Article page checkbox is not checked in page info.
Directive 2019 (EU) 633 on business-to-business unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply chain - Implementation takeaways
Directive 2019 (EU) 633 on business-to-business unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply chain Implementation takeaways
Ekaterina Karamfilova
Key findings
In 2019, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive (EU) 2019/633 with the objective of combating unfair trading practices (UTPs) in business-to-business relationships in the agri-food supply chain. Member States were allowed to introduce or keep rules stricter than those set by the directive, provided the national rules are compatible with the EU internal market.The transposition deadline was 1 May 2021.
While there are encouraging signs that the early implementation of the directive helped decrease the occurrence of some UTPs, the European Commission evaluation from 2025 identified challenges preventing the directive from being fully effective. These concern: an unsatisfactory level of stakeholders' awareness of the UTP restrictions and their rights under the directive; fear of retaliation demotivating the submission of complaints; uneven and below-potential enforcement of UTP restrictions across Member States, coupled with uneven capacities of the national enforcement authorities (EAs) and insufficient cooperation among them in cross-border cases involving UTPs. Depending on stakeholders' perspective, implementation can be deemed efficient (for suppliers and EAs) or inefficient (for buyers). The directive has been found largely coherent with other pieces of EU law directly regulating the agri-food supply chain. Long-standing needs (e.g. regulating or banning the 'selling below production cost' practice), emerging needs (e.g. the 'pay-on-scan' practice) and the need to support the resilience, competitiveness and economic viability of the agri-food sector have not yet been addressed by the directive, which undermines its relevance. The directive's minimum harmonisation supported EU added value by introducing restrictions in Member States that did not have this type of legislation. However, a clear majority of stakeholders consider the large diversity of national rules and enforcement styles resulting from transposition, to be problematic for the proper functioning of the EU internal market and therefore undermining the EU added value of the directive.
Against the above implementation backdrop and the continuous need to correct existing imbalances in the supply chain and strengthen farmers' position therein, which is central to the Vision for agriculture and food to 2040, the Commission scheduled to revise the directive in its work programme for 2026, with a proposal currently expected in the fourth quarter of 2026.
Purpose statement (this title will not be shown in the final layouts)
This briefing is one in a series of implementation appraisals produced by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) on the operation of existing EU legislation in practice. Each briefing focuses on a specific EU law that is announced to be amended or reviewed in the European Commission's annual work programme. Implementation appraisals aim at providing a succinct overview of publicly available material on the implementation, application and effectiveness to date of that specific EU law, drawing on input from EU institutions and bodies, as well as external organisations.
Background and existing EU policy framework
Certain trading practices in the business-to-business relationships may grossly deviate from good commercial conduct, good faith and fair dealing. Prevalent in the agricultural and food supply chain, such practices may result in power imbalances between weaker suppliers and stronger buyers (for example, unilateral changes by the buyer to the terms of the supply agreement); unjustified and disproportionate economic risk transfers in the chain (for example, short-notice cancellation by the buyer of ordered perishable products); and higher operational uncertainty and financial vulnerability for small suppliers (for example, delayed payments, especially for perishable products).
To combat these practices, in 2019, the European Parliament and Council of the EU adopted Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices (UTPs) in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (the 'UTP Directive', in force since 30 April 2019). It governs the relationship between weaker suppliers (such as farmers) and stronger buyers (such as major processors or retailers) of agricultural and food products, including fish and aquaculture products. The directive protects suppliers with annual turnover (AT) lower than a given threshold, and buyers with an AT higher than the same threshold – for example, suppliers with an AT of up to €2 million are protected against buyers with an AT of more than €2 million. The directive puts suppliers in five subcategories depending on the range of their AT, with the highest AT for a supplier covered by the directive reaching €350 million in their relations with buyers with an AT exceeding this threshold.
The directive established a black and a grey list of UTPs.The practices included in the black list are prohibited under all circumstances, while those on the grey list are prohibited unless they have been agreed in clear and unambiguous terms in a supply agreement or in a subsequent agreement signed by the supplier and the buyer.
By legally setting the above lists, the directive provided a minimum level of harmonisation across the EU. Member States had to transpose the prohibitions in national law, thus ensuring a level playing field across the EU. However, Member States were allowed to introduce or keep stricter rules than those set by the directive, provided that such national rules were compatible with the rules on the functioning of the EU internal market.
