# Omnibus VIII leaves the representative duty for non-EU sellers intact, but changes the arithmetic of selling through an EU hub

> Neither the European Parliament's position of 20 October 2026 nor the Council's mandate of 21 October 2026 relaxes the PPWR authorised representative duty for producers established outside the EU, so a non-EU brand selling directly to consumers still needs one representative in each Member State it sells into; what the trilogue can change is the cost of the alternative route, an EU subsidiary selling across borders.

Publisher: Strategic Packaging Insights  
Published: 2026-10-31  
Last updated: 2026-10-31  
Page: https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/omnibus-ppwr-authorised-representative-non-eu-exporters/

**Neither the European Parliament's position of 20 October 2026 nor the Council's mandate of 21 October 2026 relaxes the PPWR authorised representative duty for producers established outside the EU, so a non-EU brand selling directly to consumers still needs one representative in each Member State it sells into; what the trilogue can change is the cost of the alternative route, an EU subsidiary selling across borders.**

The Commission's original Omnibus VIII proposal was the only text that would have let Member States drop the written mandate for third-country sellers in favour of other enforcement means, and both co-legislators have set that aside. For non-EU exporters the live questions are now structural: where to hold EU stock and title, which entity is the producer in each country, and whether the Council's 1-tonne line or Parliament's company-size test survives.

## Executive summary

The Omnibus VIII debate on the PPWR authorised representative has been told as a story about EU small businesses, and for them it is. SPI's [news coverage](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/news/eu-omnibus-authorised-representative-vote/) tracked the votes, and [Ledger 52](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/small-producers-euro-epr-thresholds-flat-fees/) set the relief against national small producer fees. This piece looks at the group that every text leaves out: producers established outside the EU that sell into several Member States.

For them the headline is continuity. Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 has required a producer under Article 3(1)(15)(c) or (d), which includes a seller established in a third country that supplies end users directly, to appoint a representative by written mandate in each Member State of first making available since 12 August 2026. Parliament's position limits relief to EU-based micro and small enterprises, and the Council's mandate of 21 October 2026, document ST 14765/26, covers only a producer established in a Member State and says the rules for third-country producers should stay in their current form (Exhibit 1).

What does change is the comparison between routes to market. A non-EU group that sells through its own EU subsidiary turns that subsidiary into the producer, and it is the subsidiary that could benefit from a pause. Under the Council's 1-tonne test per Member State, SPI's illustrative brand needs 5 representatives through an EU hub against 8 selling direct; under the Commission's original text it would need none through the hub (Exhibits 6 and 7).

The gap with EU competitors also widens. An EU rival of the same size would drop some or all of its representatives under any of the three texts, while the non-EU seller keeps all of them (Exhibit 8). That is a cost and speed difference, not a legal risk, but it shapes where groups put their EU entity.

For leaders outside the EU, three moves matter now: keep every existing representative in place, because nothing is final; map each SKU to the legal entity that is the producer in each Member State; and decide, before trilogue texts settle, whether an EU hub is worth modelling. Argus Media reported on 26 October 2026 that an EU official expected negotiations on the final text to begin later in November.

## Key findings

1. Article 45(3) has applied since 12 August 2026 and, by 30 October 2026, had been in force for 79 days by SPI's calculation; no final Omnibus VIII text has been agreed or published (Legislative Observatory, 2025/0395(COD)).
2. Parliament adopted its position, T10-0345/2026, on 20 October 2026 by 616 votes to 9 with 39 abstentions, and referred the file back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations; its relief covers EU-based firms with fewer than 50 employees and turnover or balance sheet below EUR 10 million (European Parliament press release; Legislative Observatory).
3. The Council's mandate of 21 October 2026 suspends Article 45(3) only for a producer established in a Member State, per other Member State where it places under 1 tonne a year, until 1 January 2032; recital 6 keeps the rules for third-country producers in their current form (ST 14765/26).
4. The Commission's proposal of 10 December 2025 would have suspended Article 45(3) as a whole and let each Member State either require a written mandate from third-country producers or ensure traceability and enforcement through alternative means (ST 16753/25, Article 2).
5. **SPI calculation:**  for an illustrative non-EU brand selling 80.8 tonnes a year into 8 Member States, selling direct needs 8 representatives in every outcome, while the same sales through an EU subsidiary in the Netherlands need 7 today, 5 under the Council's test, 2 under an SPI test at 10 tonnes and none under the Commission's text.
6. 1 tonne is 20,000 packs at 50 grams each, by SPI's calculation, so the Council's line reaches only test-market volumes for most consumer brands (Exhibit 4).
7. **SPI analysis:**  platforms remain the enforcement point for non-EU sellers, because Article 45(4) requires online platforms to collect producers' registration information before letting them sell to consumers, according to the unofficial consolidated text SPI read.

