their obligations under the applicable product and waste legislation. This is particularly significant in the context of packaging and batteries, which are high-volume product categories with direct implications for circular economy targets. The suspension of the authorised representative obligation is therefore not a neutral simplification measure: it directly impairs Member States’ capacity to administer and enforce EPR schemes.

Our fundamental concern underlying this position is the progressive fragmentation of Union legislation in the field of extended producer responsibility and environmental regulation more broadly. Whenever sector-specific measures are adopted separately — whether for batteries, packaging, textiles, or electronic equipment — the resulting legal landscape becomes increasingly difficult to navigate for both businesses and national competent authorities.

We continue to believe that in order to achieve meaningful streamlining and acceleration of environmental compliance processes, it is necessary to aim for maximum clarity and comprehensibility of the legal framework and the resulting legal certainty. Unfortunately, the approach embodied in this proposal deepens, rather than alleviates, the fragmentation of the relevant Union legislation. A rejection of the EPR Suspending Proposals sends a clear signal that the legislative process should prioritise systemic, cross-cutting solutions over ad hoc interventions.

******

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.