The European Commission published an evaluation of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability (ELD) on 16 July 2026, concluding that the law has only partially achieved its objectives and requires further action to address emerging challenges such as PFAS contamination and plastic pellet losses.
The evaluation, a staff working document (SWD(2026)400) prepared by the Commission's environment department, assesses the ELD's effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value, and relevance since the previous evaluation in 2016. It finds that while the directive has delivered some EU added value by establishing a common framework for preventing and remedying environmental damage, its effectiveness is limited by inconsistent implementation across Member States and complex interactions with national liability laws. The analysis notes that costs and benefits vary widely, with Member States reporting costs up to 30 April 2013 and after that date; financial security for ELD liabilities remains non-compulsory, leaving potential remediation costs uncovered.
The ELD is found to be coherent with other EU environmental legislation, including the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, and the 2024 Environmental Crime Directive. However, the evaluation questions whether the directive's scope remains appropriate for new environmental threats. It specifically highlights that the ELD may not adequately cover damage from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and plastic pellet losses, which are addressed by the recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2025/2365 on plastic pellet prevention.
The Commission and Member States have taken actions since 2016 to improve efficiency, including guidance documents and capacity-building, but the evaluation concludes that further improvements are possible. The document does not propose specific legislative changes but serves as a basis for future policy decisions.
EU regulatory bodies and national authorities face continued pressure to harmonise implementation, while operators in sectors such as chemicals, plastics, and industrial activities may face increased compliance costs if the scope is extended. Environmental NGOs and civil society may view the evaluation as insufficiently ambitious, given the partial effectiveness finding. EU taxpayers could ultimately bear costs if financial security remains voluntary and damage remediation is publicly funded.
The evaluation is expected to inform a possible Commission legislative proposal to revise the ELD, which would require approval by the European Parliament and the Council. No timeline for such a proposal has been announced.