EGARA COMPLANT TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT NON-CORFORMITY/BAD APPLICATION OF ELV-DIRECTIVE

by | Jun 7, 2004 | Egara Position Paper

Formal complaint concerning non-conformity or bad application of national implementation laws in France Ireland and the UK CONCERNING the implemention of Article 5 (4) of Directive 2000/53/EC 07-06-2004

  1. Introduction

 

In monitoring the national implementations of the EU-directive on end-of-life vehicles (2000/53/EC) in different Member States, EGARA has discovered that, in a number of Member States Article 5 of Directive 2000/53/EC has not been implemented correctly. EGARA wishes to submit a formal complaint to the Commission about this incorrect implementation and urges the Commission to take the necessary steps as soon as possible in order to correct this situation.

  1. Substance of the complaint

 

Article 5 of Directive 2000/53/EC stipulates:

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure: (..) the adequate availability of collection facilities within their territory.

  1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all end-of life vehicles are transferred to authorised treatment facilities.

 

  1. Member States shall set up a system according to which the presentation of a certificate of destruction is a condition for deregistration of the end-of life vehicle. This certificate shall be issued to the holder and/or owner when the end-of life vehicle is transferred to the treatment facility. Treatment facilities which have obtained a permit in accordance with Article 6, shall be permitted to issue a certificate of destruction. (…).  Issuing the certificate of destruction by the treatment facilities or the dealers or collectors on behalf of an authorised treatment facility does not entitle them to claim any financial reimbursement, except in cases where this has been explicitly arranged by Member States. (..)

 

  1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the delivery of the vehicle to an authorised treatment facility in accordance with paragraph 3 occurs without any cost for the last holder and/or owner as a result of the vehicle’s having no or a negative market value.

 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers meet all, or a significant part of, the costs of the implementation of this measure and/or take back end-of life vehicles under the same conditions as referred to in the first subparagraph (..)”

It follows from this Article that:

  • All ELVs should be transferred to an authorised treatment facility (ATF), which must issue a certificate of destruction;
  • Member States should ensure that any treatment facility, which has a permit in accordance with Article 6 of the Directive, is allowed to issue a certificate of destruction;
  • The delivery to any ATF should be free of charge for the last owner/holder of the ELV.

In particular in Ireland and the UK, and with the same tendency in order countries, a difference is being made between contracted ATFs and non-contracted ATFs

Contracted means, that an ATF has signed an agreement with a car-producer based organisations set up to cater for the producer responsibility, as specified in Article 5 (4) of the Directive.

The difference between the two, different types of ATFs are, that if an ELV has no or a negative market value, net costs will be refunded by the producers only to contracted ATFs, whereas non-contracted ATFs will have to bear the net costs themselves.

  1. EGARA’s opinion on the correct transposition of Article 5 of Directive 2000/53/EC

EGARA’s opinion is that it follows from Article 5 of the Directive 2000/53/EC, that:

  • all ATFs should meet the minimum requirements as they are set out in the directive and corresponding national implementations
  • the environment authorities, whether local/regional/central should ensure this
  • the last owner must deliver his elv to an ATF
  • when delivering his elv to an ATF, this should take place without any costs for the owner
  • if there are any costs involved, all or a significant part of these should be met by the producers
  • if funding mechanism are established, whether by market operators and/or states – or combinations thereof – such mechanism should ensure that all ATFs that wish to accepts ELVs free of charge are reimbursed costs for treatment according to the requirements set out by national legislation
  • In calculating the costs for treatment, any revenue from sales of elv-parts for re-use should not be included, since this is a completely separate activity.

 

Conclusion:

Article 5 (4) requires that any ATF should be able to take-back ELVs free of charge.

By restricting of the scope of application of the free-take back principle of Article 5 (4) to contracted ATFs, without ensuring that all ATFs are offered a contract/mechanism by which costs are reimbursed by producers on fair and equal conditions, France, Ireland and the UK have violated their obligations to correctly transpose the Directive.

EGARA urges the Commission to take the necessary steps to correct this situation as soon as possible. Since other Member States have not adopted formal implementation laws yet, EGARA also requests the Commission to communicate to those Member States their obligations to apply to free take-back principle to all ATFs that wish to be part of the collection/treatment system. If a system by which a contractual mechanism is applied, Member Stets must ensure that all ATFs are offered such contracts on fair and equal conditions.

Document references:

France:            Décret n° 2003-727 du 1 aout 2003 relatif à la construction des véhicules et à l’élimination des véhicules hors d’usage

Ireland:           Complaint to the Commission made by our Irish Member, IMVRA, registered as 2004/4124, SG(2004) A/1698

EGARA

2004.06.07