Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-12-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051212.14.1-087"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@cs1
"Hr. formand, lige nu vil jeg kun fokusere på de ændringsforslag, der vedrører de tre hovedpunkter i sagen: for det første retsgrundlaget, for det andet definitionerne af "bærbare batterier" og "industribatterier" og for det tredje indsamlingsmålene.
Kommissionen støtter det ændringsforslag, som fjerner medlemsstaternes mulighed for at fravige de foreslåede indsamlingsmål - "overgangsordningerne". Kommissionen havde foreslået denne mulighed, da indsamlingsmålene i det oprindelige forslag var baseret på vægt pr. indbygger. Da indsamlingsmålene nu er baseret på salg, er det ikke længere nødvendigt at give mulighed for overgangsordninger.
Eftersom der i det foreslåede direktivs artikel 20, stk. 2, litra b), allerede forudses en revision af de langsigtede mål, ser Kommissionen ikke noget behov for en særlig revisionsforpligtelse med henblik på at forhøje målene pr. en bestemt dato.
Jeg giver sekretariatet en afstemningsliste, hvoraf det fremgår, hvilke ændringsforslag Kommissionen kan godkende, og hvilke den ikke kan godkende. Jeg vil gerne påpege, at Kommissionen forbeholder sig sin stilling med hensyn til de yderligere 18 ændringsforslag, som stilles på plenarmødet, da en fuldstændig analyse af de miljømæssige, økonomiske og sociale konsekvenser deraf kræver mere tid.
Jeg tror, at Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet nu kan begynde at nærme sig hinanden i denne sag. Jeg ser frem til en hurtig afslutning af den fælles beslutningsprocedure, så direktivet kan gennemføres af medlemsstaterne, og vi kan opnå et højt niveau for miljøbeskyttelse på dette område.
For det første, hvad angår retsgrundlaget, dvs. præamblen og betragtning 1 - ændringsforslag 1 og 2 - støtter Kommissionen stadig princippet om dobbelt retsgrundlag i forbindelse med dette direktiv. Det dobbelte retsgrundlag afspejler direktivforslagets dobbelte formål. Direktivet skal både sikre et højt niveau for miljøbeskyttelse og bidrage til et velfungerende indre marked. Det bør desuden bemærkes, at det i direktivforslaget anføres, at der for den enkelte artikel kun er ét retsgrundlag.
Artiklerne om miljøbeskyttelse er baseret på EF-traktatens artikel 175. Artiklerne om et velfungerende indre marked - dvs. artikel 4, 5 og 18 i det foreslåede direktiv - er baseret på traktatens artikel 95. Det dobbelte retsgrundlag kan således ikke føre til juridisk uforenelige procedurer.
For det andet, hvad angår definitionen af de forskellige batterityper, dvs. artikel 3, nr. 3 og 6, samt betragtning 8 og 9 - ændringsforslag 5, 6, 12 og 13 - er definitionerne af "bærbare batterier" og "industribatterier" vigtige, da de bestemmer omfanget af forbuddet mod cadmium samt typen af indsamlingskrav. Kommissionen mener derfor, at definitionerne bør opfylde følgende kriterier: De bør være klare, de skal kunne gennemføres i praksis af medlemsstaterne på en harmoniseret måde, og overlapninger og svælg bør undgås.
Ud fra ovenstående støtter Kommissionen de første to dele af ændringsforslag 12, især indførelsen af en vægtgrænse som led i definitionen af bærbare batterier. Kommissionen støtter derimod ikke de øvrige ændringer, som foreslås i forbindelse med definitionerne af de forskellige batterityper - ændringsforslag 12, tredje del, og ændringsforslag 13.
Kommissionen bifalder udeladelsen af den ikke-udførlige liste over eksempler i betragtningerne, der forbedrer udkastet til retsakt betydeligt.
For det tredje er der indsamlingsmålene, dvs. artikel 9, stk. 2 og 4 - ændringsforslag 26-28. Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at det er nødvendigt at fastsætte indsamlingsmål i det foreslåede direktiv, for det første for at sikre et minimumsniveau for miljøbeskyttelse i alle medlemsstater og for det andet for at overvåge effektiviteten af de nationale batteriindsamlingsordninger. Det er vigtigt, at indsamlingsmålene er ambitiøse rent miljømæssigt, men de skal også være opnåelige, realistiske og omkostningseffektive.
I Kommissionens udvidede konsekvensanalyse undersøges dette spørgsmål grundigt, og konklusionen var, at et indsamlingsmål på 160 g eller 40 % ville være det mest omkostningseffektive mål, hvilket er i overensstemmelse med en del af ændringsforslag 26.