## Who Article 45(3) catches, in the Regulation's own terms

The duty rests on two definitions. Article 3(1)(15) lists five ways to be a packaging producer. Points (a) and (b) cover a company established in a Member State that first makes packaging or packaged products available there. Points (c) and (d) cover a company established in a Member State or in a third country that first makes packaging or packaged products available directly to end users in another Member State. Point (e) catches a company that unpacks packaged products without being an end user (lxgesetze.de, Article 3, unofficial German consolidated text).

Article 45(3) then applies to points (c) and (d). Its first subparagraph requires such a producer to appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility in each Member State where it first makes packaging available, other than the Member State where it is established. Its second subparagraph lets Member States require producers established in third countries to appoint a representative when they first make packaging or packaged products available on their territory (lxgesetze.de, Article 45). Article 3(1)(20) defines the representative as a person established in the Member State concerned, appointed to carry out the producer's obligations under Chapter VIII.

Commission Notice C/2026/3084 of 10 June 2026 adds two readings that matter for groups based outside the EU. Offering a product directly to an end user counts as making it available in the end user's Member State, and a branch of a non-EU company has no separate legal personality, so it cannot act as importer. The non-EU manufacturer must instead incorporate an EU subsidiary or appoint a representative where a Member State requires one (SPI rule [PR-EU-001](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/european-union/pr-eu-001/), from the Notice, consulted 14 October 2026). The Notice is guidance, not law, and says only the Court of Justice gives binding interpretations.

Producer status is the bigger obligation and none of the Omnibus texts touches it. Registration in each Member State, reporting and EPR fees all follow from it, which is why fee levels in [SPI's per-tonne comparison](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/epr-fees-per-tonne-2026/) apply to a non-EU seller exactly as they do to a domestic one. The representative is the person who carries those obligations locally.

## What the three texts do for producers outside the EU

**The Commission's proposal.**  COM(2025) 982 of 10 December 2025, transmitted to the Council as ST 16753/25 on 11 December 2025, has two operative suspensions. Article 1 suspends Article 56(3) of the Batteries Regulation and Article 2 suspends Article 45(3) of the PPWR, both until 1 January 2035. Because Article 45(3) would be suspended as a whole, the second paragraph of Article 2 sets a fallback for third-country packaging producers: Member States may either provide that they appoint a representative by written mandate when first making packaging available, or ensure traceability and enforcement through alternative means (ST 16753/25).

That was a real change for non-EU sellers. It would have turned a uniform EU duty into 27 national choices. Recital 6 explains why the Commission still wanted a backstop: enforcement against third-country producers is harder because they sit outside Member States' enforcement powers and the EU's administrative and judicial cooperation mechanisms.

**Parliament's position.**  Parliament adopted its first-reading position on 20 October 2026, recorded as T10-0345/2026, and the matter was referred back to committee for negotiations the same day (Legislative Observatory). Its press release says the suspension would apply only to EU-based small and micro enterprises, with fewer than 50 employees and turnover or balance sheet under EUR 10 million, until 2035 or until a circular economy act is adopted. SPI has not yet confirmed how the adopted text words the third-country fallback, but a pause limited to EU-based firms leaves a third-country seller's duty under the first subparagraph untouched.

**The Council's mandate.**  ST 14765/26 of 21 October 2026 replaces the Commission's blanket suspension with a targeted one. A producer established in one Member State does not need a representative in another Member State where it makes less than 1 tonne of packaging, including packaging of packaged products, available for the first time in a calendar year. The suspension runs to 1 January 2032, a new Article 2a asks the Commission to review its length by 31 December 2030, and a competent authority can order an exempted producer that breaches its EPR obligations to appoint a representative. Recital 6 states that the existing provisions for producers established in third countries should be maintained in their current form (ST 14765/26).

