This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the legal conditions that ideally should be fulfilled to support the transition towards a circular economy in the European Union. More specifically, the paper examines how the current legal framework can be improved and how coherence within and between the relevant laws can be established in view of life-cycle thinking. This topic is underexposed in the literature. Three key laws are analysed separately: the Ecodesign Framework Directive, the Waste Framework Directive and the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation. Besides the identification of specific improvements for each key law, common challenges are formulated. Based on this analysis, the following conclusions are drawn. Firstly, as the concept of life-cycle thinking lies at the heart of the circular economy, it should be explicitly referred to as an environmental principle in EU primary and secondary legislation, or in any case be recognised as such by the EU institutions. Secondly, the acknowledgement of the existence of 'EU materials law' as a branch of EU environmental law could further strengthen the legal transition to a circular economy. Thirdly, product passports and the launch of an online product registration database could also facilitate the transition through the gathering and supply of information.

The European Union (EU) Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) applies to chemical substances on their own, in mixtures or in articles. Manufacturers using either virgin or recycled substances have to comply with these rules, which do not explicitly distinguish between the two sources. This contribution considers REACH in the circular economy, with a particular focus on its role in the circularity of plastics through recycling. We show that the lack of information about the specific composition of the plastic waste arriving at the recycling facility greatly affects the ability of recyclers to comply with REACH. Over and above several other obstacles plastics recyclers encounter, this creates legal uncertainty about the use of recycled plastics and uncertainty about their market outlet. The recycling industry can in effect either choose to carry on in a regulatory vacuum or to continue the old, linear as opposed to circular scenario. On the face of it, this hardly supports the circular economy philosophy. We reflect how EU regulators may reconcile the objectives of creating a low-risk life cycle of plastics (REACH) with the creation of a cycle with enough throughputs of plastics (Waste Framework Directive). We also propose practical solutions.

This paper shows that while one may disagree with the exact content of the current state of nanotechnology regulation (including from a precautionary point of view), existing EU law in that area follows the by now well-trodden path of 'incremental regulation', which by its very nature is reactionary. Sustainable materials management, on the other hand, is driven not by reaction to hazard, but rather by rising to opportunities. This, the EU finds much harder to surround with the required regulatory certainty.