The directive also laid down minimum rules on the enforcement of the prohibitions, and required Member States to designate enforcement authorities (EAs). EAs are empowered to investigate, collect information, impose the termination of UTPs, and impose fines or other equally effective penalties. The directive also provided minimum rules on the coordination between the EAs, and mandated an annual meeting of their network to discuss implementation and exchange their enforcement practices. Suppliers covered by the directive can complain to the EAs of the country where they are registered, or of the country of the buyer subject of the complaint.
In recent years, EU farmers have faced challenges such as unfair competition from imports, high input (fertilisers, feed, energy) costs for their agricultural production resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, farm sale prices too low to ensure fair remuneration, and a push to comply with the increasingly stringent EU environmental and safety standards coupled with red tape. These factors further weakened farmers' position in the supply chain and increased their exposure to UTPs. In response to farmers' unrest that culminated in protests all over Europe in late 2023 and early 2024, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, stressed in her political guidelines for the 2024-2027 Commission mandate that existing imbalances in the supply chain should be corrected, and that farmers need to be further protected against UTPs and have a stronger position in the supply chain and a fair and sufficient income. The need for action to ensure a more balanced, proportionate and effective framework to combat UTPs and strengthen farmers' position in the supply chain was reconfirmed by the September 2024 report of the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture initiated by the Commission President.
As a first urgent follow-up step, in December 2024, the Commission submitted two legislative proposals aimed at strengthening the position of farmers in the supply chain. The first initiative led to the adoption of a new Regulation (EU) 2026/697 on cross-border cooperation among EAs under the UTP Directive,1 which aims to improve the cooperation between EAs in cases where the supplier and the buyer are based in different EU Member States or the buyer is based outside the EU. The regulation stipulates, among other things, that EAs should have the power to exchange and use information, including confidential, subject to some conditions. The second initiative led to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 that amended Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on common organisation of the markets (CMO) in agricultural products (the 'CMO Regulation'), as well as two more key pieces of EU legislation regulating the common agricultural policy (CAP).2 The amending regulation aims, among other things, to strengthen the role of producer organisations (POs) in collective bargaining and market organisation. POs will be allowed to negotiate directly with buyers, while buyers will not be allowed to bypass POs when contacting individual producers.
In February 2025, in its Vision for agriculture and food to 2040, the Commission promised to further investigate UTPs and evaluate their EU and national legal framework. The results of this analysis were to serve as a basis for next steps in tackling the issue, notably a revision of the UTP Directive 'to address the principle that farmers should not be forced to systematically sell their products below production costs'. In October 2025, the Commission announced in its annual work programme for 2026 t hat the UTP Directive would be revised, with a proposal scheduled for the third quarter of 2026, which, at the time of writing, is expected by the end of 2026.
Commission reports, studies and consultations in preparation of the revision
Transposition of the directive into national law
A Commission report published in April 2024 informs about the transposition of the directive. The report did not provide a 'definite assessment' of the transposition measures because, at the time of publishing, the conformity checks were still ongoing. Importantly, the Commission warns that the national choices keeping or introducing stricter rules than those set by the directive were not part of the conformity checks.
Transposition of the directive and notification of the relevant national measures to the Commission lasted until December 2022 (against a deadline set by the directive of 1 May 2021). This led to several infringement procedures launched by the Commission, discussed in the relevant section below, and delayed the practical implementation of the directive in the EU as a whole.
A large majority of Member States opted for stricter rules than the minimum provided by the directive. For example, some Member States made 'grey' practices 'black', while others added more prohibitions on the black list. Member States that did not have laws against UTP before the directive was adopted largely stayed within its scope.
Member States predominantly linked the measures under the directive to the business size (AT) of the suppliers to be protected and buyers to be restricted. Some Member States even opted to protect suppliers with an AT higher that the maximum AT of €350 million under the UTP Directive. Six Member States decided to not link the measures to business size.
All Member States designated at least one EA, which in all cases is a structure within the national public administration, for example, the competition protection authority, food market authority, or another body. In all Member States, complaints can be submitted to the EA(s) by suppliers as well as by POs or other organisations of suppliers and associations of such organisations. In all Member States, EAs can impose financial sanctions, which are the most frequent regulatory choice when it comes to fines or other penalties. Following its obligation under the directive, the Commission published a list of all designated national EAs with their contact details and websites. The Commission also facilitated the setting up of the EA network. It has been operational since June 2022.