SPI analysis

Both co-legislators therefore removed the one element that would have helped non-EU sellers directly, the national option of alternative means. Unless trilogues revive it, which neither position asks for, a non-EU direct seller should plan on the current rule through 2032 and beyond.

## A framework: four routes to EU consumers, and what each text does to them

The useful question for a non-EU exporter is not whether it is covered, but which route it uses. SPI groups the routes into four, by who is the producer in each destination Member State (Exhibit 3).

**Route A**  is the default for brands shipping parcels from outside the EU. It carries the full duty: in Germany the representative must be named in the LUCID register before the first sale, and the Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister (ZSVR) says there is no exemption.

**Route B**  looks lighter, because the platform handles the storefront, but the producer is still the seller. Article 45(4) makes the platform collect registration details and a self-certification before letting the producer sell, and section 13 of Germany's VerpackDG bars distributors and fulfilment providers from handling packaging of producers not registered in LUCID ([PR-DE-001](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/germany/pr-de-001/)), as [SPI's Germany piece](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/germany-packaging-law-2026-verpackg-plastic-tax/) sets out.

**Route C**  is where Omnibus VIII matters. An EU subsidiary that holds stock and sells to consumers across borders is a point (c) producer in each other Member State, which is exactly the producer the Commission, Parliament and Council want to relieve, to different degrees.

**Route D**  shifts the producer role to an EU importer or distributor in each market. The brand needs no representative under the first subparagraph, but gives up control of registration and fee data, and the importer's costs come back in the price.

SPI analysis

The trilogue does not change Routes A, B or D for a non-EU seller. It changes the relative cost of Route C, and that is the decision a non-EU board can actually take.

## How much is 1 tonne?

The Council's test is per Member State and per calendar year, and it counts all packaging made available for the first time, including the packaging of packaged products (ST 14765/26). Exhibit 4 shows how few packs fit under it.

At 50 grams of packaging per order, 1 tonne is 20,000 orders a year, or about 55 a day by SPI's calculation. That is a market a brand is testing, not one it serves. Argus Media reported on 26 October 2026 that Germany had proposed a 10-tonne threshold during Council talks, which would cover 200,000 such orders a year; SPI has not seen that proposal in a public Council document.

The comparison with national small producer lines is in [Ledger 52](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/small-producers-euro-epr-thresholds-flat-fees/), which shows the Council's 1 tonne sitting below Austria's 1,500 kg flat-fee band. For a non-EU exporter the point is narrower: even if it builds an EU hub, the 1-tonne test removes representatives only in its smallest markets.

## Scenario: one brand, eight markets, four outcomes

To show what the routes and texts mean in practice, SPI built an illustrative non-EU brand that sells online to consumers in 8 Member States. Its packaging tonnes per Member State are SPI assumptions, chosen to look like a brand with two large markets and a tail of small ones (Exhibit 5).

Route A sells direct from outside the EU into all 8. Route C sets up a subsidiary in the Netherlands, which is the producer at home and a point (c) producer in the other 7. Route D uses an importer in each market. The outcomes are the current rule, the Commission's text, Parliament's position (with the subsidiary either qualifying as a small enterprise or not) and the Council's mandate, plus an SPI test at 10 tonnes, a level chosen because a 10-tonne line was reported in Council talks.

The low, base and high cases for a hub follow directly. **Low:**  the Council's 1-tonne test wins, and the hub drops Austria and Ireland, keeping 5 representatives. **Base:**  a compromise with a higher threshold, such as SPI's 10-tonne test, keeps only Germany and France, so 2 remain. **High:**  a size test that the subsidiary meets, or the Commission's original scope, removes all 7. The direct route stays at 8 in every case, so the gap between the routes runs from 1 representative to 8 (Exhibit 7).

Two assumptions drive the Parliament rows. Parliament's press release defines the eligible firms by staff and turnover or balance sheet, the same ceilings as a small enterprise in the EU SME definition, which the Commission's PPWR guidance already uses for micro-enterprises. SPI has not yet confirmed whether the adopted text counts a parent group's staff and turnover. If it does, the subsidiary of a large non-EU group would rarely qualify, and the Parliament row for a hub would be 7, not 0.

