France, Germany, Italy: Comparing EPR Requirements for Online Sellers

A merchant already registered and compliant in France often assumes Germany and Italy are a copy-paste exercise, same concept, different login page. They're not. Loi AGEC, VerpackG, and CONAI share a common EPR foundation but differ enough in registration mechanics, labelling rules, and reporting cadence that treating them as interchangeable is how merchants end up compliant in one country and quietly exposed in the other two.

France: Loi AGEC in practice

France's packaging EPR sits under Loi AGEC, the anti-waste law for a circular economy. Producers register through ADEME's system and receive a Unique Identification Number (UIN/IDU), this number is meant to be publicly displayed, and increasingly, marketplaces and even some payment processors check for it before onboarding a seller. Beyond registration and fee payment to a licensed PRO (most commonly CITEO), France also requires product-level sorting information: the Triman logo plus info-tri instructions telling the end consumer which bin each packaging component belongs in. That labelling requirement is unusual among the three, Germany and Italy don't ask for a specific consumer-facing pictogram in the same way.

Germany: VerpackG and the LUCID register

Germany's VerpackG (Packaging Act) runs through the Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister, and it's a two-step process that trips people up: first, register in the public LUCID database, this registration itself is free and mandatory, and your LUCID number becomes visible to marketplaces, who are required to verify it before allowing you to list. Second, separately license your packaging volumes with one of the licensed dual-system operators, private companies competing for this business, who calculate and collect the actual fee. Registering in LUCID without also licensing volumes with a dual system is a common half-compliance mistake, LUCID confirms you exist in the system, it doesn't mean your packaging fee obligation is being paid.

Italy: CONAI and the labelling decree

Italy channels packaging EPR through CONAI, the national packaging consortium, which producers join as members and pay an environmental contribution (contributo ambientale CONAI) based on material type and weight, similar in spirit to France and Germany's fee mechanisms. Italy additionally has its own packaging labelling decree requiring material identification on packaging, so consumers and sorters can identify what a given component is made of, a requirement that runs in parallel to, but isn't identical in form to, France's Triman and info-tri system.

Side-by-side comparison

Treat this table as a structural map, not a source for current fee amounts or exact procedural steps, registration portals and requirements are periodically updated, so verify current mechanics on the relevant official site before filing (see references below).

Reporting cadence and deadlines don't line up either

Beyond registration mechanics, the three schemes also run on different clocks, which matters for anyone trying to build one internal calendar for all three markets. France's CITEO cycle is generally structured around an annual declaration built from the prior year's volumes, with the option for some producers to report more granularly depending on size. Germany's dual-system licensing is typically forecast-based, you estimate annual volumes upfront with your chosen operator and true up later, which is a meaningfully different rhythm from a pure after-the-fact declaration. Italy's CONAI contribution is generally tied to invoicing cadence, since the environmental contribution is often applied at the point of the commercial transaction rather than reported in a single annual batch. None of this is a reason to panic, but it is a reason not to assume a single "EPR reporting deadline" exists across your countries; build a country-specific calendar rather than one shared date, and treat each PRO's own published cycle as the source of truth.

What actually differs day to day

For a merchant running reporting across all three, the practical friction isn't the concept, it's that France asks for a specific consumer-facing label most sellers need to add to packaging or product pages, Germany separates "does the register know I exist" (LUCID) from "am I actually paying" (dual system) in a way that catches people who think LUCID alone is enough, and Italy's CONAI membership process reads more like joining a trade consortium than filing a government registration, which throws off merchants expecting a single unified portal experience like France's ADEME system. None of the three accept a single unified EU filing yet, each is a separate registration, separate reporting cadence, and separate fee payment, built on the same underlying BOM data but run through three distinct pipelines (see our workflow guide for how to structure that once, per country).

Where the three schemes are converging

It's worth flagging that this fragmentation isn't permanent by design. PPWR is expected to gradually pull recyclability criteria and some reporting mechanics toward a shared EU baseline over the coming years, which should eventually narrow some of these gaps, particularly around labelling and material categorization. Until that plays out in each country's implementing rules, though, treat France, Germany, and Italy as three genuinely separate compliance projects that happen to share a common regulatory ancestor, not three branches of one filing.

Sequence your registrations, don't parallelize blind

If you're starting from zero across all three, don't try to register everywhere simultaneously, sequence it by your highest-volume country first, get that reporting cycle right once, and then replicate the process, not the specific fee numbers or labelling, those aren't transferable, for the next country. Confirm first, though, that you're actually the obligated party in each market; if that's still an open question, work through our producer-status decision guide before registering anywhere.

A practical sequencing pattern that works for most catalogs: register and get the first declaration filed cleanly in your highest-volume country, then use that same shipment-data pipeline, just pointed at a different country's material categories and portal, to bring the second country online. By the third country, the internal process (who owns the data, how it's aggregated, where the archive lives) is already built, and what's left is genuinely just learning that country's specific portal and labelling quirks. Merchants who try to stand up all three registrations in the same week tend to spend more total hours on it than merchants who stagger them by a quarter, because the stagger lets the same person build real familiarity with the process before repeating it under a new country's rules.

Frequently asked questions

Compliance glossary

Related reading

• The Producer Trap: Does Your E-commerce Store Meet EU EPR Criteria?
• The Packaging EPR Workflow: From Shipping to Annual Report
• Eco-Modulation Explained: Why Your Packaging Materials Impact Your Fees
• The 2026 Guide to EU OSS: Is Your Store's VAT Reporting Audit-Ready?
• The Producer Definition: Who Pays EPR Fees Under PPWR?

Rédigé par

L'équipe PrestaInsights

Chez PrestaInsights, nous sommes spécialisés dans tout ce qui concerne PrestaShop, de l'hébergement et l'optimisation des performances au développement de modules et aux tutoriels approfondis. Notre objectif est d'aider les commerçants, les développeurs et les agences à réussir grâce à des guides à jour, des aperçus pratiques et des meilleures pratiques éprouvées. Que vous débutiez ou que vous développiez une boutique à fort trafic, nous sommes là pour vous guider.

Voir tous les articles →