---
title: "European Commission revises Directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in the EU agri-food supply chain; proposal expected Q4 2026"
sdDatePublished: "2026-08-31T10:07:00Z"
source: "https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/774756/EPRS_BRI(2026)774756_EN.pdf"
topics:
  - name: "law"
    identifier: "medtop:20000121"
  - name: "government policy"
    identifier: "medtop:20000621"
  - name: "international trade"
    identifier: "medtop:20000373"
  - name: "agriculture"
    identifier: "medtop:20000210"
  - name: "regulation of industry"
    identifier: "medtop:20000636"
  - name: "legislative body"
    identifier: "medtop:20000615"
locations:
  - "Sweden"
  - "Denmark"
  - "Austria"
  - "Netherlands"
  - "Italy"
  - "Romania"
  - "Belgium"
  - "France"
  - "Germany"
  - "Spain"
  - "Croatia"
  - "Finland"
  - "Ukraine"
  - "Estonia"
  - "Hungary"
  - "Bulgaria"
  - "Slovenia"
  - "Russia"
---


European Commission revises Directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in the EU agri-food supply chain; proposal expected Q4 2026

Directive 2019 (EU) 633 on business-to-business unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply chain

Briefing
Implementation Appraisal
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service
Directive 2019 (EU) 633 on business-to-business
unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply
chain
Implementation takeaways
Ekaterina Karamfilova
Published: August 2026 | Document number: PE 774.756
In this briefing
•
Background and existing EU policy framework
•
Commission reports, studies and consultations in
preparation of the revision
•
European Parliament position and oversight
activities
•
Views of the European Council and the Council
•
Infringement procedures and Court of Justice of
the European Union judgments
•
Views of EU advisory bodies and agencies
•
Expert and stakeholder views
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.
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.
EN

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.
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
2
European Parliamentary Research Service

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
3
Directive 2019 (EU) 633 on business-to-business unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply chain

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
that 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 u