Welcome back to this week’s Battery Business Insights article on the EU battery passport and who has to issue it. The passport belongs to whoever finishes the battery, and the European Commission has now said so in writing. Its new FAQ on the battery passport, a first edition completed in September 2026, takes up the question suppliers have asked since the law was passed. A battery’s cells may come from Asia, its packs may be assembled in one EU country, and a carmaker in another may fit the battery management system (BMS), the electronics that monitor and protect the cells. Which of them issues the passport?
The date is fixed. From 18 February 2027, every electric vehicle battery, every battery for light means of transport such as e-bikes, and every industrial battery above 2 kWh placed on the EU market needs an electronic passport (Batteries Regulation, Article 77). Strictly, the FAQ is guidance, not law, and it states that it reflects only its authors’ views. Yet four months before the deadline it is the only official reading available, and it moves the work to whoever completes the battery in Europe.
By the Numbers: A Fixed Date and Rules Still Arriving
- 18 February 2027 — Start of the battery passport for EV, LMT and industrial batteries above 2 kWh. (Batteries Regulation, Article 77)
- 2 kWh — Threshold for industrial batteries, applied to the combined capacity when units share common components and form one battery. (Commission FAQ, September 2026)
- 20 July 2026 — Opening of the EU passport Registry and its helpdesk.
- 6 of 8 — Harmonised digital product passport standards cited in the Official Journal.
- 3 years — Longest validity of an operator’s Registry verification before it must be repeated.
- October or November 2026 — Expected feedback draft of the act on who may read restricted passport data.
- August 2027 — Start of the due-diligence report in the passport.
- Early November 2026 — Planned Parliament committee vote on Omnibus VIII, the package now amending the Batteries Regulation. (European Parliament, September 2026)
Article 77 Named the Operator but Not the Battery
Article 77 put the duty on the economic operator placing the battery on the market and let that operator give another company written authorisation to act on its behalf. It did not say which object counts as the battery. Its definition describes a battery as a device delivering electrical energy generated by direct conversion of chemical energy, consisting of one or more cells, modules or packs of them. For a supply chain that ships cells, modules and packs across borders before anything reaches a customer, that gap decided who would carry the passport.
The FAQ closes it by interpretation, reading the definition as implying a finished and safely working product that can deliver electrical energy. Article 77 also gave the Commission a second task: by 18 August 2026 it was to adopt the act on who may read the passport’s restricted parts. That act is still being developed. According to the FAQ, a draft for public feedback is expected in October or November 2026, which is a feedback draft, not adoption.
Finished Battery, Usually With Its BMS, Carries the Passport
According to the FAQ, the passport applies to the finished battery, which can contain several cells, modules or packs; for a traction battery it normally includes the BMS. Packs that depend on a common BMS and together form one working battery need one passport for the whole system. Packs that work independently are separate batteries. The same logic sets the 2 kWh threshold: in an integrated system with common components the combined capacity counts, while independent units are assessed one by one. Each assessment is made case by case, the FAQ adds, and for modular storage products that line decides whether a passport is needed at all.
Responsibility follows the same line. When an EU battery maker supplies a finished battery that a vehicle maker merely installs, the battery maker is responsible for the passport. If the vehicle maker completes the battery, for example by adding the BMS, the vehicle maker is. Where imported packs and a BMS are assembled in the EU, the EU entity that completes the battery is responsible. Imported cells and modules normally need no passport of their own, and the EU company that assembles them becomes the manufacturer; do-it-yourself kits are a limited exception. For a product imported with a finished battery already installed, the importer is responsible. The obligation lands where the battery is finished, not where its cells are made.
Delegation does not move it. Written authorisation lets a third party, a non-EU manufacturer, a cell maker or a vehicle maker create and update the passport, but the ultimate legal responsibility stays with the operator placing the battery on the market. Even a non-EU company with a verified Registry account cannot register a battery passport; the operator placing the battery on the EU market must. At the border, the passport’s registration identifier is not entered in the customs declaration, unlike passports under the wider Ecodesign Regulation. Where customs doubt whether a shipment is a component or a finished battery, they are to consult the national market surveillance authority. For importers of packs, that question can now come up at the border.