Evaluation of the implementation of the directive
In December 2025, the Commission published a report 3 with findings from the ex-post evaluation of the implementation of the directive launched under its Article 12 in October 2023. The report analysed implementation in all EU Member States between 2022, when the practical implementation started, and 2024. Implementation is evaluated against the set of criteria prescribed by the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox – effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. The evaluation is based on the Commission's assessment of transposition discussed above,4 a support study prepared by a contractor at the Commission's request, several targeted surveys, interviews and case studies, and exchanges with national EAs. A 12‑week open public consultation (OPC), which is a standard Better Regulation practice, did not take place. The analysis used the results of the annual public surveys of farmers and suppliers run by the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), as well as the annual reports submitted by Member States and their EAs under Articles 10(1) and 10(2) of the directive.
The Commission warns that, owing to the late transposition in all Member States, the evaluation results are based on a short practical implementation of only two full years for all Member States. Furthermore, it states that attributing direct effects to the directive and its implementation was challenging because of factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which had a direct effect on the sector during the first years of the directive's implementation, by driving inflation upwards and increasing input costs. The confidentiality of commercial relationships also put limitations on data availability and thus to the evaluation analysis. The Commission notes that, to better monitor UTPs and feed into evidence-based policymaking, more robust, consistent and comparable data are needed, which in turn requires the collection of more reliable, quantifiable and standardised data.
Effectiveness
Because of the above limitations, and especially the short duration of the directive's practical implementation, the evaluation does not provide a strict conclusion on its effectiveness, i.e. whether the directive's objectives – to prevent and fight UTPs and support enforcement, thus ensuring a level playing field across the EU – have been achieved because of its implementation. The report rather gives indications suggesting some progress ('encouraging signs'), as well as challenges in terms of effectiveness.
On a positive note, even if it is not yet possible to conclude that it was the implementation of the directive that 'substantially decreased' UTPs, the Commission finds that the EU legislation 'had contributed to positive trends' in the prevention of and fight against UTPs. These are evidenced by perceived decreasing black- and grey-listed UTPs reported by respondents to the aforementioned 2024 JRC survey, which is the most recent one that fed into the evaluation. This trend is supported by improvements in frequently occurring UTPs such as late payments for perishable and non-perishable products identified by the externally prepared study. However, stakeholders' views diverge – while suppliers (such as farmers and processors) perceive improvement trends, buyers find the directives' implementation had limited (positive) impact, and that it was rather the wholesale and retail sector's efforts to ensure compliance with the directive, by revising contracts and training their staff, that helped reduce UTPs, adding that these have been 'largely eradicated'.
As regards effectiveness challenges, the evaluation notes three main issues preventing the directive from delivering on its full potential. All three relate to its short implementation. The first challenge concerns the differing and unsatisfactory awareness levels of the UTP restrictions across stakeholders and of the opportunities for them to submit complaints, particularly as regards farmers and smaller suppliers, and a corresponding low level of submitted complaints. Therefore, raising awareness among farmers and suppliers about their rights under the directive is deemed key. Action should involve ensuring better access to information, in particular for suppliers from non-EU countries and EU-based suppliers involved in cross-border cases. More dedicated awareness-raising activities by the producer and sector organisations of non-EU suppliers, including filing complaints for their members, should also be envisaged. The Commission clarifies that the suppliers' decision to not submit a complaint may also be a result of reasons not relating to the low awareness of their rights under the directive. These reasons, identified by the JRC survey, are: the fear of retaliation prevalent among the respondents to the survey (and case studies), considered to be 'a major barrier' to submitting a complaint; the perception that some UTPs are common practice in the sector and thus not worth reporting; and doubts regarding the capacity of the relevant EA(s) to enforce compliance. Although some 'ex-officio' (i.e. on EAs' own initiative) investigations had been launched based on anonymous complaints (allowed under the directive), these also had limitations, particularly in highly concentrated sectors (i.e. with only a few key business operators), as the whistle-blower's anonymity in such cases was difficult to protect.
