As of 2 November 2026, the European Parliament (20 October) and the Council of the EU (21 October) have each set a negotiating position on suspending the authorised representative obligation in Article 45(3) of the PPWR. They agree that some EU producers should be relieved. They disagree on who, and for how long. Nothing has been adopted, so the obligation has applied since 12 August 2026 and still does.
Irish MEP Ciaran Mullooly’s statement, reported by the Leitrim Observer, put the status in one sentence: “The proposed suspension is not law yet.” His comment predates the Council mandate, which has since removed one of the steps he listed.
A note on sources: the main facts below come from the Council’s own press release and trade press. Commentary from a producer responsibility organisation (ERP) and a retail lobby (EuroCommerce) is labelled as such, because both have a stake in the outcome.
What the texts say
The facts first. Article 45(3) PPWR 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 state where the producer is established. The Commission’s proposal COM(2025) 982 would suspend that provision until 1 January 2035, as Packaging Law summarises Article 2 of the proposal.
The Council’s mandate is the narrower in one sense and the broader in another. EU-established producers could be exempted from appointing a representative in another member state if they make available less than 1 tonne of packaging per calendar year there. The Council press release adds a safeguard clause for producers found in breach of EPR obligations, and a Commission review of the suspension’s duration by 31 December 2030, ahead of a scheduled expiry in 2032.
Parliament chose a size test instead of a volume test. On 20 October 2026 it approved its position by 616 votes to 9, with 39 abstentions, according to Mundolatas. The suspension would apply only to EU micro and small enterprises with fewer than 50 employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet below EUR 10 million.
According to Midwest Radio, the Parliament text runs until 2035, or until a more comprehensive circular economy act is adopted. I found that end condition in one outlet only, so check it against the adopted report.
| Text | Who is relieved | Duration | Other features | Status on 2 Nov 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commission proposal COM(2025) 982 (10 Dec 2025) | EU-established producers | Until 1 Jan 2035 | Suspends Article 45(3) as a whole | Proposal |
| Parliament position (20 Oct 2026) | EU micro and small enterprises (under 50 employees, under EUR 10 million turnover or balance sheet) | 2035, or earlier if a circular economy act is adopted (one outlet) | Other EPR obligations unchanged | Negotiating position |
| Council mandate (21 Oct 2026) | EU-established producers placing under 1 tonne a year in the other member state | Scheduled expiry 2032; Commission review by 31 Dec 2030 | Safeguard clause for EPR breaches | Negotiating mandate |
Our calculation: the Commission’s end date of 1 January 2035 minus the Council’s scheduled expiry in 2032 gives a suspension roughly 3 years shorter in the Council’s version (2035 − 2032 = 3).
What stays unchanged
The relief covers only the appointment of a representative. Parliament’s position keeps all other EPR obligations, such as waste prevention and payment of the relevant fees, as Just Style reports. The Council’s mandate is likewise framed around the representative requirement, not EPR generally.
Producers outside the EU are not in the frame. The Council describes the rule as one for producers established in the EU, and Parliament’s text is limited to EU-based enterprises. If you sell from outside the EU, none of these texts changes your position.
Medium-sized and large EU companies would get nothing under Parliament’s version. They would still have to appoint a representative for EPR.
What it means in practice
The text says size under Parliament and volume under the Council. In practice this probably means that the same company can land on opposite sides of the line depending on which filter survives. These two cases are hypothetical, my own illustrations.
- A large retailer whose webshop ships under 1 tonne of packaging a year into a neighbouring country would qualify under the Council text and fail Parliament’s size test.
- A 20-person manufacturer shipping several tonnes a year into the same country would qualify under Parliament’s text and fail the Council’s volume test.
The volume test needs data most teams do not hold per member state. If the Council approach prevails, packaging weight placed on each national market per calendar year becomes the number that decides whether you need a representative. Sales systems usually record units and product weight, so the packaging share per destination country would have to be built from bills of materials.
