Thirty-Second Statement: Battery Passport Access Rights – The Role Opens the Door, Not the Name
GISAD – Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralisation · Statement on the draft Commission Implementing Regulation on access rights to certain parts of the battery passport (Initiative 16473)
Core thesis: The draft of 19 October 2026 defines, for the first time, who may open the non-public parts of the battery passport – repairers, recyclers, purchasers. Defining access through roles is structurally right. But roles without a verification procedure are unenforceable, and verification must not become identification. A product passport that registers persons does not survive its own purpose.
1. Roles, not persons
A recycler needs access because they recycle – not because of who they are. Proof of role should therefore be provided once, signed, and followed by role-based access without personal identification. Identity only where identity is necessary. Otherwise the product passport becomes a register of persons, and a circular-economy instrument turns into a surveillance instrument.
2. Access logs yes, movement profiles no
The draft is silent on access logs. Restricted passport data (Annex XIII, points 2 and 4) must be logged in a way that is verifiable but not personally attributable. Whoever retrieves restricted data must be traceable to the system – not the operator to the person. And the state-of-health and usage data of an individual battery (charging cycles, degradation) must never become a movement profile of its owner.
3. The gap between role list and operating system
Roles without a verification procedure cannot be configured: who grants access when nobody knows how the role is checked? The Commission’s FAQ refers to national registers – which risks twenty-seven different verification systems and therefore twenty-seven different doors. GISAD calls for a measurable minimum procedure (criteria, deadlines, contestability) that is implemented decentrally. A rule that can only be enforced nationally is not a single-market rule.
4. Late act, punctual obligation
Article 77(9) set a deadline of 18 August 2026; the draft followed two months later. Yet the passport obligation starts on 18 February 2027 regardless. Deadlines do not protect – structure protects. An act planned for adoption in January 2027 leaves operators weeks instead of months. The examination procedure must not end in a symbolic review under time pressure.
5. Transfer on resale must be structural
Allowing purchasers to share point 4 data with prospective buyers is the right idea: second-hand markets live on condition transparency. But access must pass to the new role – structurally, through the passport itself – and not through copies of sensitive data from hand to hand. Otherwise transparency at first resale becomes uncontrolled circulation by the third.
Conclusion: The battery passport is the European Union’s first mandatory digital product passport. How it regulates access today will shape every passport that follows. The role opens the door – not the name. The feedback period on the draft runs until 16 November 2026. GISAD publishes this statement openly on its own website; legitimacy derives from registration in the EU Transparency Register.
GISAD – Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralisation · Registered in the EU Transparency Register, No. 244298340978-40
Sources: European Commission, Have Your Say, Initiative 16473 – Commission Implementing Regulation on access rights to certain parts of the battery passport: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16473-Commission-Implementing-Regulation-on-access-rights-to-certain-parts-of-the-battery-passport_en · Batteries Regulation (EU) 2023/1542: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R1542