The second effectiveness challenge concerns the uneven and below potential enforcement of the UTP restrictions across Member States, coupled with uneven capacities of the EAs, which ultimately go against the directive's objective of ensuring a level playing field across the EU. The overall number of investigations launched by EAs (both upon complaint and 'ex-officio') gradually increased between 2021 and 2024, suggesting a 'catch-up in enforcement efforts by EAs' and a 'growing institutional engagement with UTPs'. However, these were unevenly distributed across Member States – annual reports suggest that four Member States initiated 90 % of all investigations in this period, almost half of Member States launched less than five investigations, and several Member States did not initiate any investigations. The Commission finds that EAs need to further examine the potential of 'ex-officio' controls. These would also help address the 'fear of retaliation' factor that prevents the suppliers from filing a complaint. Infringements were found in around one third of the investigations closed in the examined period and penalised. Although the severity and number of penalties vary across the EU, these are perceived as effective in ensuring compliance through their preventive effect.
The t hird challenge compromising the directive's effectiveness concerns the cooperation between EAs. Overall, EAs tend to put efforts into domestic UTPs rather than enforcing compliance in cases involving cross-border trading. A key obstacle preventing effective cross-border cooperation is the lack of provisions in the UTP Directive allowing EAs to share confidential information in such cases. This challenge was among the main drivers of the Commission's 2024 proposal for a new regulation on cross-border enforcement cooperation, discussed above.
Efficiency
As the quantification of costs and benefits was difficult, the Commission used mainly qualitative assessments to evaluate efficiency. The costs incurred by the implementation of the directive are borne by businesses on both suppliers' and buyers' side (adjustment costs to ensure compliance) and EAs (administrative costs and costs to enforce compliance relating to investigations). Overall, from the perspective of EAs and businesses acting exclusively or primarily as suppliers (i.e. operators such as farmers and processors protected under the directive), the costs incurred are assessed as proportionate to the benefits stemming from improved business-to-business practices (such as more reliable and transparent contract terms and pricing, and fewer unilateral contract changes on buyers' side); this suggests efficiency was there. Several stakeholders from the farming sector found that there was room for improvement through more effective enforcement and larger scope of the protection under the UTP Directive. While businesses acting as buyers (i.e. operators such as retailers and wholesalers whose behaviour the directive aims to restrict) considered that their costs outweigh the benefits (i.e. efficiency was not there), the evaluation found that their adjustment costs (relating mainly to contract adaptation) have not led to major damage for them or disruption in the agricultural and food supply chain.
Coherence
The Commission is confident in confirming the coherence of the UTP Directive with other pieces of EU law directly regulating the agricultural and food supply chain (for example the CMO Regulation), as well as with policies more broadly relating to this area, for example in the field of competition and late payments (Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions that is being revised).5 The highest level of coherence was found between the UTP Directive and the CMO Regulation: while the regulation aims to strengthen farmers' position in the supply chain through structural tools enabling farmers to act collectively and increase their market leverage – for instance by ensuring derogations from competition law or by supporting collective action through POs and cooperatives – the directive operates at the level of individual commercial relationships. In particular, the directive provides a framework designed to protect farmers and other weaker suppliers from a specific abusive behaviour by buyers.The UTP Directive was also found to be directly complementarity to Regulation ( EU ) No 1 379 / 2013 on the CMO in fishery and aquaculture products, and the Agri - Foo d Code aimed at speeding up the transition towards sustainable food systems.6
Relevance
Although the Commission warns that the short practical implementation of the UTP directive makes it difficult to draw a 'conclusive judgement' on its relevance and the need for revision, it found the rules were overall proportionate to existing needs. This somewhat confirms the directive's relevance. Scope for improvement to increase the directive's relevance was found in three areas that are important in the context of the announced revision of the directive.
The first area concerns long-standing needs discussed by stakeholders at the time of the directive's adoption. For example, introducing an EU-wide ban on the 'selling below production cost' practice (which is already applied in some Member States) and extending the protection against UTPs to all suppliers regardless of their business size (AT). Both needs are defended by suppliers but not supported by buyers, who in turn advocate a bi-directional protection for weak buyers against strong suppliers – a situation at the core of buyers' perception that the costs outweigh the benefits of the directive, discussed above under 'Efficiency'.