SPI analysis

The scenario says nothing about cost per representative, which SPI does not price, and nothing about fees, which are due in every case. What it shows is that the case for an EU hub, which rests on stock, returns, VAT and customs as much as on packaging, gets a modest extra argument under the Council's text and a large one only if a size test is written in a way a group subsidiary can meet.

## The gap between EU and non-EU sellers of the same size

Omnibus VIII creates an asymmetry that did not exist on 12 August 2026. Exhibit 8 compares the illustrative brand with an EU rival of identical size and tonnage, established in the Netherlands and selling directly into the same 7 other Member States.

The difference of one representative today is the home market: the EU rival needs none in the Netherlands, while the non-EU seller needs one there too. Under Parliament's position the gap becomes the full 8. Under the Council's mandate it is 3, because the rival drops only its two smallest markets.

The co-legislators justify the asymmetry on enforcement grounds. Recital 6 of the Commission's proposal, which the Council kept, says third-country producers sit outside Member States' enforcement powers and EU cooperation mechanisms.

## National rules a non-EU seller meets today

The representative is an EU duty, but each Member State runs its own register, language and contract rules. Exhibit 9 summarises four that SPI holds in its tracker and fee-market data.

In practice: Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister.

Germany's register authority lists the representative's tasks in detail. It takes over system contracts, volume reports, completeness declarations, take-back duties and deposit participation in its own name, while registration in LUCID stays with the producer; the appointment takes effect only once the representative confirms it in LUCID (SPI rule [PR-DE-001](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/germany/pr-de-001/), from the ZSVR, consulted 14 October 2026). A producer may appoint only one representative, so a non-EU group with several selling entities has to decide which one holds the German mandate.

In practice: MITECO's producer register.

Spain's register asks every producer to show its registration number, in the format ENV/year/nine digits, on invoices and accompanying documents, and to file annual data between 2 January and 31 March of the following year (SPI rule [PR-ES-002](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/spain/pr-es-002/), from MITECO, consulted 14 October 2026). A representative for a non-Spanish seller registers and reports on its behalf, so it needs the seller's sales data by Spanish destination well before the March deadline.

In practice: Belgium's 2020 cooperation agreement.

Belgium extended the definition of packaging responsible to foreign distance sellers in 2020 and let them appoint a Belgian representative, six years before the PPWR made a representative mandatory (SPI fee-market data, from Wallex, consulted 14 October 2026). Belgian fees, set out in [SPI's Benelux piece](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/benelux-packaging-fees-fost-plus-valorlux/), apply to the foreign seller in the same way.

SPI analysis

These national forms will outlast any Omnibus outcome for non-EU sellers, because the co-legislators' texts leave third-country rules as they are. Contract templates, language rules and register steps are where a multi-country seller spends its compliance time.

## Platforms, fulfilment and the enforcement point

For non-EU sellers, the platform is where the rule is checked. Article 45(4) requires providers of online platforms that let consumers conclude distance contracts with producers to obtain the producer's registration information under Article 44, its registration number or numbers, and a self-certification before allowing it to use their services (lxgesetze.de, Article 45, unofficial German text). SPI has not yet confirmed the English wording or any separate start date for this paragraph against the Official Journal.

The e-commerce angle on platforms is set out in [Ledger 23](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/insights/ecommerce-packaging-amazon-alibaba-ppwr/). For the representative rule, the practical point is that the check runs per Member State. A seller with a representative in Germany but not in Spain can lose its Spanish listings while its German ones stay live.

## Industry reaction

> "The existing provisions on the appointment of an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility for producers established in third countries should therefore be maintained in their current form."

***European Commission** , recital 6 of proposal COM(2025) 982, [Council document 16753/25](https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16753-2025-INIT/en/pdf), 11 December 2025*

The Council's mandate of 21 October 2026 keeps the same instruction in its own recital 6, that these provisions should be maintained in their current form, so on this point the Commission and the Council agree.

The Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister, Germany's packaging register authority, tells foreign producers in its [authorised representative guidance](https://www.verpackungsregister.org/en/ppwr/authorised-representative) that the representative takes over all their extended producer responsibility obligations with one exception, registration in the LUCID register. Registration in LUCID stays with the producer, so a representative does not remove the foreign seller's own register entry.

> "We should reach these goals without creating unnecessary obstacles for the businesses we want to see succeed in Europe."

***Rapporteur for the file, EPP group** , European Parliament, [press release](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20261018IPR48256), 20 October 2026*

The release links that aim to EU-based small and micro enterprises; it does not extend it to producers outside the Union.

## What could still move in trilogues

Parliament and the Council agree on the direction for EU producers and on leaving third-country producers alone, so most of the trilogue is about Route C. Four points could still reach non-EU groups.

**The test.**  Company size or volume per Member State. A size test written without group consolidation would help EU subsidiaries of non-EU groups the most; a volume test helps every EU entity, but only in small markets.

**The threshold.**  1 tonne in the Council's text; Argus Media reported that Germany pressed for 10 tonnes, which SPI has not seen in a public Council document. In SPI's scenario, a 10-tonne line would move the hub's count from 5 to 2.

**The end date.**  1 January 2032 with a review by 31 December 2030 in the Council's text, against 2035 or an earlier circular economy act in Parliament's. Either way the relief is temporary, which limits how far a group should restructure around it.

**The safeguard.**  The Council lets an authority order an exempted producer in breach of its EPR obligations to appoint a representative. For an EU hub of a non-EU group, that means the relief can be withdrawn market by market.

Batteries are a separate question. The Commission and Parliament texts cover Article 56(3) of the Batteries Regulation, while the Council's mandate shows the batteries wording as deleted, as SPI's news report noted. Non-EU sellers of battery-powered products should map that regime separately.

## A decision sequence for non-EU exporters

The routes in Exhibit 3 are not exclusive, and most groups run more than one. SPI suggests working through four questions in order, market by market, using the SKU and entity matrix described below.

**First, who is the producer in each Member State today?**  The Commission's guidance treats goods imported from outside the Union as placed on the market at release for free circulation, by an importer established in the Union (SPI rule [PR-EU-001](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/european-union/pr-eu-001/), from Notice C/2026/3084). If the group's own EU company clears the goods, it is the importer and, where it first makes them available in its home Member State, the producer there. If a customer or a distributor clears them, that company usually holds the role. If parcels go straight from outside the EU to consumers, the non-EU seller is the producer under point (d) in every destination.

**Second, which of those roles need a representative?**  Under the first subparagraph of Article 45(3), only points (c) and (d) do, and only outside the home Member State. A non-EU seller selling direct has no home Member State in the EU, which is why its count in Exhibit 6 is 8 for 8 markets, against 7 for an EU hub selling into the same 8.

**Third, does any Member State use the second subparagraph?**  This is the route by which a Member State can ask a third-country producer for a representative even where it is not selling direct. SPI has not yet confirmed which Member States use it, so the Route D count of zero in Exhibit 6 is a floor, not a promise.

**Fourth, what would each Omnibus outcome change for the entities that remain?**  Only the EU-established entities in Route C are in play. For them, the answers are the counts in Exhibit 7, and they depend on the test, the threshold and the end date still open in trilogues.

SPI analysis

The sequence matters because the first answer is usually wrong in a fast-growing e-commerce business. Fulfilment from an EU warehouse, a change of customs broker or a new marketplace programme can move the producer role from one entity to another without anyone in the group deciding it, and every such move changes the representative count.

## What leaders should do now

1. **General counsel of non-EU sellers, now:**  keep every representative mandate in place in every Member State where you sell direct, because both negotiating positions leave the third-country duty unchanged and no text is final.
2. **Compliance leads, by 31 December 2026:**  build a matrix of SKU, legal entity and Member State showing which entity is the producer under Article 3(1)(15) points (a) to (e), and which entity holds each mandate.
3. **E-commerce leads, before the next platform onboarding cycle:**  collect registration numbers per Member State and the self-certification platforms request under Article 45(4), and check that the representative is confirmed in LUCID for Germany.
4. **Finance and supply chain, in the first half of 2027:**  model Route C against Route A using your own tonnes per Member State, with the 1-tonne and a 10-tonne case, and include stock, returns, VAT and customs; do not decide on packaging alone.
5. **Strategy teams, at each trilogue milestone:**  check whether the final test is size or volume and whether a size test consolidates group data, because that decides whether an EU subsidiary of your group benefits at all.
6. **Product teams selling batteries or electrical goods, now:**  map the Batteries Regulation and WEEE representative duties separately, since the Council's mandate appears to leave batteries out of the pause.
7. **Boards, at the next review after a final text is published:**  confirm the date the relief applies, 20 days after publication under the proposal, before any EU entity ends a mandate.