Der vil blive set nærmere på, om en forhøjelse af målet på længere sigt som omhandlet i direktivforslagets artikel 20, stk. 2, litra b), er hensigtsmæssig. I den forbindelse vil Kommissionen tage hensyn til medlemsstaternes tekniske udvikling og praktiske erfaring. Kommissionen støtter således i princippet ændringsforslag 26, men forbeholder sig sin stilling med hensyn til ændringsforslag 56."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich möchte in der Folge nur auf die Änderungsanträge zu den drei Schlüsselfragen in dieser Angelegenheit eingehen: erstens zur Rechtsgrundlage; zweitens zu den Begriffsbestimmungen von Geräte- und Industriebatterien und drittens zu den Sammelzielvorgaben.
Die Kommission unterstützt den Änderungsantrag, mit dem die Möglichkeit von Übergangsbestimmungen gestrichen wird, die es den Mitgliedstaaten gestatten, von den festgelegten Sammelzielvorgaben abzuweichen. Sie hatte diese Möglichkeit vorgeschlagen, weil die Sammelzielvorgaben in ihrem ursprünglichen Vorschlag nach Gewicht pro Einwohner berechnet wurden. Da für die Sammelzielvorgaben nunmehr der Absatz zugrunde gelegt wird, sind diese Übergangsregelungen nicht mehr erforderlich.
Da im Richtlinienvorschlag in Artikel 20 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b bereits eine Prüfung der langfristigen Zielvorgaben vorgesehen ist, hält die Kommission eine spezifische Überprüfungsverpflichtung für die Erhöhung der Zielvorgaben zu einem bestimmen Zeitpunkt nicht für notwendig.
Ich werde dem Sekretariat eine Abstimmungsliste mit den Änderungsanträgen übergeben, die die Kommission akzeptieren oder nicht akzeptieren kann. Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass sich die Kommission ihre Stellungnahme zu den vor der Plenartagung eingereichten 18 zusätzlichen Änderungsanträgen vorbehält, da sie mehr Zeit benötigt, um deren ökologische, wirtschaftliche und soziale Folgen gründlich zu prüfen.
Meines Erachtens können das Europäische Parlament und der Rat nun auf eine Einigung zu diesem Komplex hinarbeiten. Ich freue mich auf einen baldigen Abschluss des Mitentscheidungsprozesses, damit die Mitgliedstaaten diese Richtlinie umsetzen und wir in diesem Bereich ein hohes Umweltschutzniveau erreichen können.
Erstens, zur Rechtsgrundlage, zur Präambel und zu Erwägung 1 – Änderungsanträge 1 und 2: Die Kommission setzt sich weiterhin für die doppelte Rechtsgrundlage für diese Richtlinie als richtiges Konzept ein. In dieser doppelten Rechtsgrundlage kommen die beiden parallelen Zielsetzungen des Richtlinienvorschlags zum Ausdruck. Mit der Richtlinie soll nämlich ein hohes Umweltschutzniveau erreicht werden, und sie soll gleichzeitig zu einem reibungslosen Funktionieren des Binnenmarkts beitragen. Darüber hinaus sei darauf hingewiesen, dass laut Richtlinienvorschlag jeder einzelne Artikel über nur eine Rechtsgrundlage verfügt.
So basieren die Artikel mit Umweltschutzbestimmungen auf Artikel 175 EG-Vertrag. Die Artikel mit Vorschriften zum reibungslosen Funktionieren des Binnenmarktes – also Artikel 4, 5 und 18 des Richtlinienvorschlags – sind auf Artikel 95 des Vertrages gestützt. Demzufolge können sich aus dieser doppelten Rechtsgrundlage keine rechtlichen Unvereinbarkeiten von Verfahren ergeben.
Zweitens, zur Definition der verschiedenen Batterietypen – Artikel 3 Absatz 3 und 6 sowie Erwägungen 8 und 9, Änderungsanträge 5, 6, 12 und 13: Die Begriffsbestimmungen von Geräte- und Industriebatterien sind wichtig, da sie über den Umfang des Kadmiumverbots und die Sammelvorgaben entscheiden. Die Kommission vertritt daher den Standpunkt, dass für Begriffsbestimmungen folgende Kriterien gelten sollten: Sie sollten eindeutig und für die Mitgliedstaaten in der Praxis in harmonischer Weise umsetzbar sein, und es gilt, Überschneidungen und Lücken möglichst zu vermeiden.
