21 Amendments of Sven SCHULZE related to 2016/2215(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the market share of diesel-powered passenger cars grew in the European Union during the last decades to a level where they represent more than half of new cars sold in almost every Member State; whereas this sustained growth in market share of diesel vehicles also came about as a result of EU climate policy, as diesel technology has a significant advantage over petrol engines when it comes to CO2 emissions; whereas at the combustion stage, diesel engines produce far more pollutants other than CO2, which are significantly and directly harmful to public health, such as NOx, SOx and particulate matter, than do petrol engines; whereas mitigation technologies for these pollutants exist and are deployed in the market;
Amendment 26 #
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 and the Member States on avoiding burdens on industry in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Defeat devices were generally notnever considered among the possible reasons behind the discrepancies between laboratory and on-road NOx emissions by anyone, and it was not generally suspected that they could be in actual use in any passenger car produced in the EU before the Volkswagen revelations in September 2015.
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. The ban on defeat devices has never been disputed by anyone. No Member State or car manufacturer ever questioned or asked for clarification on the provisions on defeat devices, including the implementation of the ban, until the Volkswagen case.
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Some 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 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Experts have noted the consensus view that the pre-emptive checking and possible detection of a fraudulent emissions system defeat device through unrestricted access to the vehicle's proprietary software is not a viable method, due to the extreme complexity of such software. Unrestricted access to such software would also present significant risk of disclosure of intellectual property rights' protected technology, which in turn could have a negative effect on innovation in the automotive sector.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. 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, most 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 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. The Commission hads no legal basis to search for defeat devices itself, but had the legal obligation to oversee the Member States’ enforcement of the ban on defeat devices. However, in spite of the awareness of, and communication between the relevant Commission services on, possible illegal practices by manufacturers, the Commission neither undertook any further technical or legal research or investigation on its own nor requested any information or further action from the Member States to verify whether the law may have been infringed.
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. However, where technical services also offer consultancy services to car manufacturers on obtaining type-approval, as is the case in certain Member States, a potential conflict of interest arises due to the existence of an additional financial link between technical services and car manufacturers related to the provision of advice on how to successfully acquire type-approval. Member States should have investigated such potential conflicts of interests. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 145 #
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 the technical service is primarily the choice of the car manufacturer, and the role of the type-approval authority is often just to validate the procedure at the end. The possibility available to type-approval authorities to audit technical services and to challenge the choice of the technical service is very rarely used.
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Also in the light of its internal deliberations and of external requests, tThe Commission should have requested information from the Member States on how they dealt with those vehicles in the existing fleet that do not comply with the legal emission limits under real driving conditions.
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. The governance structure in place for monitoring the automotive sector, where the EU merely has regulatory power and the responsibility to implement EU law on car emission measurement lies primarily with the Member States, prevents the efficient enforcement of EU legislation. The enforcement powers of the Commission are limited to initiating infringement procedures against Member States where a Member State has failed to apply EU law correctly.
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Following a strict interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, the Commission considered that iIt is the sole duty of the Member States, and not part of its responsibilityof the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to investigate the possible illegal use of defeat devices. On this basis, 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.
Amendment 188 #
49. The Commission did not sufficiently supervise the deadlines by which Member States had to report on the penalties put in place under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Delays in the delivery of requested documentation represented a major obstacle in the work of the committee. The lengthy internal procedure in the Commission, which requires the College’s approval to react to requests from the committee, together with gaps in its archiving system, delayed the collection of evidence during the time available. Furthermore, the transmission of the information requested was not structured in a user-friendly way, which made it more complicated to retrieve the information.
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. The collection of written evidence via questionnaires from non-institutional parties was in generalvery satisfactory. The practice of sending written questions ahead of the hearings, and sending subsequent follow- up questions, proved essentialhelped to maximise the information obtained during the hearings and to clarify issues that could not be answered during the hearing due to time constraints or lack of information.
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Given the temporary nature of committees of inquiry, collecting evidence in an efficient and timely manner is essential. In doing so, it is essential that the committee prioritises gathering facts by asking the technical experts relevant questions. The approach taken by the committee to devote the first months of its mandate to hearing technical experts before moving on the political level proved successful. Ideally, the hearings should start only once the first phase of evidence collection is concluded.