European Assemblers Inherit the Data Work From Their Suppliers
Passport ownership thus moves to the companies that finish batteries in Europe: pack assemblers, vehicle makers that fit the BMS, storage integrators and importers of finished products. Much of the data they need sits with cell and module suppliers abroad, whose components carry no passport of their own. Written authorisation lets those suppliers do the entry work, but the European company answers for what they enter.
Day one is narrower than the full passport. Carbon footprint, recycled content and due-diligence information are not required in February 2027. Due-diligence reporting follows in August 2027, and the format of the carbon footprint declaration still has to be set in implementing acts. Dynamic data, the information a battery generates in use, is expected to apply from February. It has to be updated at least when the battery’s status changes or a change is being considered, such as a decision to repurpose or recycle it, and real-time communication is not necessarily required. State-of-health requirements apply only where the battery has a BMS. For operators, updates follow a battery’s life events, not a live data feed.
A less visible task is identity. Each responsible operator verifies itself in the Registry with a qualified electronic seal under the EU’s eIDAS rules on electronic identification, or with a qualified electronic attestation, and the verification expires after three years at most. An operator whose verification has lapsed cannot update or transfer its passports in the Registry until it renews. Nor does the Registry hold the passport itself; the operator, or a company it has authorised in writing, hosts it and manages access. Verification falls on every company the FAQ makes responsible.
Second life follows the same rule. A repurposed or remanufactured battery needs a new passport linked to the previous one, while a simple repair does not. A battery placed on the market before February 2027 and remanufactured afterwards also needs a passport. For remanufacturers and second-life operators, the passport starts again with them.
Access Rights and Borderline Systems Remain Unsettled
The FAQ’s central step is an interpretation: the regulation names cells, modules and packs, and “finished and safely working” is the FAQ’s reading. Its answer on systems with a shared BMS ends with “case by case”, and it sends doubtful imports to market surveillance authorities. Borderline products will be decided case by case, not by the document.
Access is the larger gap. The act defining who has a legitimate interest in the restricted data is still a draft due for feedback in October or November. Even then, the act will not set how those users are authenticated, because the system is decentralised; national registers of recyclers and waste operators may help. EUROBAT, the association of European battery makers, said on 11 August, before the FAQ appeared, that access must remain proportionate, purpose-limited and protective of commercially sensitive information, without turning restricted data into de facto public information. Companies are building access control against rules that do not yet exist.
Relief from Brussels is not on the table either. Omnibus VIII, the simplification package now amending the Batteries Regulation, changes producer definitions, substance labelling, light-vehicle pack removability and data reviewing in the Commission’s proposal. In its position of 24 June, the Council adds an 18-month postponement of removability rules for certain products. Neither text names a change to the passport. In Parliament, rapporteur Susana Solís Pérez’s draft report proposes exemptions for batteries sold only as spare parts for vehicle models no longer in production, and the committee vote is planned for early November. The institutions aim to conclude all simplification packages by the end of 2027, after the passport is already mandatory.
Bottom Line
The rule the FAQ sets is simple: whoever finishes the battery owns its passport, and authorising a supplier does not change that. Carrying it out is not. Companies that assemble packs, fit the BMS or import finished products need to know, product by product, where that line falls. They need written authorisations and data clauses with their suppliers, and a Registry verification in place before 18 February 2027. The access-rights draft due in October or November will show who can read what they build. The cells may still come from Asia, but the passport is issued where the battery is finished.
Battery Business Insights is an independent industry publication. Figures reflect the most recent data available at the publication date. This article summarises the European Commission’s FAQ on the battery passport and the Batteries Regulation; the FAQ is guidance, not a legally binding act, and this article is not legal advice.
References: European Commission; EUR-Lex; European Parliament; Council of the EU; EUROBAT.