Vor diesem Hintergrund unterstützt die Kommission die ersten beiden Teile von Änderungsantrag 12, insbesondere was die Einführung einer Gewichtsgrenze für Gerätebatterien anbelangt. Sie spricht sich jedoch gegen die weiteren Änderungen der Begriffsbestimmungen für die verschiedenen Batterietypen aus – Änderungsantrag 12, dritter Teil, und Änderungsantrag 13.
Die Kommission begrüßt die Streichung der nicht erschöpfenden Beispielliste in den Erwägungen, womit der Wortlaut des Rechtsaktes deutlich verbessert wird.
Drittens möchte ich auf die Sammelzielvorgaben eingehen – Artikel 9 Absatz 2 und die Änderungsanträge 26 bis 28. Nach Auffassung der Kommission ist die Festlegung von Zielvorgaben im Richtlinienvorschlag erforderlich, um erstens in allen Mitgliedstaaten ein Mindestmaß an Umweltschutz zu gewährleisten und zweitens die Wirksamkeit der einzelstaatlichen Batteriesammelsysteme zu kontrollieren. Die Sammelzielvorgaben müssen zwar umweltpolitisch anspruchsvoll, sollten aber auch erreichbar, realistisch und kosteneffizient sein.
Die Kommission hat diese Frage in ihrer globalen Folgenabschätzung ausführlich geprüft und gelangte zu dem Schluss, dass die Sammelzielvorgabe von 160 g bzw. 40 % am kosteneffizientesten wäre, was Teilen von Änderungsantrag 26 entspricht.
Wie in Artikel 20 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b des Richtlinienvorschlags vorgesehen, wird gründlich geprüft, ob eine spätere Erhöhung der Zielvorgabe geeignet erscheint. Die Kommission wird dabei die technischen Fortschritte und praktischen Erfahrungen in den Mitgliedstaaten berücksichtigen. Grundsätzlich stimmt die Kommission daher Änderungsantrag 26 zu, behält sich jedoch ihre Stellungnahme zu Änderungsantrag 56 vor."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα αναφερθώ τώρα αποκλειστικά στις τροπολογίες που σχετίζονται με τα τρία κύρια θέματα αυτής της υπόθεσης: πρώτον, τη νομική βάση, δεύτερον, τους ορισμούς των «φορητών» και «βιομηχανικών» τύπων ηλεκτρικών στηλών και, τρίτον, τους στόχους συλλογής.
Η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει την τροπολογία που διαγράφει τη δυνατότητα των κρατών μελών να παρεκκλίνουν από τους προτεινόμενους στόχους συλλογής – «μεταβατικές ρυθμίσεις». Η Επιτροπή είχε προτείνει αυτήν τη δυνατότητα καθώς, στην αρχική της πρόταση, οι στόχοι συλλογής βασίζονταν στο βάρος ανά κάτοικο. Καθώς τώρα οι στόχοι συλλογής βασίζονται στις πωλήσεις, δεν είναι πλέον απαραίτητο να προβλέπεται αυτή η δυνατότητα των μεταβατικών ρυθμίσεων.
Εφόσον η προτεινόμενη οδηγία ήδη προβλέπει επανεξέταση των μακροπρόθεσμων στόχων στο άρθρο 20 παράγραφος 2 σημείο β), η Επιτροπή δεν θεωρεί αναγκαία τη θέσπιση συγκεκριμένης υποχρέωσης επανεξέτασης για αύξηση των στόχων συλλογής με συγκεκριμένη ημερομηνία.
Θα παραδώσω έναν κατάλογο στη Γραμματεία, όπου θα αναφέρονται οι τροπολογίες που είναι ή δεν είναι δεκτές από την Επιτροπή. Θα ήθελα να τονίσω ότι η Επιτροπή επιφυλάσσεται για τις 18 συμπληρωματικές τροπολογίες που κατατέθηκαν ενώπιον της Ολομέλειας, καθώς χρειάζεται περισσότερος χρόνος για την πλήρη αξιολόγηση των περιβαλλοντικών, οικονομικών και κοινωνικών επιπτώσεων αυτών.
Πιστεύω ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο μπορούν τώρα να οδεύσουν προς μια συμφωνία επί αυτής της υπόθεσης. Αναμένω τη σύντομη ολοκλήρωση της διαδικασίας συναπόφασης, ώστε η οδηγία να μπορεί να εφαρμοστεί από τα κράτη μέλη και να επιτύχουμε υψηλό επίπεδο περιβαλλοντικής προστασίας σε αυτόν τον τομέα.
