Activities of Benedek JÁVOR related to 2015/2184(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2014 PDF (301 KB) DOC (105 KB)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Discharge 2014: European Chemicals Agency
Amendments (12)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that the Parliament raised serious concerns with regard to the work of Agency´s committees in 2014 in its resolution of 25 November 2015 on draft Commission Implementing Decision XXX granting an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, and expects a clear response from the Agency to the issues raised therein; __________________ 1a P8_TA(2015)0409.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Notes furthermore with concern that in the case referred to in its resolution of 25 November 2015 on draft Commission Implementing Decision XXX granting an authorisation for uses of bis(2- ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP) the Agency´s committees: - accepted deficient applications, - took the initiative to do the work of the applicants and tried to justify an authorisation under a route that the applicants did not even apply for, - used simplistic arguments that are not within their remit to justify the authorisation of substances of very high concern, and - accepted unsubstantiated economic arguments to justify the acceptance of serious health risks;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that the Agency is continuously improving the dissemination of data to the European citizens and the public at large, inter alia by including the exposure scenarios and user friendly structured substance profiles to the dissemination portal; encourages the Agency to step up its efforts in order to allow all stakeholders to act on the basis of accurate data by disseminating all information held by the Agency on substances whether on their own, in preparations or in articles as listed in Article 119 of REACH Regulation, including the tonnage band within which a particular substance has been registered;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Recalls that the European Parliament raised serious concerns with regard to the work of ECHA committees in 2014 in its resolution of 25 November 2015 on draft Commission Implementing Decision XXX granting an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1a, where it objected by a very large majority to that draft decision, in particular that: - granting an authorisation for a substance of very high concern based on an application that is fraught with so many deficiencies would set a very bad precedent for future authorisation decisions under REACH, - its committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) went beyond its mandate by providing a conclusion on the proportionality of an authorisation, - SEAC used simplistic political arguments that are not within its remit and against existing legal provisions to justify the authorisation; __________________ 1aP8_TA(2015)0409.
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Notes furthermore with concern that SEAC assessed whether the application could be granted under conditions that the applicant did not even apply for, and furthermore accepted unsubstantiated arguments to justify the acceptance of serious health risks;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Welcomes the initiative of ECHA to meet with staff of all political groups in the European Parliament on 26 February 2016 to respond to the concerns raised in its resolution of 25 November 2015 on draft Commission Implementing Decision XXX granting an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and that ECHA high-level staff acknowledged at that meeting that ECHA and its committees should not take views on policy matters and that the statement on recycling in their opinion was inconsistent with SEAC's technical- scientific role;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends, based on the facts available, that discharge be grantedthe decision on the discharge to the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency with respect to the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2014. is postponed until the Agency has provided a satisfactory response with regard to the Parliament´s resolution of 25 November 2015 on draft Commission Implementing Decision XXX granting an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP) as well as the additional concerns raised in that context in paragraph 10b of this resolution.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)
Paragraph 16 d (new)
16d. Notes however with great concern that ECHA continues to stand by the conclusions of the committees in favour of authorisation of DEHP despite the serious deficiencies across all aspects of the application and the assessment of the application under conditions that the applicant had not applied for; continues to consider that such an approach violates inter alia the principle laid down in Article 1(3) of REACH that it is up to manufacturers to prove the safety of chemicals, a principle which is especially relevant in the case of the authorisation of substances of very high concern, where the burden of proof is clearly on the applicant;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 e (new)
Paragraph 16 e (new)
16e. Stresses in the context of 'proportionality', i.e.whether or not the socio-economic benefits of an authorisation outweigh the risk to human health or the environment, that this task falls solely on the Commission as the risk manager pursuant to Article 60(4) of REACH, and not on SEAC, whose task pursuant to Article 64(4b) of REACH is to merely assess the socio-economic factors;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 f (new)
Paragraph 16 f (new)
16f. Notes with great concern that the issues raised by the European Parliament are not an isolated case, as documented by the report "A roadmap to revitalise REACH" by the European Environment Bureau1a; _________________ 1ahttp://www.eeb.org/index.cfm/library/a- roadmap-to-revitalise-reach/
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 g (new)
Paragraph 16 g (new)
16g. Calls on the Executive Director of ECHA to ensure that a) the committees take the initiative to revise their procedures to align them with the letter and the spirit of REACH to ensure inter alia that such deficient applications do not receive a positive opinion, that the committees do not assess applications under conditions that were not applied for by the applicants, and that they stay within their mandate, in particular by SEAC no longer concluding on the proportionality of an authorisation, b) the committees do not accept unsubstantiated arguments to justify authorisation, c) to prepare a draft opinion of the Management Board concerning the revision of the procedures of the committees, d) SEAC revises its opinion on DEHP accordingly;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 h (new)
Paragraph 16 h (new)
16h. Calls also on the Executive Director of ECHA to respond in a comprehensive manner to the recommendations by the European Environment Bureauin its report, and to take corrective action where necessary;