The second area concerns the need to address emerging UTPs such as requests by the buyer to the supplier to help cover the costs of voluntary initiatives of the buyer focusing on social and environmental responsibility (for example, charities or campaigns about the sustainability of agri-food products) that do not stem from legal obligations; or the so-called 'pay-on-scan' practice where the supplier is paid only when the buyer has sold the product to the costumer thus extending and ultimately circumventing the payment deadlines under the directive.
The third area for improvement concerns the need for the directive to also support the resilience, competitiveness and economic viability of the agri-food sector and fair income for farmers.
EU added value
The directive's minimum harmonisation supported EU added value by introducing UTP restrictions in Member States that did not have this type of legislation. The reduction of differences across Member States thus contributes to a level playing field across the EU. This view is largely shared by suppliers and EAs. However, most stakeholders (across all categories) find that the large diversity of national rules and enforcement styles, which resulted from Member States' right under the directive to maintain or adopt stricter rules, is problematic for the proper functioning of the EU internal market and therefore undermines the directive's EU added value. Buyers find that this diversity has led to high legal uncertainty and inconsistencies in the enforcement in cross-border cases. Retailers specifically are unhappy with some Member States' decision to protect large suppliers against UTPs, which, in their view, could 'unnecessarily shift the balance of power' towards strong suppliers that could harm weak buyers.
Stakeholder consultation(s) ahead of the revision
As stated earlier, the Commission has planned a revision of the UTP Directive. The call for evidence (CfE) of the initiative was published on the Commission's 'Have your say' portal on 5 December 2025. The problems the initiative aims to address are largely those identified by the ex-post evaluation discussed above. The CfE defines two 'main areas for which a revision may be warranted': enhancing enforcement and addressing suppliers' fear of retaliation, and addressing the uneven performance of the directive to strengthen the economic viability of farmers and small suppliers. The CfE was open for feedback by 27 February 2026, which exceeds the standard Commission practice of one month. It collected 116 contributions from stakeholders at EU and national level, with the latter accounting for the large majority of the opinions.
The proposal for revision will be accompanied by an ex-ante impact assessment ('ex-ante IA'). It will be informed by analytical sources such as the evaluation results, a dedicated ex-ante IA study and a study on regulatory and voluntary schemes for fair agricultural remuneration. Moreover, the IA will use the feedback on the CfE and on an OPC, also conducted between 5 December 2025 and 27 February 2026, which collected 158 valid contributions from individual companies and their associations (together forming around 80 % of the opinions cast), non-governmental organisations, authorities, citizens, trade unions and consumer organisations. The results of the OPC are available in a summary report. According to the CfE, other stakeholder consultation activities informing the ex-ante IA include: targeted surveys testing the opinions of key stakeholders such as EAs, farmers, suppliers and buyers; an 'implementation dialogue' of the Commissioner for agriculture and food, Christophe Hansen, on UTPs of 6 March 2026 (discussed below); a panel assessing the potential impact of the revision on SMEs; a workshop with Member States' ministries of agriculture and EAs to discuss the implementation experience, policy options as regards enforcement and 'possible improvements'; and a 'reality check' with stakeholders to discuss policy options targeting cases in which farmers are forced to systematically sell their products below the production costs.
European Parliament position and oversight activities
Parliament, its Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), and individual Members have been actively scrutinising the implementation of the UTP Directive since its adoption.
Parliamentary resolutions
In its resolution on the future of agriculture and the post-2027 CAP, adopted in September 2025, Parliament notes it is essential to strengthen farmers' position in the agri-food supply chain, give their role due recognition, and ensure there is fair competition, resilience productivity and efficiency on the internal market. According to the resolution, it is important to guarantee full compliance with the UTP Directive and ensure fair payment for agricultural products and a more transparent price formation. Parliament underlines the need for improved cooperation between farmers and aggregation in cooperatives, POs and their associations, which – along with derogations from competition law and specific support – are key to strengthening farmers' position in the supply chain and promoting a fairer distribution of margins. In this context, Members note that the reformed CMO and the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (Directive 2005/29/EC) could support fair prices for products, thus strengthening the position of farmers in national and transnational supply chains. The resolution warns nevertheless that EU-level harmonisation should not compromise or negatively impact existing national strategies and practices that work well. The resolution also calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of putting in place new instruments to prevent farmers from the 'selling below production cost' practice.