Πρώτον, σχετικά με τη νομική βάση, το προοίμιο και την αιτιολογική σκέψη 1 – τροπολογίες 1 και 2: η Επιτροπή εξακολουθεί να υποστηρίζει την ιδέα της διπλής νομικής βάσης για αυτήν την οδηγία ως την ορθότερη λύση. Η διπλή νομική βάση αντικατοπτρίζει τον διπλό στόχο της προτεινόμενης οδηγίας. Πράγματι, η οδηγία έχει ως στόχο, αφενός, να επιτύχει ένα υψηλό επίπεδο περιβαλλοντικής προστασίας και, αφετέρου, να συμβάλει στην απρόσκοπτη λειτουργία της εσωτερικής αγοράς. Επιπλέον, θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι η προτεινόμενη οδηγία διευκρινίζει ότι κάθε μεμονωμένο άρθρο έχει μόνο μία νομική βάση.
Πράγματι, τα άρθρα που θεσπίζουν διατάξεις για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος βασίζονται στο άρθρο 175 της Συνθήκης ΕΚ. Τα άρθρα που θεσπίζουν διατάξεις σχετικά με την ομαλή λειτουργία της εσωτερικής αγοράς –συγκεκριμένα τα άρθρα 4, 5 και 18 της προτεινόμενης οδηγίας βασίζονται στο άρθρο 95 της Συνθήκης. Συνεπώς, αυτή η διπλή νομική βάση δεν μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε νομικές ασυμβατότητες των διαδικασιών.
Δεύτερον, στον ορισμό των διαφόρων τύπων ηλεκτρικών στηλών – άρθρο 3, παράγραφος 3 και 6 και αιτιολογικές σκέψεις 8 και 9, τροπολογίες 5, 6, 12 και 13: οι ορισμοί των «φορητών» και «βιομηχανικών» ηλεκτρικών στηλών είναι σημαντικοί, καθώς καθορίζουν το πεδίο εφαρμογής της απαγόρευσης του καδμίου και τον τύπο των απαιτήσεων συγκέντρωσης. Επομένως, η Επιτροπή είναι της γνώμης ότι οι ορισμοί θα πρέπει να πληρούν τα ακόλουθα κριτήρια: θα πρέπει να είναι σαφείς, πρακτικά εφαρμόσιμοι από τα κράτη μέλη, ώστε να εφαρμοστούν με εναρμονισμένο τρόπο, ενώ οποιεσδήποτε επικαλύψεις ή κενά θα πρέπει να αποφεύγονται.
Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα ανωτέρω, η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει τα πρώτα δύο μέρη της τροπολογίας 12, συγκεκριμένα την εισαγωγή ορίου βάρους για τον ορισμό των φορητών ηλεκτρικών στηλών. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή δεν υποστηρίζει τις άλλες αλλαγές που προτείνονται για τους ορισμούς των διαφόρων τύπων ηλεκτρικών στηλών – τροπολογία 12, τρίτο μέρος, και τροπολογία 13.
Η Επιτροπή χαιρετίζει τη διαγραφή του ελλιπούς καταλόγου παραδειγμάτων στις αιτιολογικές σκέψεις, η οποία βελτιώνει σημαντικά τη σύνταξη της νομοθετικής πράξης.
Τρίτον, θα αναφερθώ στους στόχους συγκέντρωσης – άρθρο 9, παράγραφος 2 και 4 και τροπολογίες 26 έως 28. Η Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότι η θέση στόχων συλλογής στην προτεινόμενη οδηγία είναι απαραίτητη: πρώτον, για να εξασφαλιστεί ένα ελάχιστο επίπεδο περιβαλλοντικής προστασίας σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη και, δεύτερον, για να παρακολουθείται η αποτελεσματικότητα των εθνικών προγραμμάτων συλλογής ηλεκτρικών στηλών. Είναι σημαντικό οι στόχοι συλλογής να είναι φιλόδοξοι όσον αφορά το περιβάλλον αλλά και εφικτοί, ρεαλιστικοί και οικονομικά αποδοτικοί.
Η εκτεταμένη εκτίμηση επιπτώσεων της Επιτροπής ανέλυσε προσεκτικά το θέμα και κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι ο στόχος συλλογής των 160 γραμμαρίων ή του 40% θα ήταν ο πλέον αποδοτικός οικονομικά στόχος, που αντιστοιχεί σε μέρος της τροπολογίας 26.
