Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/296 of 9 February 2026, published in the Official Journal on 26 June 2026 and applicable from 19 July 2026, supplements Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 by carving out derogations to the general ban - introduced by Article 25(1) of that Regulation - on the destruction of unsold consumer products listed in Annex VII.
The Delegated Regulation is designed to make the prohibition workable in practice: Article 2 sets out an exhaustive catalogue of circumstances in which destruction is permitted, subject in each case to the operator's ability to produce the supporting documentation prescribed by Article 3. These are not discretionary options, but tightly circumscribed exceptions organised in a clear hierarchy of justifications.
These are not discretionary options, but tightly circumscribed exceptions organised in a clear hierarchy of justifications.
At the top of the hierarchy, the first tier addresses products that cannot lawfully remain on the market: dangerous products within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2023/988, and products non-compliant with EU or national law for reasons other than safety - including, notably, ethical grounds such as forced labor. In such cases, destruction may be prescribed by the applicable legislation or constitute the appropriate and proportionate corrective measure: the regulatory system cannot simultaneously prohibit the sale of a product and prohibit its destruction.
The second tier concerns intellectual property. Destruction is permitted where an IP infringement has been established - by final judicial decision, ADR ruling, right-holder notification or duly substantiated internal investigation - and where contractual or licensing restrictions linked to IP rights impose temporal limits on distribution, provided that the operator can demonstrate both the infringement and the proportionality of destruction as a remedy. A closely related derogation covers products that are technically unsuitable for reuse or remanufacture because protected labels, logos or design features - or features considered “inappropriate” in a cultural, ethical or social context - cannot be removed or rendered permanently inaccessible: mandating their re-entry into the market could itself generate reputational and ethical costs.
The third tier addresses products rendered unusable by physical circumstances: damage, deterioration, contamination or irreparable design and manufacturing defects, where repair or reconditioning is either technically unfeasible or not cost-effective. The Regulation defines the latter threshold with some precision - repair is not cost-effective where its cost exceeds the total cost of destroying and replacing the product - while nonetheless leaving a significant element of operator discretion that is likely to become a focal point in enforcement practice.
The fourth and final tier operates as an explicitly subsidiary safety net: destruction is permitted only where none of the foregoing derogations applies and the operator has exhausted the donation route - by offering the product to at least three eligible social-economy entities or publicly on its website for a minimum of eight weeks - without the donation being accepted, with priority given to local donations so as to minimize environmental impact. The same logic extends to products received as donations by social-economy entities and to products re-placed on the market following waste-treatment operations, where no onward recipient could be found.
Article 3 sets out granular documentation requirements calibrated to each derogation category: operators must retain the relevant records for five years from the date of destruction and produce them to the competent authorities, in electronic format, within 30 days of a request. Article 4 adds a further layer of traceability, requiring operators consigning products to waste-treatment operators to provide a declaration identifying the applicable derogation, so as to facilitate efficient sorting and improve reuse and recycling rates.
Article 4 adds a further layer of traceability, requiring operators consigning products to waste-treatment operators to provide a declaration identifying the applicable derogation, so as to facilitate efficient sorting and improve reuse and recycling rates.
The Regulation's real significance lies less in the novelty of the derogation categories - many of which reflect established practice - than in the consistency of its documentation and verification framework: operators will need to build or adapt internal processes to generate the required evidence contemporaneously, since retrospective justification is unlikely to meet the standard. Two points, in particular, warrant close attention: the definition of cost-effectiveness, which leaves room for divergent interpretations in borderline cases and on which enforcement practice across Member States will need to converge; and the donation-route derogation - eight weeks, three entities - which risks becoming a formalistic step unless the operator documents both the offer and the selection criteria for the entities approached, together with any reasons given for refusal.
Looking ahead, the Commission is required to review the Regulation each time a new product is added to Annex VII of Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 and, in any event, by 12 May 2031, assessing in particular whether technological developments justify a derogation for high-quality recycling technologies. The scope of the destruction ban - and with it, the practical relevance of these derogations - is therefore set to expand.
The scope of the destruction ban - and with it, the practical relevance of these derogations - is therefore set to expand.