In its resolution on ensuring food security and the long-term resilience of EU agriculture, adopted in June 2023, Parliament stresses the need for the Commission to take further measures to make the food chain more transparent, resilient and fairer, notably by strengthening the position of primary producers across the food supply chain. Members call on the Commission and Member States to effectively enforce the UTP Directive and envisage measures against food speculation.
Selection of parliamentary questions
Since the directive's adoption, Members have sent several written questions to the Commission relating to its transposition, practical implementation and revision. Among other topics, these concern:
-
the question of whether the Commission considers introducing tighter checks on UTPs, binding minimum standards for agreements between producers and retail chains, and new mechanisms for transparency in the setting of food prices; the Commission responded that its services were working on the revision of the directive and assessing potential regulatory gaps linked to emerging UTPs not fully covered by the current framework. The Commission specified that any future measures would be based on concrete and robust evidence, and that an IA and would remain proportionate, targeted, and consistent with the CAP's market-oriented approach and the functioning of the internal market (see question of May 2026 and answer of August 2026);
-
specific cases of claimed non-compliance in individual Member States, which, according to the Commission, need to be monitored and/or assessed by the national EA(s) (see question of February 2026 concerning digital traceability in the fisheries sector in Romania and answer of March 2026, as well as question of November 2025 regarding the dairy sector in Austria and answer of January 2026);
-
the 'selling below production cost' practice and its possible regulation under the UTP Directive in the context of its upcoming revision; this, in the Commission's view, needs to be 'carefully assessed', since a ban of this practice or its classification as a UTP may have an impact on competitiveness and market access for certain farmers or be difficult to implement (see question of March 2025 and answer of April 2025);
-
the effects of the Commission's proposal replacing the late payments directive (Directive 2011/7/EU) by a r egulation, which, according to the authors of the question, is a de-facto revision of the UTP Directive's provision setting the payment deadline for non-perishable products – a view not supported by the Commission (see question of February 2024 and answer of April 2024);
-
the monitoring by the EA network of practices applied by retail alliances and their possible inclusion in the revised UTP Directive (see question of May 2023 supported by several members across a large majority of political groups and answer of July 2023); and the claim that considerable market power of big retail alliances operating inside and across Member States badly affects small suppliers, including farmers, as well as the measures taken by the Commission to ensure fair competition and more transparency in the commercial practices of this type of buyers (see question of April 2021 and answer of June 2021);
-
the question of how the Commission can ensure that the plant nursery sector, having supply chains with a long time lapse between the purchase of the raw materials and the sale of the final product, can enjoy an 'adequate non-discriminatory' exemption from the maximum payment deadlines for perishable and non-perishable products under the UTP Directive, as already does the grapes and must trade sector for wine production, which is also characterised by long time lapses7 (see question of December 2021, regarding which the Commission recalled in their answer of February 2022 that under the UTP Directive, Member States can establish higher standards than the minimum level of harmonisation, provided they do not distort the EU internal market;
-
Commission awareness-raising measures towards EU- and non-EU suppliers of their rights under the UTP Directive, where the Commission found the EA network could serve as a forum to exchange best practice on how the relevant information can be disseminated most effectively (see question of February 2021 and answer of April 2021).
In February 2024, following the series of farmers' protests, the then Chair of the European Parliament's AGRI committee, Norbert Lins, proposed actions to tackle farmers' difficulties in a let t er addressed to the then Commissioner for Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, and supported by most of Parliament's political groups. One of the suggested measures requires a revision of the UTP Directive based on the feedback from the agricultural sector to create actual impact, while establishing a mechanism for fair price transmission throughout the value chain.
Views of the European Council and the Council
In February 2026, the Council of the EU discussed the results of the 2025 Commission evaluation of the UTP Directive. Ministers welcomed the evaluation and underlined the importance of effective implementation and enforcement. They also agreed that raising awareness among operators of their rights under the directive and addressing effectively the fear of retaliation factor were crucial in terms of implementation. The need for cooperation between EAs in cross-border cases emerged as another consensual point, with several Member States welcoming the Commission's December 2024 legislative proposal, as negotiated and agreed between Parliament and Council, as a step in the right direction.
