Activities of Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE related to 2016/2215(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (24)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Available emission control technologies (ECTs), when properly applied, allowed diesel cars to meet the Euro 5 NOx emission limit of 180 mg/km and the Euro 6 NOx emission limit of 80 mg/km by the date of their respective entry into force, in real world conditions and not only in laboratory testalthough this referred solely to laboratory conditions, with the aim of having standard, reproducible and traceable evidence as a benchmark for measuring vehicle emissions.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In any event, a distinction should be drawn between cases where the limits laid down in the European standards were exceeded and cases where prohibited defeat devices were used. Where limits were exceeded, this finding was the trigger for work to start on producing a new cycle of WLTC tests and a new requirement for real-driving emissions (RDE) tests; in the case of the prohibited defeat devices, the manufacturer’s intention to mislead (the authorities and the public) makes this a more serious matter than limits being exceeded under real driving conditions.
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. The excessive length of the process leading to the introduction of regulatory RDE tests can be explained only in part by the complexity of the development of a new test procedure, the time needed for the technological development of PEMS, and the length of the decision-making and administrative processes at the EU level. The delays were also due to choices of political priorities, such as the focus of the Commission, Parliament and the Member States on avoiding burdens on industry in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. The Member States’ failure to takefact that not all the Member States took an active part in the “Real Driving Emissions - Light Duty Vehicles” (RDE- LDV) working group constitutes maladministrationis worthy of note. With the exception of a few Member States, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Denmark and Spain, the vast majority did not participate in the RDE-LDV working group, despite voicing criticisms of the Commission’s proposals. Given the lead role played by the Member States in the enforcement of the Regulation, and given the known discrepancies in the NOx emissions of diesel vehicles and their significant negative impact on air quality objectives, Member States should have participated in the group’s proceedings. This would also have helped to achieve a better balance with the other participants in the working group.
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. The analysis of the minutes of the RDE-LDV working group and of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV) shows that some Member States, including in particular France, Italy and Spain, acted on several occasions to delay the adoption process of the RDE tests and to favour less stringent testing methods. In addition, several Member States prevented the formation of a qualified majority supported the idea that the rules should be introduced as soon as possible, but considered that some ambient and dynamic testing conditions should be laid down, and that those conditions should be fully defined from the outset, and not in multiple regulatory packages, together with some progressive emissions reductions limits, introduced in stages, in line with all the better regulation recommendations, and with the aim of guaranteeing the TCMV, resulting in a postprequisite legal certainty and environement of the vote on the first RDE packageal protection.
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. As the entity responsible for the process and agenda of the RDE-LDV working group, the Commission should have steered the RDE-LDV working group towards an earlier choice of the option of PEMS testing, as that option was suggested in Recital 15 of the Euro 5/6 Regulation, was widely supported within the RDE- LDV group, and the JRC had already concluded in November 2010 that PEMS testing methods were sufficiently robust. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. The Commission should have consistently taken meaningful and complete minutes of the RDE-LDV working group meetings. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Some emission control strategies applied by car manufacturers point towards the possible use of prohibited defeat devices. For instance, some manufacturers decrease the effectiveness of ECTs outside specific “thermal windows” close to the temperature range prescribed by the NEDC test, which are not justifiable by the technical limitations of the ECTs. Others modulate ECTs to decrease their efficiency after a certain time from the start of the engine, close to the duration of the test, has elapsed. Moreover, in many cases, emissions measured on a test cycle after a certain period following engine start are unjustifiably higher than on the same cycle with measurements done immediately after engine start.
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. No Member States contravened their legal obligation to monitor and enforce the ban on defeat devices set out in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. None of them found the defeat devices installed in the Volkswagen vehicles. Moreover, according to our investigations, mostsome Member States, and at least Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg, had evidence that irrational emission control strategies, based on conditions similar to the NEDC test cycle (temperature, duration, speed), were used in order to pass the type-approval test cycle. Ongoing investigations and court cases at national level will decide if emission control strategies used by car manufacturers constitute an illegal use of defeat devices or a lawful application of the derogations.
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Most Member States did not take steps to better understand the large discrepancies between emissions levels measured in the laboratory and on the road by carrying out additional tests outside of the NEDC conditions. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Directive 2007/46/EC states that the Commission has to be notified by the type-approval authority when it decides to reject a type-approval application. However, it is not clear what actions the Commission should take after such notification and how such follow-up actions are to be coordinated with the Member States. There is no clear and effective system in place to prevent a car manufacturer from applying for a type- approval in one Member State after an application for type-approval has been rejected by another Member State, or for a test to be conducted in another technical service after a model has failed to pass at a first technical service. In order to prevent ‘technical dumping’, manufacturers could be compelled to provide the Commission with reasons justifying their choice of technical service.
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. In-service tTesting for emissions is mostly conducted in the laboratories of car manufacturers and is currently limited to the NEDC laboratory tests required for type-approval.
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. The Member States should have ensured that type-approval authorities adequately audit technical services. This constitutes maladministration. The choice of technical service is, fundamentally, a decision by the vehicle manufacturer, and often the role of the type-approval authority is restricted to ratifying the procedure once it has been completed. The type-approval authorities have the power to investigate technical services and to challenge the choice of a specific service, but they rarely do so.
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. The Member States should have communicated to the Commission, and kept it updated on, the name and powers of their bodies responsible for market surveillance. This constitutes maladministration. There is an unjustifiable uncertainty as to which bodies in the Member States are responsible for market surveillance.
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. The Commission should explore all the options available under the Treaty to penalise companies guilty of infringements, and should also work within a legislative framework which provides consumers with genuine protection.
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. ThSome Member States were very reluctant to share the results of their investigations and the technical test data with the Commission and this committee of inquiry.
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. The Member States started to enforce the EU law on emissions from light-duty vehicles as requiredcarry out verification tests additional to those required under the rules only after the Volkswagen emissions case broke in September 2015, by conducting additional tests in the laboratory and on the road, and by launching several national investigations into pollutant emissions from passenger cars. Following these efforts, ongoing judicial proceedings will either confirm or not the possible illegal use of defeat devices.
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Member States have applied neither financial nor legal penalties to car manufacturers in the aftermath of the emissions case. N, as these cases are being considered by the courts. For the same reason, no mandatory initiatives to recall or retrofit non-conform vehicles were taken, and no type-approvals were withdrawn. WHowever, in some Member States the marketing of Euro 5 end-of- series Volkswagen vehicles equipped with a prohibited defeat device was banned. In general terms, where recalls or retrofitting took place, this was done as a voluntary initiative by car manufacturers, following political pressure.
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Despite the lack of summoning powers, the committee eventually succeeded in hearing most witnesses which it deemed necessary to call in order to properly fulfil its mandate. However, this lack of powers significantly hampered and delayed the work of the inquiry in view of the temporary nature of its investigation. Institutional actors, in particular from the Member States, were in general more reluctant to accept the invitation than private actors.
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Cooperation with mostsome of the national ministries was highly unsatisfactory, particularly as regards difficulties in obtaining their confirmation that representatives would appear before the committee. This was obtained only after many months of political and media pressure.
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. The obligation under Article 5 of Decision 95/167/EC to contact the Member States through the Permanent Representations created an unnecessary additional layer and in some cases complicated and slowed down thefacilitated the investigation with regard to dialogue, procedures and communication procedure.