The ESPR enables the regulation of both chemicals as a product group and the presence of substances of concern in products. An examination of several key elements of the ESPR demonstrates that regulating chemicals and substances of concern from a sustainable product perspective raises questions regarding the delineation of scope and interaction between the ESPR and EU chemicals legislation. By analyzing these questions, this article identifies a need for greater clarity, coordination and alignment at the interface between the ESPR and EU chemicals legislation, which may be placed within a broader context of the Safe and Sustainable by Design approach and the EU's ambition of creating a coherent legal framework regulating the life cycle of chemicals, materials and products.
The waste hierarchy constitutes a core principle of EU waste policy. Enshrined in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), it prioritises prevention over preparation for re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal, and functions as a normative framework for advancing circularity. Since the adoption of the 2015 Circular Economy Package, the traditional 4R framework has been conceptually expanded through the introduction of numerous additional "R-concepts", often articulated within a 10R circular hierarchy. This paper examines how such R-concepts are incorporated within three key regulatory instruments: the Waste Framework Directive, the Ecodesign Regulation, and the Construction Products Regulation. Many of these concepts are not explicitly embedded in the waste hierarchy. The analysis assesses whether their use privileges higher-order circular strategies, such as prevention and reuse, or continues to emphasise recycling. The paper evaluates the normative alignment of EU waste and product law with circularity and implications for legal certainty.
Recent EU legislative developments on product design and consumer protection - most notably Regulation (EU) 2024/871 on ecodesign for sustainable products and Directive (EU) 2024/1799 on common rules promoting the repair of goods- seek to embed circularity obligations and to equip consumers with new repair-related rights. This article examines whether these measures amount to a genuine "right to repair" or remain a set of fragmented tools centred on information and transparency. By analysing manufacturers' obligations, the role of product design and the limits of enforceability, it questions both the effectiveness and the universality of this emerging legal concept within the EU's circular-economy agenda.
The article explains how the circular economy creates a new link between producer and consumer and asks whether this development has also an impact on the consumer's right to make direct claims against the producer with whom the consumer has no contract. It identifies the classical direct claim, accepted in some legal systems, as a claim that is either based on the 'accessory theory' or on fairness considerations. In both cases, the direct claim is limited by the terms of the contract between the producer and the first seller. It contrasts this classical direct claim with the new type of direct claim, the eco direct claim, that is introduced in the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the Right to Repair Directive, the objectives of which are consumer protection and stimulating private enforcement. On this basis, the article hypothesizes that direct claims could be facing a new era.