The Council also gave political guidance on the forthcoming revision of the directive. While most Member States acknowledged the need for a revision of the directive and welcomed the Commission's initiative, they disagreed on what should fall in its scope. A major point of division turned out to be the 'selling below production cost' practice, with a group of Member States (including Belgium, Spain, France, Croatia and Italy) supporting its regulation under the directive as beneficial, and another group (including Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden) raising concerns about the idea or clearly opposing it. Commissioner Hansen found that defining the 'cost of production' is easier said than done. He gave the example of 'two very same farmers from the very same region' who may have different production costs, and then 'the question is whose production cost is to choose as a reference'. Several ministers underlined that simplification is key and additional regulatory burden must be avoided. They also stressed that fairness in the supply chain, competition, and transparency on the EU single market must be safeguarded.
Infringement procedures and Court of Justice of the European Union judgments
In July 2021, the Commission opened infringement procedures a gainst 12 Member States for failure to transpose the UTP directive and notify their transposition measures within the deadline of 1 May 2021. The Commission sent letters of formal notice to these Member States, requiring adoption of relevant measures and their notification within a certain deadline. While 10 Member States met the deadline and their cases were closed, two failed to do so and were sent reasoned opinions in February 2022, granting them two additional months to deliver. The last of these infringement cases was closed in February 2023. To date, the Commission has not launched any infringement procedures for non-conformity in transposition and incorrect application of the directive.
Although none of the above transposition-related infringements led to Member States' referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), and despite the still short implementation history of the directive, the Court had the opportunity to interpret its requirements as regards penalties in Case C-311/24. An Austrian retailer, severely affected by the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, sent to its suppliers of agri-food products requests for payment not relating to the sales of the traded products. The requests concerned lump sum payments needed to cover the costs of retailer's business restructuring. The Austrian Federal Competition Authority (FCA) found that the requests for payments made by the retailer to 16 suppliers did not relate to the sale of agri-food products, and therefore each of the requests was a violation of the Austrian law transposing the UTP Directive. Sustaining the view that each request for payment constitutes a separate infringement, the FCA made 16 applications to the Vienna Higher Regional Court (HRC). The HRC found that, although the facts concerned commercial relationships with 16 suppliers, Austrian law required that a single fine of a maximum amount of €500 000 had to be imposed; however, it expressed doubts whether a single fine would achieve the objective of the UTP Directive, i.e. to rebalance the bargaining power between buyers and suppliers in the supply chain, which could be achieved only in the individual relationship between the buyer and the supplier. The HRC also had doubts whether going for 16 individual fines would be compliant with the directive. Therefore, to clarify these doubts, the HRC in 2024 sent a request for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ. Specifically, the HRC asked whether the course of action prescribed by Austrian law – i.e. grouping multiple offences into one and with a capped fine – is compliant with the requirement of the UTP Directive that Member States must impose penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In its January 2026 judgment, the ECJ ruled that the directive does not prevent national legislation from classifying several forbidden practices as a single infringement giving rise to the imposition of a single fine, 'provided that the national EA or the national court responsible for penalising that infringement has the discretion necessary to set a fine which is effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account the nature, duration, recurrence and gravity of the infringement'.
Views of EU advisory bodies and agencies
In March 2025, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted an evaluation report on the implementation of the UTP Directive up to 2024. It presents the results of in-person fact-finding country visits and an online questionnaire carried in five Member States – Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia. The purpose of the report was to contribute to the Commission's ex-post evaluation, which was ongoing at that time. The EESC recommended, among other things, that the scope of the directive be examined to address power imbalances and ensure fairness in supplier relationships, including an appropriate allocation of risks and profits, and to make the supply chain more efficient. Furthermore, it found that better compliance with bans of certain practices is needed to protect all market participants effectively. According to the report, the protection for producers also needs to be broadened, including as regards stricter prohibitions on undisclosed rebates, logistics fees and sales bonuses. Better awareness- raising campaigns are needed to ensure stakeholders are clear about their rights and obligations, what procedures there are to protect them, and how the EAs work. The EESC proposed the establishment of an EU-wide portal for reporting UTPs as a measure to address the fear of retaliation and improve complaint mechanisms. In the EESC's view, the enforcement mechanisms at EU level need to be strengthened to provide more legal certainty, a level playing field, and better protection for weaker actors in the agri-food supply chain. Appropriate penalties need to be imposed to ensure the directive has a deterrent effect and compliance is increased.