Η σκοπιμότητα μιας αύξησης του στόχου μακροπρόθεσμα θα επανεξεταστεί προσεκτικά, όπως προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 20 παράγραφος 2 σημείο β) της προτεινόμενης οδηγίας. Σε αυτήν την επανεξέταση, η Επιτροπή θα λάβει υπόψη την τεχνική πρόοδο και την εμπειρία που θα έχει αποκτηθεί στα κράτη μέλη. Η Επιτροπή, άρα, υποστηρίζει καταρχήν την τροπολογία 26, αλλά επιφυλάσσεται για την τροπολογία 56."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, ahora hablaré únicamente de las enmiendas relativas a los tres asuntos principales de este expediente: en primer lugar, el fundamento jurídico; segundo, las definiciones de «portátil» y de «industrial», y tercero, los objetivos de recogida.
La Comisión apoya la enmienda que elimina la posibilidad de que los Estados miembros se eximan de los objetivos de recogida propuestos, los «acuerdos transitorios». La Comisión había propuesto esta posibilidad porque, en su formulación original, los objetivos se basaban en el peso por habitante. Dado que ahora se basan en las ventas, ya no es necesario prever esta posibilidad de acuerdos transitorios.
En vista de que la directiva propuesta ya no prevé la revisión de los objetivos a largo plazo en la letra b) del apartado 2 del artículo 20, la Comisión no ve la necesidad de una obligación de revisión específica para aumentar los objetivos en una fecha concreta.
Entregaré una lista de votación a la Secretaría con indicación de las enmiendas que la Comisión acepta y las que no. Quisiera señalar que la Comisión se reserva su opinión sobre las dieciocho enmiendas adicionales presentadas en el Pleno, pues necesita más tiempo para evaluar adecuadamente sus impactos ambientales, económicos y sociales.
Creo que el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo ya pueden ir avanzando hacia un acuerdo sobre este expediente. Espero que culmine pronto el proceso de codecisión para que la directiva pueda ser aplicada por los Estados miembros y logremos un alto nivel de protección ambiental en este campo.
Primero sobre el fundamento jurídico, el preámbulo y el considerando 1 (enmiendas 1 y 2): La Comisión sigue creyendo que el concepto de doble fundamento jurídico para esta directiva es el correcto. Este doble fundamento jurídico refleja el doble objetivo de la directiva propuesta. En efecto, la directiva pretende tanto lograr una alta protección del medio ambiente como contribuir al buen funcionamiento del mercado interior. Además, conviene señalar que la directiva propuesta especifica que cada artículo concreto tiene un único fundamento jurídico.
Así, los artículos que establecen disposiciones sobre la protección del medio ambiente se basan en el artículo 175 del Tratado CE. A su vez, los que establecen disposiciones relativas al funcionamiento del mercado interior –a saber, los artículos 4, 5 y 18 de la directiva propuesta– se basan en el artículo 95 del Tratado. Por consiguiente, este doble fundamento jurídico no puede provocar incompatibilidades jurídicas de los procedimientos.
En segundo lugar, sobre la definición de los distintos tipos de pilas (apartados 3 y 6 del artículo 3, considerandos 8 y 9, enmiendas 5, 6, 12 y 13): las definiciones de pilas «portátiles» y pilas «industriales» son importantes por cuanto determinan el alcance de la prohibición del cadmio y el tipo de necesidades de recogida. Por tanto, la Comisión considera que las definiciones deben atender a los siguientes criterios: deben ser claras, deben ser viables en la práctica para que los Estados miembros las apliquen de forma armonizada y deben evitar lagunas o diferencias.
En consecuencia, la Comisión apoya las dos primeras partes de la enmienda 12, en particular la introducción del límite de peso en la definición de pilas portátiles. En cambio, la Comisión no respalda los otros cambios propuestos a las definiciones de los diferentes tipos de pilas (la tercera parte de la enmienda 12 y la enmienda 13).
La Comisión apoya la supresión de la lista de ejemplos no exclusiva de los considerandos, que mejora notablemente el texto del proyecto legislativo.
En tercer lugar, sobre los objetivos de recogida (apartados 2 y 4 del artículo 9 y enmiendas 26 a 28). La Comisión cree que es necesario establecer objetivos de recogida en la directiva propuesta: en primer lugar, para asegurar un nivel mínimo de protección del medio ambiente en todos los Estados miembros, y en segundo lugar, para supervisar la eficacia de los sistemas de recogida nacionales. Es fundamental que los objetivos sean ambiciosos desde el punto de vista del medio ambiente, pero también deben ser realizables, realistas y económicos.
La evaluación de impacto ampliada que ha hecho la Comisión analiza en detalle este asunto y llega a la conclusión de que el objetivo de recogida de 160 gramos o del 40 % sería el más eficiente, en consonancia con una parte de la enmienda 26.
