PPWR Article 45(3): Parliament and Council differ on suspension

As of 11 November 2026, the duty to appoint an authorised representative under Article 45(3) of the PPWR (Regulation (EU) 2025/40) still applies to every producer it covers. The suspension proposal, COM(2025) 982, has moved since early October: the European Parliament adopted its position on 20 October and the Council of the EU on 21 October. Neither vote changes the law.

That update supersedes our earlier working status, which treated the proposal as untouched. The two positions are different enough that the final text is hard to predict, and the difference matters most to small cross-border sellers.

The prompt for this analysis is a trade-press report. Angling International (8 November 2026) quotes Olari Tonison of Estonian online tackle retailer Luregod, who says that “Even if you only send three packages a month directly to consumers in another EU country” a local representative is currently required. That is one retailer’s account of the legal position, but it matches how the text reads.

A note on sources: the Council’s own press release is the official record of its position. The Parliament position and several details below come from law-firm and consultancy summaries (Luther, Zeelandia Consulting, Expra and others), whose businesses involve selling compliance help. I could not retrieve Parliament’s own press release, so check the official texts before relying on any detail.

What the text says today

Article 45(3) requires producers to appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative in each Member State where packaging or packaged products are made available for the first time, other than the Member State in which the producer is established. It also allows Member States to impose such requirements on producers established in third countries.

The suspension would reach only part of that. The Council describes the targeted rule as the one requiring packaging producers established in the EU to appoint a representative in each member state where they place packaging or packaged products on the market. Under the Commission proposal, the Parliament position and the Council position alike, the suspension only covers producers established in the EU. Sellers outside the EU stay in scope.

Registration is a separate matter. National packaging registration and recycling obligations existed before the PPWR applied in August, and a suspension of Article 45(3) would not remove them. A Finnish compliance guide adds that an EU suspension would pause the EU-level duty, while France, Spain, Denmark, Austria and Portugal also have national rules requiring a representative. That list comes from the guide, not from an official source.

Three positions, one article

The table sets out where each institution stands as of 11 November 2026.

Position	Who would be relieved	Duration	Legal status
Article 45(3) as published	Nobody	Applies since 12 August 2026	Adopted law
Commission proposal COM(2025) 982, 10 December 2025	All EU-established producers	Until 1 January 2035	Proposal
Parliament position, 20 October 2026	Micro and small enterprises established in the EU	Until a circular economy act enters into force or 2035, whichever comes first	Negotiating mandate
Council mandate, 21 October 2026	EU-established producers making less than one tonne per calendar year available in the other member state	Safeguard clause, Commission review by 31 December 2030, expiry in 2032	Negotiating mandate

Parliament’s route was short. The ENVI Committee voted on 5 October 2026 to suspend the requirement for micro and small EU-based companies only, and the plenary confirmed that position on 20 October. The Council’s mandate comes from its permanent representatives, and includes a safeguard for cases of non-compliance with EPR obligations.

Our calculation: 1 January 2035 minus 1 January 2032 = 3 years. That is how much shorter the Council’s suspension would run than the Commission’s. The expiry year is secondary to the other gap, which is that the Council tests packaging tonnage and Parliament tests company size.

What this probably means in practice

The text says size on one side and tonnage on the other. In practice, the two tests will often sort the same company differently. A micro enterprise sending 3 tonnes of packaging a year into Germany would be relieved under Parliament’s version and covered under the Council’s. A large retailer shipping 0.5 tonne into Latvia would be relieved under the Council’s and covered under Parliament’s. This is our reading of the descriptions; the final definitions will decide.

For packaging teams at brand owners and retailers, the Parliament test (company size) mostly helps small direct-to-consumer sellers. The Council test (tonnage) could also help larger companies with small tails of cross-border volume, such as a few markets served from a central warehouse. It would, however, demand per-country weight data that many companies do not hold today.

The commercial effect is already visible. An Estonian soap maker told ERR she had closed deliveries to other countries until the obligation is clear, and A-Gallery, which represents Estonian jewellery artists, shut its online store as well. If either position survives in the final text, sellers of that size would probably be relieved. Until then, a small seller shipping occasionally into another member state carries the same duty as a large one, which is why some have chosen to stop shipping.

Existing contracts are another practical point. Producers who have already appointed representatives should not assume the duty disappears on a vote. Until a legally binding agreement is reached, Article 45(3) remains applicable and binding on all producers. The law firm Luther also notes that the Commission published a factsheet for small businesses on 19 October 2026; check whether it changes how your national authority treats you, as its practical weight is a matter for each member state.

Open questions

None of the sources I found settles the following points. Where I say “unconfirmed”, the detail was not in any source I could read.

Measurement under a tonnage test. Whether the one-tonne figure counts only sales packaging, or also shipping cartons, fillers and tape, is unconfirmed. The Council description speaks of the quantity of packaging they make available on that market, which leaves room for either reading.
Definition of micro and small. Parliament’s version depends on the company-size definition in the final text, and how groups and linked enterprises are treated is unconfirmed.
Safeguard clause. The Council’s clause ties relief to compliance with EPR duties. What triggers its loss, and who decides, is unconfirmed.
Effect on mandates already signed. Whether a suspension would apply only from entry into force, and what happens to representatives appointed since 12 August 2026, is unconfirmed.
National rules. A suspension of the EU duty leaves national representative requirements untouched, so a small seller could be relieved at EU level and still be bound in a country such as France.

There is also a design debate. An Austria, Czechia and Estonia paper at the Environment Council on 12 October proposed a de minimis exemption, an EU registration portal and holding back the register act, according to the consultancy Polygon One. The same source says a draft on the register of producers was published on 6 August 2026. If a single EU portal ever replaces country-by-country registration, the representative question may lose much of its weight.

What to watch next

The next step is trilogue negotiation. Parliament and Council negotiations come next, and the Irish Council presidency wants to start them as soon as possible. The Council’s release links this file to a wider simplification agenda, noting that the Commission’s April 2026 objective is to conclude work on all simplification packages by the end of 2027.

Four signals will tell you where the text lands:

Whether negotiators choose a size test, a tonnage test, or a combination of the two.
The end date, and whether it is tied to a future circular economy act.
Whether the safeguard clause survives, and how it is worded.
Publication in the Official Journal and the entry-into-force date, because until a final text is adopted and published, the current Article 45(3) obligation stays in force.

What to do now

This is information, not legal advice. Where you need certainty about your own position, read the official text or ask a lawyer in the destination member state.

Keep your representatives. Do not cancel mandates on the strength of the October votes.
Build a shipment map. List, by destination member state, the weight of sales, grouped and transport packaging you send in a calendar year, by material. This tests you against the Council’s one-tonne threshold and supports any later registration.
Classify your company size. Check whether you would count as micro or small, so you know which version helps you.
Check national rules. For each destination, confirm whether a national representative or registration duty applies regardless of the EU suspension.
Read your mandate contracts. Note notice periods and fees, so you can act quickly if a suspension is published.
Ask your marketplaces and logistics partners. Find out who they treat as the producer for each parcel, and in writing.

Sources

Header image: illustration, AI-generated.