## Questions for your board

- In which Member States are we the producer today, and through which legal entity?
- How many representative mandates do we hold, and which of them would any version of Omnibus VIII change?
- What are our packaging tonnes per Member State per year, and how many markets sit under 1 tonne or 10 tonnes?
- Would an EU subsidiary pay for itself on stock, returns, VAT and customs, with representative savings as a bonus rather than the case?
- Do our platform accounts in each Member State carry current registration numbers and representative details?
- If an authority withdrew a suspension under the Council's safeguard, how fast could we reappoint?

## What to watch

- **Nov 2026:**  start of negotiations on the final text; Argus Media reported on 26 October 2026 that an EU official expected them later in November.
- **No date set:**  publication of the article wording of Parliament's adopted text, T10-0345/2026, including any wording on third-country producers.
- **Late 2026:**  the Commission's circular economy act proposal, which Parliament's press release expects later in 2026 and which would end Parliament's pause once adopted.
- **31 Dec 2026:**  end of the Irish Council presidency, which presented the mandate; Lithuania holds the presidency from January to June 2027 and Greece from July to December 2027.
- **20 days after publication:**  a final regulation applies on the twentieth day after its Official Journal publication under Article 3 of the proposal and of the Council's mandate.
- **31 Dec 2030:**  Commission review of the suspension's length, in the Council's text.
- **1 Jan 2032:**  end of the suspension in the Council's text.
- **1 Jan 2035:**  end of the pause in the Commission's text and the latest end in Parliament's.

## Methodology

- **Data used:**  SPI rules [PR-EU-012](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/european-union/pr-eu-012/) and [PR-EU-001](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/european-union/pr-eu-001/) in the [SPI Regulation Tracker](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/european-union/pr-eu-012/), with [PR-DE-001](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/germany/pr-de-001/) and [PR-ES-002](https://www.strategicpackaginginsights.com/data/packaging-regulation-tracker/spain/pr-es-002/) and SPI's Belgian fee-market record; Council documents ST 16753/25 (the Commission proposal) and ST 14765/26 (the Council mandate); Parliament's press release and the Legislative Observatory file for 2025/0395(COD); regulator pages; consulted 14 to 30 October 2026.
- **Text of the Regulation:**  Articles 3 and 45 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 were read in the unofficial German consolidated text on lxgesetze.de, which states its basis as the Official Journal text of 22 January 2025. SPI has not yet confirmed the English wording of Article 45(3) and (4) against the Official Journal, and paraphrases it rather than quoting it.
- **Parliament's text:**  the scope of Parliament's position is taken from its press release; SPI has not yet confirmed the article wording of T10-0345/2026, including any treatment of group size or third-country producers.
- **Scenario:**  the brand, its 8 markets and its tonnes are SPI assumptions (Exhibit 5). Counts are mandatory representatives under the first subparagraph of Article 45(3); they are not costs, and SPI does not price representative services. The 10-tonne case is an SPI test threshold; a 10-tonne German position was reported by Argus Media and is not a published Council text.
- **Calculations:**  packs per tonne are 1,000,000 grams divided by assumed pack weight; day counts run from 12 August 2026 to 30 October 2026. All are by SPI's calculation.
- **Cut-off:**  30 October 2026.
- **Limitations:**  this is SPI's reading of official texts and guidance, not legal advice. National rules on the second subparagraph of Article 45(3) vary and SPI has not confirmed all 27. Check with counsel before changing any appointment.