La conveniencia de incrementar el objetivo a largo plazo se podrá considerar en el futuro, tal como prevé la letra b) del apartado 2 del artículo 20 de la directiva propuesta. Para ello, la Comisión tendrá en cuenta los progresos técnicos y la experiencia práctica adquirida por los Estados miembros. Por tanto, la Comisión acepta en principio la enmienda 26, pero se reserva su opinión sobre la enmienda 56."@es20
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, keskityn seuraavaksi ainoastaan niihin tarkistuksiin, jotka koskevat kolmea keskeistä kysymystä: ensimmäinen niistä koskee oikeusperustaa, toinen "kannettavan pariston" ja "teollisuuspariston" määritelmiä ja kolmas keräystavoitteita.
Komissio tukee tarkistusta, jolla jäsenvaltioilta poistetaan mahdollisuus poiketa esitetyistä keräystavoitteista eli mahdollisuus "siirtymäjärjestelyihin". Komissio esitti tätä mahdollisuutta, koska alkuperäisessä ehdotuksessa keräystavoitteet perustuivat painoon asukasta kohden. Koska keräystavoitteet perustuvat tällä hetkellä myyntiin, siirtymäjärjestelyjen mahdollisuutta ei ole enää tarpeen tarjota.
Koska direktiiviehdotuksen 20 artiklan 2 kohdan b alakohdassa säädetään jo nyt pitkän aikavälin tavoitteiden uudelleentarkastelusta, komissio ei pidä tarpeellisena uudelleentarkasteluvelvoitetta erityisesti tavoitteiden tiukentamiseksi määrättyyn ajankohtaan mennessä.
Aion toimittaa sihteeristölle äänestysluettelon, jossa kerrotaan, mitkä tarkistukset komissio voi hyväksyä ja mitä se ei voi hyväksyä. Haluan tähdentää, että komissio ei vielä ota kantaa täysistunnon käsiteltäviksi jätettyihin 18 lisätarkistukseen, koska enemmän aikaa tarvitaan ympäristövaikutusten ja taloudellisten ja sosiaalisten vaikutusten arviointiin kattavasti.
Mielestäni Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto voivat nyt aloittaa etenemisen kohti yhteisymmärrystä tässä asiassa. Toivon, että yhteispäätösmenettely saadaan pikaisesti päätökseen, jotta jäsenvaltiot voivat panna direktiivin täytäntöön ja me voimme saavuttaa korkeatasoisen ympäristönsuojelun tällä alalla.
Ensimmäiseksi käsittelen oikeusperustaa eli johdanto-osaa ja sen 1 kappaletta – tarkistuksia 1 ja 2. Komissio kannattaa edelleen ajatusta siitä, että oikea oikeusperusta tälle direktiiville on kaksi oikeusperustaa. Kahden oikeusperustan valitseminen kuvastaa ehdotetun direktiivin kahta tavoitetta. Direktiivillä pyritään saavuttamaan sekä korkeatasoinen ympäristönsuojelu että edistämään sisämarkkinoiden moitteetonta toimintaa. Lisäksi on merkillepantavaa, että ehdotetussa direktiivissä täsmennetään, että kullakin yksittäisellä artiklalla on ainoastaan yksi oikeusperusta.
Näin ollen artiklat, joissa säädetään ympäristönsuojelusta, perustuvat EY:n perustamissopimuksen 175 artiklaan. Artiklat, joihin sisältyvät sisämarkkinoiden moitteettomaan toimintaan liittyvät säännökset – eli direktiiviehdotuksen 4, 5 ja 18 artikla – perustuvat perustamissopimuksen 95 artiklaan. Näin ollen nämä kaksi oikeusperustaa eivät voi aiheuttaa menettelyjen osalta oikeudellista yhteensoveltumattomuutta.
Toiseksi käsittelen eri paristotyyppien määritelmiä – 3 artiklan 3 kohtaa ja 6 kohtaa ja johdanto-osan 8 ja 9 kappaletta, tarkistuksia 5, 6, 12 ja 13. "Kannettavien paristojen" ja "teollisuusparistojen" määritelmät ovat tärkeitä, koska niiden perusteella määräytyy kadmiumkiellon laajuus ja keräysvaatimusten laji. Tämän vuoksi komissio on sitä mieltä, että määritelmien olisi oltava seuraavien kriteerien mukaisia: niiden olisi oltava selkeitä; niiden olisi oltava toteutettavissa käytännössä, jotta jäsenvaltiot voivat panna ne täytäntöön yhdenmukaisesti, ja kaikki päällekkäisyydet tai aukot olisi voitava välttää.
