Two weeks ago we wrote that the Commission had missed the deadline for the packaging label implementing acts, and that this is good news for manufacturers: the regulation contains a "whichever is the latest" formula, so the delay carries the obligation with it. Ten days ago another deadline passed — the battery passport one. The same phenomenon, with exactly the opposite consequence.
What expired on 18 August
Article 77(9) of the batteries regulation, (EU) 2023/1542, places an obligation on the Commission:
"By 18 August 2026, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying which persons are to be considered persons with a legitimate interest as referred to in points 2 and 4 respectively of Annex XIII for the purposes of paragraph 2, point (c), of this Article and to which information listed in those points they shall have access, and to what extent they can download, share, publish and re-use that information."
Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Article 77(9) — official English text
In plain terms: this act would determine who may look into the non-public layer of the passport — the repairer, the refurbisher, the recycler, the second-life operator — and what they may do with what they see. At the time of writing, ten days past the deadline, it does not exist. The industry expects it in the fourth quarter of 2026.
What this does not move
And here is the difference. Article 77(1) reads:
"From 18 February 2027 each LMT battery, each industrial battery with a capacity greater than 2 kWh and each electric vehicle battery placed on the market or put into service shall have an electronic record ('battery passport')."
Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Article 77(1) — official English text
Read it again. No "or". No "whichever is the latest". A bare calendar date and a "shall". The delay of the implementing act does not push it back — it only takes away preparation time.
The proof that this is deliberate
It would be easy to assume the legislator simply forgot the escape clause. They did not: it appears in the same regulation, a few articles earlier. For carbon footprint performance classes the deadline reads:
"…or 18 months after the date of entry into force either of the delegated act or of the implementing act respectively referred to in the fourth subparagraph, points (a) and (b), whichever is the latest…"
Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Article 7 — official English text
Same law, same technique. So the legislator knew how to make a deadline movable — and chose not to for the passport. That was a decision, not an oversight.
What slips and what does not, in one table
| Obligation | Date | Tied to an act? |
|---|---|---|
| Battery passport (LMT, >2 kWh industrial, EV) | 18 Feb 2027 | No — fixed calendar date |
| Defining "legitimate interest" (Art. 77(9)) | 18 Aug 2026 (expired) | the act itself, still missing |
| Due diligence obligations | 18 Aug 2027 | postponed by (EU) 2025/1561 |
| Carbon footprint performance class (EV) | "or +18 months, whichever is later" | Yes — moves with the act |
| Packaging label (PPWR) | "or +24 months, whichever is later" | Yes — it slips |
Due diligence is a separate story — and it can mislead
There was a postponement in the battery world, just not where many people think. Under Omnibus IV, Regulation (EU) 2025/1561 moved the due diligence obligations to 18 August 2027. It did not touch Article 77.
That produces an odd six months: from February to August 2027 the passport is live while the due diligence report behind it is not yet enforceable. So when someone says "the battery rules have been postponed", it is worth asking which ones — because the passport was not.
This article is information, not legal advice, and it describes a moving situation. The state described is as of 28 August 2026. If the Article 77(9) act appears, the access-layer question is settled — but not even that moves the February 2027 date.
What this means in practice
You have six months to ship a passport whose middle access layer has not been legally defined. That sounds uncomfortable, but it is less so than it first appears — if you work in the right order.
What can be done today, because it does not depend on the missing act:
- The structure. The passport has three layers: public · legitimate interest · authority. Annex XIII already tells you that much — what is missing is only who exactly belongs to the middle one.
- The public layer. It is fully known, and it is what visitors will actually see.
- The QR code and the identifier. Under Article 13(6), from 18 February 2027 every battery must carry a QR code leading to the passport. The code encodes an address, not data — that is what the GS1 Digital Link article is about — so it can safely be printed before the last field is settled.
- Data collection. Material composition, origin and supplier data take the longest and depend on no act at all.
What to leave open: the recipients of the legitimate-interest layer. Do not hard-code into your system exactly who gets access — the act will decide that, and you need to be able to adjust it afterwards.
How does Veridyn help?
Exactly at this point. In Veridyn's schemas, fields are pre-assigned to access levels — public, legitimate interest, authority — so the structure is ready before the law says who qualifies for which level. When the act lands, you do not rebuild the data model; you classify the recipients.
You already grant the authority layer through a token link, with field-level precision — the same machinery will serve legitimate-interest actors. The battery schema is live, and our guide to the battery passport walks through what belongs in it.
See it live, or start for free — the first passport takes minutes.