9 Amendments of Eleonora EVI related to 2016/2215(INI)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Before September 2015, the discrepancies were generally attributed to the inadequacy of the NEDC laboratory test, which is not representative of real world emissions, and to the optimisation strategies put in place by car manufacturers to pass the laboratory test, not to the possible use of prohibited defeat devices.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. At the time that Regulation (EC) No 2007/715 was being drafted, a different type of test was already available. That test was the Common Artemis Driving Cycle, also used by vehicle manufacturers. It was able to recreate driving conditions that were much more similar to normal on-road use.
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Defeat devices were generally not considered among the possible reasons behind the discrepancies between laboratory and on-road NOx emissions; and it was not generally suspected that they couldlthough the JRC had highlighted the possibility that such devices were be in actual use in any passenger car produced in the EU before the Volkswagen revelations in September 2015g used as long ago as in 2013, it was not until September 2015 that this was confirmed, following Volkswagen’s admission of guilt to the EPA in the US.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Member States do not seem to apply comparableuniform approaches to assessing and evaluating compliance with Union law on defeat devices, in particular as regards Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. The Commission should have shown more initiative and diligence as regards the possible use of illegal defeat devices by car manufacturers given the general suspicion and numerous indications thereof. The JRC should have received the mandate from the Commission to investigate whether the reported suspicious behaviours of certain vehicles have any illegal connotations.
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. The Member States’ failure to organise an efficient market surveillance system, which was, above all, a failure by the Member States that issued type-approval to vehicle models, constitutes a contravention of EU law. The verification of the conformity of production and in-service conformity of light-duty vehicles is often based only on laboratory tests performed on the car manufacturers’ premises.
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38 a. One of the structural weaknesses of the current type-approval framework in Europe is that it is only the type-approval authority that granted a type-approval to a given vehicle that can effectively withdraw the certificate of conformity that was given to the vehicle concerned.
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Member States, and in particular those which granted vehicle models type- approval, did not monitor and enforce appropriately the application of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, notably in contravention of Article 5(1) on the obligation for manufacturers to design cars which comply with the regulation in normal use.
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Following a strict interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, the Commission considered that it is the sole duty of the Member States, and not part of its responsibility as guardian of the Treaties, to investigate the possible illegal use of defeat devices. On this basiDespite the warning issued by the JRC in the 2013 report concerning the possible use of defeat devices, the Commission did not undertake further technical research, did not request additional information from the Member States and did not ask the responsible national type-approval authorities to undertake further investigative and corrective actions.