The size test is easier to evidence but leaves out companies that are large overall with a small cross-border tail. That is where the pressure to combine the two filters is likely to come from. A combined text is my expectation, not something any source reports.
Contracts matter more than the headline. A representative appointed now is a cost that a later suspension may or may not remove, and Parliament’s own position stresses that current obligations remain applicable until an amendment is approved and enters into force. Teams signing or renewing mandates should check notice periods and whether a legal change gives a right to terminate.
Open questions
Several points are not settled by anything I could find in official or trade sources as of 2 November 2026.
- Which filter wins. Size, volume, or both. The trilogue (the three-way negotiation between Parliament, Council and Commission) has to reconcile them.
- End date. 2032 with a 2030 review, 2035, or a date tied to a circular economy act. ERP, a producer responsibility organisation, argues that adjustments to the authorised representative framework should be addressed comprehensively under the forthcoming Circular Economy Act. That is a position, not a forecast.
- The safeguard clause. The Council press release says it applies when a producer is found in breach of EPR obligations. I found no detail on who makes that finding or whether the exemption is lost for one member state or all of them.
- How the 1 tonne is counted. The Council refers to packaging made available per member state per calendar year. How producers of packaged goods would evidence that weight is unconfirmed.
- National registration. EuroCommerce notes that the authorised representative rules have exposed differences in national EPR and waste legislation across the EU. ESM Magazine carries that comment. It remains unclear how an exempt producer would register and pay fees in each country without a representative.
What to watch next
The next step is the start of trilogues. I did not find an official date. The Council says it is ready to reach an agreement with the European Parliament, and its press release ties the work to the Irish presidency, which runs to the end of 2026.
Watch for three signals: a first trilogue date, a compromise text that mixes the size and volume tests, and the final end date. Publication in the Official Journal is the point at which anything becomes law.
A separate PPWR date has also moved. Packaging Insights reports that the Commission has pushed the harmonised labelling implementing act to Q2 2027 and plans a public consultation. Producers will have two years after that act is in place to label correctly, according to letsrecycle.com. Teams short on time can reasonably put representative questions ahead of label artwork for now.
What to do now
- Keep current representatives. Nothing is suspended in law. Check termination and notice clauses so that a later change does not leave you paying for a role you no longer need.
- Build a country-by-country packaging weight table for direct sales to end users outside your home member state, in tonnes per calendar year. It tests you against the Council’s 1 tonne line.
- Test your size against the Parliament criteria: fewer than 50 employees and turnover or balance sheet under EUR 10 million. Confirm the definition against the final text.
- Keep registering, reporting and paying fees. Every text in play leaves those EPR obligations in place.
- Non-EU sellers: plan for representatives as usual, since no text relieves you.
- Ask your marketplaces and producer responsibility organisations how they would handle an exempt producer, so you are not caught out by their processes.
- Read the official text when it appears and take legal advice where a representative decision carries real cost. This article is information, not legal advice.
Sources
- Council of the EU: Simplification: Council agrees negotiating stance to cut red tape for small packaging producers
- Council of the EU: Press release 841/26, 21 October 2026
- Packaging Law: EU Environmental Omnibus Package Impacts Packaging
- Mundolatas: European Parliament Backs Exemption for Small Businesses from Appointing Extended Producer Responsibility Representatives Until 2035
- Just Style: EU Parliament backs targeted EPR rule suspensions for small companies
- Midwest Radio: MEP calls for suspension of packaging requirements for small businesses
- Leitrim Observer: Mullooly pushes for suspension of packaging rules
- ESM Magazine: EuroCommerce Welcomes EU Lawmakers’ Move To Ease Some EPR Rules Under PPWR
- ERP Global: Environmental Omnibus Council adopts position and ENVI drafts EPR simplification reports
- Packaging Insights: EU delays PPWR labeling rules to Q2 2027, plans consultation
- letsrecycle.com: EC delays packaging labelling plans to allow for consultation
Header image: illustration, AI-generated.