The new Vehicle Regulation will move the ELV sector from negotiation to practical delivery. For ATFs, the key questions are how EPR compensation will work, where battery responsibilities transfer, who carries risk for total-loss EVs, how liability insurance is secured, and why the 95% reuse and recycling target must remain a chain responsibility.
The EU’s new Vehicle Regulation is moving from negotiation to implementation, with the final text completed on 20 June 2025 and publication expected shortly. For authorised treatment facilities (ATFs), dismantlers and the wider end-of-life vehicle (ELV) chain, the key issue is now practical: what will the Regulation mean on the ground, who will carry which responsibilities, and how quickly will new obligations and rights take effect?
Henk Jan Nix, General Secretary of EGARA, says publication will not end the debate. It will start a new phase as recyclers seek clarity on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), battery handling, liability insurance, total-loss electric vehicles and responsibility for meeting the 95% reuse and recycling target.
Extended Producer Responsibility
One of the most important elements is EPR. In principle, it should mean that mandatory activities which are not economically viable are compensated. For ATFs, the key question is which activities will qualify and how compensation will be calculated.
In the latest text, spare parts are mentioned alongside components. This initially raised concern for dismantlers, but the intention appears to be that compensation will be assessed by waste stream, comparing costs and revenues. It is not designed to compensate an ATF simply because the business as a whole is no longer profitable.
The practical effect will only become clear once implemented. What matters is that parts reuse should not undermine compensation for unprofitable material-separation work that ATFs are required to carry out.
Insurability of ATFs
A further concern is the difficulty many ATFs face in obtaining liability insurance. In some countries, cover is being refused by companies also involved in selling, allocating or auctioning ELVs, including electric ELVs, to treatment operators.
If original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must establish a proper collection and treatment network, the insurability of ATFs may need to be considered part of EPR. ATFs provide essential circular services, so it is difficult to justify excluding those activities from insurance cover.
Batteries and regulatory boundaries
Electric and hybrid ELVs bring technical and legal challenges. Large lithium-ion batteries require safe removal, storage and onward collection, but responsibility for the associated costs could be disputed.
The basic principle should be clear. If the battery is still in the ELV, the Vehicle Regulation applies. Once removed, the Battery Regulation should take over. From that point, EPR under the Battery Regulation should ensure that storage and collection costs are compensated by the battery producer.
Without a clear boundary, ATFs risk being caught between vehicle producers, battery producers, insurers and collection networks.
Total-loss electric vehicles
Accident-damaged electric vehicles raise further practical questions. If an EV is declared a total loss and becomes an electric ELV, it should go to an ATF. But responsibility for safe transport is not always straightforward.
If an ATF buys the vehicle at auction, is it responsible for the battery’s condition, even without inspection or a State of Health document? What happens if there is an incident during transport or storage?
Where an electric ELV is assigned and transported directly to an ATF, responsibility would appear to rest with the last owner, often the insurer. In other cases, the answer may depend on the collection network and how EPR is applied.
The 95% target
Some may read the text as placing responsibility for the 95% reuse and recycling target on ATFs alone. That would be too narrow.
Achieving 95% is a chain responsibility. OEMs must design vehicles that can be recycled effectively. Dismantlers, shredders and other treatment operators then each play a role. The text also sometimes uses “ATF” broadly, including shredders, so responsibility should not fall solely on dismantlers.
Further debate ahead
The Regulation may be relatively readable, but it remains a legal text. Different parts of the ELV chain may interpret the same wording differently, depending on their role and commercial exposure.
Only implementation, guidance and possibly legal cases will show how it works in practice. EGARA says it will continue to follow the issue closely and keep members informed as questions and challenges emerge.
Further reading on ATF Professional
-
EA launches consultation on new waste motor vehicle permit rules
-
Best practices for handling lithium-ion batteries
-
Maximising EV battery value: why repurposing deserves a place in the EV battery value chain