## Sources

1. Council of the EU, ST 14765/26, mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament, interinstitutional file 2025/0395(COD), 21 October 2026, [https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14765-2026-INIT/en/pdf](https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14765-2026-INIT/en/pdf), consulted 2026-10-30.
2. Council of the EU, ST 16753/25, transmitting Commission proposal COM(2025) 982 final, 11 December 2025, [https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16753-2025-INIT/en/pdf](https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16753-2025-INIT/en/pdf), consulted 2026-10-30.
3. European Commission, proposal COM(2025) 982 final (Omnibus VIII), 10 December 2025, [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0982](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0982), consulted 2026-10-14.
4. European Parliament, Waste: MEPs back simplified rules for small businesses, 20 October 2026, [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20261018IPR48256](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20261018IPR48256), consulted 2026-10-30.
5. European Parliament Legislative Observatory, procedure file 2025/0395(COD), [https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025/0395(COD](https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025/0395(COD)), consulted 2026-10-30.
6. Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L, 22 January 2025, [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj/eng](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj/eng), consulted 2026-10-14.
7. lxgesetze.de, Verordnung (EU) 2025/40, Artikel 45, unofficial German consolidated text, [https://lxgesetze.de/ppwr/45](https://lxgesetze.de/ppwr/45), consulted 2026-10-30.
8. lxgesetze.de, Verordnung (EU) 2025/40, Artikel 3, unofficial German consolidated text, [https://lxgesetze.de/ppwr/3](https://lxgesetze.de/ppwr/3), consulted 2026-10-30.
9. European Commission, Notice C/2026/3084, guidance document for Regulation (EU) 2025/40, OJ C, 10 June 2026, [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52026XC03084](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52026XC03084), consulted 2026-10-14.
10. Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister, Authorised representative, [https://www.verpackungsregister.org/en/ppwr/authorised-representative](https://www.verpackungsregister.org/en/ppwr/authorised-representative), consulted 2026-10-30.
11. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 21/5346, government bill for the VerpackDG, [https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/053/2105346.pdf](https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/053/2105346.pdf), consulted 2026-10-14.
12. MITECO, Registro de Productores de Producto, sección envases, [https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/temas/prevencion-y-gestion-residuos/registro-productores-producto/registro-productores-producto-seccion-envases.html](https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/temas/prevencion-y-gestion-residuos/registro-productores-producto/registro-productores-producto-seccion-envases.html), consulted 2026-10-14.
13. Wallex, Accord de coopération du 5 mars 2020 modifiant l'accord de coopération du 4 novembre 2008 concernant la prévention et la gestion des déchets d'emballages, [https://wallex.wallonie.be/nl/contents/acts/133/133121.html](https://wallex.wallonie.be/nl/contents/acts/133/133121.html), consulted 2026-10-14.
14. Sénat, Compte rendu intégral, séance du 29 juin 2026, [https://www.senat.fr/seances/s202606/s20260629/s20260629_mono.html](https://www.senat.fr/seances/s202606/s20260629/s20260629_mono.html), consulted 2026-10-14.
15. Council of the EU, note 14126/26, PPWR, a proportionate EPR framework for small producers and the Single Market, Austrian delegation supported by Czechia and Estonia, 9 October 2026, [https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14126-2026-INIT/en/pdf](https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14126-2026-INIT/en/pdf), consulted 2026-10-14.
16. European Commission, DG Environment, Packaging waste, [https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/packaging-waste_en](https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/packaging-waste_en), consulted 2026-10-14.
17. Argus Media, EU lawmakers push for swift packaging deal, 26 October 2026, [https://www.argusmedia.com/de/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2895866-eu-lawmakers-push-for-swift-packaging-deal](https://www.argusmedia.com/de/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2895866-eu-lawmakers-push-for-swift-packaging-deal), consulted 2026-10-30.
18. Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU, Trio programme, 1 July 2026 to 31 December 2027, [https://irish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/programme/trio-programme-1-july-2026-31-december-2027/](https://irish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/programme/trio-programme-1-july-2026-31-december-2027/), consulted 2026-10-30.
19. SPI Regulation Tracker, rules PR-EU-012, PR-EU-001, PR-DE-001 and PR-ES-002, /data/packaging-regulation-tracker/european-union/pr-eu-012/, consulted 2026-10-30.