Search every question across sub-FAQs

Disclosure and prohibition are linked but separate. Article 24 requires publication of information about discarded unsold consumer products. Article 25 prohibits destruction only for unsold consumer products listed in Annex VII, and the initial Annex VII list covers apparel and clothing accessories plus footwear commodity-code entries.

Article 25 also says economic operators not subject to the prohibition must not destroy unsold consumer products supplied to them for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition. Article 25 lets the Commission amend Annex VII and set derogations, but this FAQ should not turn those powers into ungrounded current exemptions or extra product bans.

The first caveat is the product label. Article 24 is about unsold consumer products that are discarded; it is not a general disclosure rule for every inventory adjustment, write-down, component, intermediate input, return, or waste stream unless the facts fit that wording.

The second caveat is the operator size and role. Article 24 addresses economic operators that discard the products or have them discarded on their behalf. Micro and small enterprises are outside Article 24(1), while medium-sized enterprises enter the Article 24(1) duty from 19 July 2030. Article 25 separately allows delegated acts to apply the disclosure obligation or destruction prohibition to micro and small enterprises where evidence shows they could be used to circumvent those rules.

Article 24 requires more than a public web page. If the Commission or a competent national authority asks, the operator must provide the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate delivery and reception of the discarded products disclosed under Article 24(1)(c), and where relevant the information needed to demonstrate an Article 25(5) derogation.

The evidence file should therefore tie the public disclosure back to product counts, product weight, product type or category, discard reasons, recipient or treatment route, waste-hierarchy activity, planned prevention measures, and any claimed derogation. Article 24 says that requested documentation must be provided in paper or electronic form within 30 days of receiving the request.

No. ESPR sets a horizontal framework. Article 9 says information requirements shall provide that products can be placed on the market or put into service only if a Digital Product Passport is available in accordance with the applicable delegated act and Articles 10 and 11.

That means the operative obligation is product-rule dependent. A team should first identify whether its product group is covered by an ESPR delegated act, then read that act for the required data, carrier, passport level, access rights, update rights, and availability period.

The delegated act is where ESPR turns the passport framework into product-group instructions. Article 9 requires delegated acts to specify the passport data, data carrier, carrier layout and position, whether the passport is at model, batch or item level, customer pre-contract access, stakeholder access rights, who may create or update data, update arrangements, and how long the passport remains available.

Annex III lists candidate data categories, including the unique product identifier, commodity codes, compliance documentation, user manuals or warnings, manufacturer and importer information, operator and facility identifiers, and the DPP service provider hosting the back-up copy. It does not mean every listed element is mandatory for every product.

Article 10 requires the passport to be connected through a data carrier to a persistent unique product identifier. The data carrier must be physically present on the product, packaging, or accompanying documentation as specified in the applicable delegated act.

Article 11 adds technical design requirements: passports must be interoperable, access must be free of charge and easy based on delegated-act access rights, data and update rights must be controlled, reliability and integrity must be ensured, and the passport must remain available for the specified period, including after insolvency, liquidation, or cessation of activity of the responsible operator.

Articles 12 to 14 cover unique identifiers, the Commission registry, and a public web portal for searching and comparing passport data according to access rights. The registry and portal do not replace the product-specific delegated act.

Start with data lineage, not final field guesses. For each likely passport data point, identify the internal owner, supplier source, calculation method, update trigger, evidence location, access classification, and whether the field is required by law, expected by draft product work, or voluntary.

Supplier evidence should be tied to the data it supports. CIRPASS and CEN-CENELEC materials both highlight practical design issues around supply-chain information exchange, interoperability, access control, traceability, and data availability, but they are not substitutes for the legal delegated act.

Do not state final DPP fields, universal product deadlines, penalties, certification obligations, or mandatory service-provider arrangements unless the claim is grounded in ESPR, an applicable delegated act, or a later binding act. The Commission consultation material shows that service-provider storage, management, and certification questions are still part of policy development.

For now, the reliable answer is conditional: ESPR defines the DPP framework, core technical and governance requirements, and delegated-act mechanism; product-specific obligations mature through the relevant delegated act and supporting standards or common specifications.

The starting point is broad: ESPR applies to physical goods placed on the EU market or put into service, including components and intermediate products. That means a scope review should begin with the product itself, its route to the EU market, and whether it is a component or intermediate product rather than only a finished consumer item.

Do not treat broad ESPR scope as proof that a specific product already has detailed ecodesign limits, passport fields, test methods, or conformity routes. Those details depend on delegated acts adopted for the relevant product group.

Article 1 excludes food, feed, human and veterinary medicinal products, living plants, animals and micro-organisms, products of human origin, and plant or animal products relating directly to future reproduction. Certain vehicles are excluded only for product aspects covered by sector-specific EU legislation.

The vehicle caveat matters: the exclusion is not a blanket statement that every vehicle-related product or aspect is outside ESPR. The regulation also states in its recitals that e-bikes and e-scooters should not be excluded from ESPR scope.

ESPR is framework legislation. It establishes the system for setting ecodesign requirements, but the binding details for a product group come through delegated acts. Those acts specify the product group, requirements, methods, conformity assessment, technical documentation elements, transitional period, and review date.

For a product-scope answer, this means the strongest grounded conclusion is often: the product may fall within ESPR's framework scope, but the operative obligations depend on the delegated act that covers the product group.

Monitor the ESPR working plan and delegated-act pipeline, not only the regulation text. Article 18 requires a publicly available working plan that prioritises product groups and horizontal requirements, and the Commission overview says the first ESPR and Energy Labelling Working Plan was adopted in April 2025.

The regulation itself identifies product groups to be prioritised in the first working plan: iron and steel; aluminium; textiles, especially garments and footwear; furniture, including mattresses; tyres; detergents; paints; lubricants; chemicals; certain energy-related products; and information and communication technology products and other electronics.

The DPP link follows the same delegated-act logic. Article 9 says products can only be placed on the market or put into service with a DPP where the applicable delegated act requires it, and the delegated act specifies the data, carrier, access, level, update responsibilities, and availability period.

The Commission overview describes the DPP as a digital identity card for products, components, and materials that stores relevant sustainability information and supports circularity and compliance. That is useful context, but it is not permission to invent a product's final passport data fields before the relevant act specifies them.

Keep the evidence narrow. A useful ESPR product-scope record should show the product description, EU market route, whether it is a component or intermediate product, any Article 1 exclusion analysis, the relevant Article 18 product group or working-plan item, and the delegated-act status.

The evidence should also state what is not yet grounded. If no delegated act has been identified for the product group, the file should not claim specific ESPR thresholds, passport fields, penalties, application dates, or conformity procedures.