Commission lawyers raise doubts about end-of-life vehicles plan

Date: 06/01/2000

By Gareth Harding

OPPONENTS of a controversial new law on recycling scrap vehicles have seized upon a confidential paper drawn up by the European Commission's own lawyers which raises question marks over the legality of a key aspect of the proposal.

The report - which MEPs have repeatedly requested but have so far been refused - could play a key role in the deliberations by the European Parliament's environment committee on the proposals next week which will culminate in what many are predicting will be a cliff-hanger vote.

The paper from the Commission's legal service raises doubts about making manufacturers responsible for scrapping cars which are already on the market once they reach the 'end of their life' and leaves question marks over how future EU waste laws will be drawn up.

Imminent bids for legislation which would require producers to take back and recycle electronic equipment are almost certain to be watered down or face legal challenges, and a forthcoming White Paper on environmental liability is likely to shy away from making polluters pay for past damage.

The legal service's paper accepts many of the arguments put forward by the Association of European Car Manufacturers (ACEA) in a study drawn up by a group of prominent lawyers.

The study claims that imposing a take-back obligation for old as well as new vehicles "would violate the general principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity", which are among the basic principles of EU law.

Industry also argues that it is unfair to make manufacturers pay for the cost of recycling cars which were not built with the requirements of the end-of-life vehicles directive in mind.

Ford Europe president Nick Scheele insists that applying the draft directive retroactively is "legally dubious" and based on "flawed thinking". The motor giant and other leading car firms are threatening to take legal action if the terms are approved and are furiously lobbying MEPs to overturn the plan.

However, the Commission's environment directorate-general has strenuously defended the ground-breaking proposal which, if adopted, would impose the world's toughest rules on vehicle recycling. An internal document describes the ACEA study as a "bit far fetched" and argues that "any environmental measure which affects products and wastes has some retroactive effect".

The environment committee is due to vote on the proposal next Tuesday (11 January), with a vote by the full assembly planned for early February. If MEPs accept the amendments tabled by German Christian Democrat Karl-Heinz Florenz, the revised text painstakingly put together by EU governments in the face of fierce opposition from Germany and the UK will be diluted and car makers will breathe a sigh of relief.

Florenz argues that the current proposal would cripple the EU's scrap car industry, unnecessarily tie the hands of manufacturers and impose an unacceptable burden on car makers. The Parliament's rapporteur is therefore proposing that the cost of paying for recycling old vehicles should be shared between car makers, owners and scrappers. Amendments have also been tabled to exempt old vehicles from the rules.

Socialists, Greens and some Liberals are opposed to any easing of industry's load. In a bid to gain the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the agreement reached by the Council of Ministers, Florenz has proposed that implementation of the planned directive should be brought forward from 2006 to 2003.

Car makers are playing up the potential cost of the proposal ahead of next week's vote. ACEA has estimated that it would cost industry €25-billion - a sum which Scheele believes will "technically bankrupt certain companies" and reduce the competitiveness of European car producers. But the Commission claims industry is hugely over-estimating the costs and say the real figure is closer to €2.5 billion.

Opponents of a controversial new law on recycling scrap vehicles have seized upon a confidential paper drawn up by the European Commission's own lawyers which raises questions marks over the legality of a key aspect of the proposal.