Kun edellä todettu otetaan huomioon, komissio tukee tarkistuksen 12 kahta ensimmäistä osaa ja erityisesti painorajan ottamista käyttöön kannettavien paristojen määrittelyssä. Komissio ei voi kuitenkaan tukea muita muutoksia, joita ehdotetaan eri paristotyyppien määritelmiin – tarkistuksen 12 kolmatta osaa ja tarkistusta 13.
Komissio tukee sitä, että johdanto-osan kappaleisiin sisältyvä esimerkkiluettelo, joka ei ole tyhjentävä, poistetaan, millä parannetaan huomattavasti säädöksen sanamuotoa.
Kolmanneksi käsittelen keräystavoitteita – 9 artiklan 2 ja 4 kohtaa ja tarkistuksia 26–28. Komissio katsoo, että direktiiviehdotuksessa on tarpeen asettaa keräystavoitteet, jotta varmistetaan vähimmäistasoinen ympäristönsuojelu kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa ja valvotaan kansallisten paristojenkeräysjärjestelmien tehokkuutta. On tärkeää, että keräystavoitteet ovat ympäristön kannalta kunnianhimoisia, mutta niiden on oltava myös saavutettavissa olevia, realistisia ja kustannustehokkaita.
Komission laajennetussa vaikutusten arvioinnissa analysoitiin huolellisesti tätä kysymystä, ja siinä tultiin sellaiseen tulokseen, että kaikkein kustannustehokkain keräystavoite on 160 grammaa tai 40 prosenttia, mikä on osittain tarkistuksen 26 mukaista.
Sitä, onko tarkoituksenmukaista nostaa tavoitetta pitkällä aikavälillä, kuten direktiiviehdotuksen 20 artiklan 2 kohdan b alakohdassa todetaan, on määrä arvioida huolellisesti. Komissio aikoo ottaa arvioinnissaan huomioon jäsenvaltioissa saavutetun teknisen kehityksen ja käytännön kokemuksen. Komissio tukee näin ollen periaatteessa tarkistusta 26 mutta ei toistaiseksi ota kantaa tarkistukseen 56."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je me concentrerai à présent sur les seuls amendements relatifs à trois thèmes clés dans ce dossier: premièrement, la base juridique; deuxièmement, les définitions respectives des types de piles «portables» et «industrielles» et, troisièmement, les objectifs en matière de collecte.
La Commission soutient l’amendement qui supprime la possibilité, pour les États membres, de déroger aux objectifs proposés en matière de collecte - ce qu’on appelle les «arrangements transitoires». La Commission avait proposé cette possibilité étant donné que, dans sa proposition initiale, les objectifs de collecte étaient basés sur le poids par habitant. Les objectifs de collecte étant à présent basés sur les ventes, il n’est plus indispensable de prévoir cette possibilité d’arrangements transitoires.
Étant donné que la proposition de directive prévoit déjà un réexamen des objectifs à long terme visés à l’article 20, paragraphe 2, point b), la Commission ne voit pas la nécessité d’une obligation spécifique de réexamen pour relever les objectifs d’ici à une date spécifique.
Je transmettrai une liste de vote au Secrétariat, qui indiquera quels amendements sont ou non acceptables du point de vue de la Commission. Je souhaite souligner que la Commission réserve son opinion quant aux 18 amendements supplémentaires déposés avant la session plénière, car il faut davantage de temps pour évaluer complètement leurs incidences en matière environnementale, économique et sociale.
Je crois que le Parlement européen et le Conseil peuvent à présent commencer de se diriger vers un accord à ce sujet. J’attends avec impatience une conclusion précoce du processus de codécision, de sorte que la directive puisse être mise en œuvre par les États membres et que nous puissions atteindre un niveau élevé de protection environnementale dans ce domaine.
Premièrement, à propos de la base juridique, le préambule et le considérant 1 - les amendements 1 et 2: la Commission continue de soutenir le concept d’une double base juridique pour cette directive comme étant le plus approprié. Cette double base juridique reflète le double objectif de la proposition de directive. De fait, la directive vise à atteindre à la fois un niveau élevé de protection environnementale et à contribuer au fonctionnement correct du marché intérieur. De plus, il convient d’observer que la proposition de directive spécifie que chacun des articles ne possède qu’une seule base juridique.