In its October 2024 opinion on fostering sustainable and resilient food systems at times of growing crises, the EESC asked for effective enforcement of the rules, which need to be applied uniformly. EAs need to be reinforced with 'robust enforcement powers'. In the EESC's view, the practices currently featuring on the grey list need to be moved to the black list. The EESC is also in favour of a ban on the 'selling below production cost' practice. The transposition approach followed by Spain – i.e. 'forcing each link in the food chain to cover its production costs' – is prescribed as an example to be followed by the EU.
The European Committee of the Regions (CoR), in its opinion of May 2025 entitled 'Strengthen farmers' position in the agri-food supply chain', commented that the revision of the UTP Directive must take on board the national measures that are stricter than the minimum harmonisation provided by the directive. Specifically, the black list needs to be extended to include the following practices: resale at a loss; selling below production cost; self-preferencing (of products sold under a retailer's own brand); and double-race auctions. The ban of the 'selling below cost' practice was also called for in the CoR's June 2024 opinion on the future of the CAP. According to the CoR, in addition to the UTP Directive, measures making 'contractualisation' attractive for producers, increasing price transparency and ensuring fair competition are needed.
Expert and stakeholder views
As mentioned, the UTP Directive was discussed during an implementation dialogue organised in the context of Commission's 2025 communication for a simpler and faster Europe and the forthcoming revision of the directive. The event gathered EAs, farmers' and fishers' representatives, POs, cooperatives, food processors, retailers, and civil society to discuss implementation improvements and simplification. The implementation-related issues raised concerned the different transposition choices and implementation styles of Member States, enforcement, and the 'fear of retaliation' factor preventing the reporting of UTPs. Central to the debate was also the need for more harmonisation or other measures to improve the effectiveness, coherence and enforcement of the directive. The 'selling below production cost' and other emerging practices were also discussed.
Stakeholders also expressed their views on the implementation of the directive in the context of the Commission's ex-post evaluation, notably as feedback to the dedicated CfE published in October 2023 on the 'Have your say' portal. The views of a balanced selection of key stakeholders under the directive, expressed in the context of the CfE, are presented below. The highlighted views aim to provide an overview and are not intended to be an exhaustive account of stakeholders' full position.
In their joint position, Copa and Cogeca, representing farmers and agricultural cooperatives across the EU, state, among other things, that enforcement must be improved and EAs at all levels need to have adequate staff, equipment and financial resources. In addition to EAs, an ombudsman is needed to oversee implementation. The penalties applied need to be increased to be proportionate to the infringements, thus preventing recurrent practices. Copa and Cogeca advocate the removal of the AT turnover thresholds and the inclusion of certain non-food products such as flowers and ornamental plants in the scope of the directive, as these sectors are faced with 'frequent and recurrent' UTPs. Furthermore, some practices currently on the grey list need to be moved to the black list, and emerging practices – such as 'the unilateral shifting of risks' (during storage and transport, for example) and the 'arbitrary setting of contractual penalties' – need to be added to the black list. The 'selling below cost' practice must be prohibited in all its versions.
Eurocommerce, representing the retail and wholesale sector in Europe, considers, among other things, that retailers and wholesalers, falling in the scope of the EU and national legislation combating UTPs, have ensured compliance with the rules by adapting their contracts and training their staff. However, prohibiting UTPs at national level on top of the minimum provided by the UTP Directive, or extending the scope of the UTP prohibitions to large multinational suppliers, for which some Member States have opted by removing the AT thresholds when transposing the UTP Directive, can put legal certainty at risk and create burdens on companies trading cross-border inside the EU. The extension of the UTP prohibitions to larger suppliers with considerable market power, including international ones, further strengthens the position of large suppliers, yet does not benefit farmers and thus deviates from the directive's 'initial' objective of improving farmer's position in the supply chain and raising their living standard. Furthermore, for Eurocommerce, extending the UTP prohibitions to larger suppliers can increase the retail prices for consumers. Finally, Eurocommerce finds that the diverging transpositions at national level leads to further market fragmentation.
Endnotes
Classification
Policy areas: Agriculture and Rural Development | Evaluation of Law and Policy in Practice
Committees: Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)
Disclaimer
This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament.
Copyright
© European Union.
The reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
To use or reproduce elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightsholders.