7 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2016/2215(INI)
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. The Member States’ failure to take an active part in the “Real Driving Emissions - Light Duty Vehicles” (RDE- LDV) working group constitutes maladministration. WAccording to the working group minutes provided, 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 42 #
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 could prevented the formation of a qualified majority in the TCMV, resulting in a postponemenwhich would had impact ofn the vote on the first RDE package.
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. No EU or Member State authority searched for defeat devices or proved the illegal use of defeat devices before September 2015. No Member State authority or technical service performed any tests other than the NEDC in the scope of type-approval, which in itself cannot point to the use of a defeat device. The vast majority of car manufacturers present on the EU market declared that they use the derogations to the ban on defeat devices foreseen in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. The legality of the use of the derogations is subject to ongoing investigations and court cases.
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. The Member States should have ensured that their type-approval authorities have sufficient human and financial resources to perform in-house testing. They should have not relied to such an extent on tests performed in the car manufacturers’ certified laboratories under the supervision of technical services. There can be potential conflicts of interest arising from the contracting of technical services by car manufacturers for carrying out tests. This is a direct result of the current system set out in the EU type- approval framework directive and cannot therefore be considered maladministration. The Commission proposal for a new market surveillance and type-approval regulation addresses this weakness by proposing a fee structure for the financing of type-approval tests.
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. The Member States’ failure to organise an efficient market surveillance system constitutemight be seen as 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 170 #
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 173 #
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. No mandatory initiatives to recall or retrofit non-conform vehicles were taken, and no type-approvals were withdrawn. Where recalls or retrofitting took place, this was done as a voluntary initiative by car manufacturers, following public and political pressure.