En effet, les articles qui établissent les dispositions pour la protection environnementale se fondent sur l’article 175 du Traité CE. Les articles qui établissent les dispositions relatives au bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur - à savoir les articles 4, 5 et 18 de la proposition de directive - se fondent sur l’article 95 du Traité. En conséquence, cette double base juridique ne peut pas entraîner d’incompatibilités juridiques des procédures.
Deuxièmement, à propos de la définition des différents types de piles - les articles 3, paragraphes 3 et 6, ainsi que les considérants 8 et 9, les amendements 5, 6, 12 et 13: les définitions des piles «portables» et «industrielles» sont importantes, car elles déterminent à la fois le champ d’application de l’interdiction du cadmium et le type d’exigences en matière de collecte. Par conséquent, la Commission est d’avis que les définitions doivent satisfaire aux critères suivants: elles doivent être claires, applicables dans la pratique par les États membres de façon à être mises en œuvre de manière harmonisée, et il convient d’éviter tout double emploi et tout écart.
Compte tenu de ce qui précède, la Commission soutient les deux premières parties de l’amendement 12, en particulier l’introduction de la limite de poids pour la définition des piles portables. Toutefois, la Commission ne soutient pas les autres modifications proposées concernant les définitions des différents types de piles - à savoir l’amendement 12, troisième partie, et l’amendement 13.
La Commission se félicite de la suppression de la liste non exhaustive d’exemples dans les considérants, ce qui améliore considérablement la formulation du texte législatif.
Troisièmement, les objectifs de collecte - les articles 9, paragraphes 2 et 4, ainsi que les amendements 26 à 28. La Commission estime qu’il est nécessaire de fixer des objectifs de collecte dans la proposition de directive: premièrement, afin de garantir un niveau minimal de protection de l’environnement dans l’ensemble des États membres et, deuxièmement, afin de superviser l’efficacité des plans nationaux de collecte des piles. Il importe que les objectifs en matière de collecte soient ambitieux en termes environnementaux, mais ils doivent également être réalisables, réalistes et rentables.
La vaste étude d’impact effectuée par la Commission a soigneusement analysé ce thème et est parvenue à la conclusion que l’objectif de collecte de 160 grammes ou de 40 % serait l’objectif le plus efficace en termes de coût, ce qui correspond bien à une partie de l’amendement 26.
Le caractère approprié d’une augmentation des objectifs à long terme fera l’objet d’un examen attentif, comme le prévoit l’article 20, paragraphe 2, point b), de la proposition de directive. Lors de cet examen, la Commission tiendra compte des progrès techniques et de l’expérience pratique accumulées dans les États membres. La Commission soutient donc en principe l’amendement 26, mais réserve son avis sur l’amendement 56."@fr8
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, adesso vorrei trattare solo gli emendamenti che riguardano le tre questioni principali di questo
: primo, la base giuridica, secondo, le definizioni di pile “portatili” e “industriali” e, terzo, gli obiettivi di raccolta.
La Commissione sostiene l’emendamento che priva gli Stati membri della facoltà di derogare agli obiettivi di raccolta proposti – le “disposizioni transitorie”. La Commissione aveva proposto di concedere tale facoltà poiché, nella sua proposta iniziale, gli obiettivi di raccolta si basavano sul peso per abitante. Dal momento che adesso gli obiettivi di raccolta si basano sulle vendite, non è più necessario concedere tale facoltà di disposizioni transitorie.
La direttiva proposta prevede già una revisione degli obiettivi di lungo periodo nell’articolo 20, paragrafo 2, lettera b), e quindi la Commissione non ritiene necessario imporre una revisione specifica obbligatoria per innalzare gli obiettivi entro una data precisa.
Fornirò al Segretariato un elenco di voto, indicando quali emendamenti la Commissione intenda accogliere. Vorrei sottolineare che la Commissione si riserva di esprimere un parere sugli altri 18 emendamenti presentati prima della seduta plenaria, poiché è necessario più tempo per effettuare una valutazione esaustiva dell’impatto ambientale, economico e sociale.
Credo che adesso il Parlamento europeo e il Consiglio possano procedere ad un accordo su questo
. Auspico una rapida conclusione del processo di codecisione, affinché gli Stati membri possano attuare la direttiva garantendo in questo modo un alto livello di tutela ambientale in tale contesto.
Prima di tutto, esaminiamo la base giuridica, il preambolo e il considerando 1 – gli emendamenti nn. 1 e 2: la Commissione continua a sostenere il concetto di una duplice base giuridica per questa direttiva. Questa duplice base giuridica riflette il duplice obiettivo della direttiva proposta. In effetti, la direttiva mira a garantire un alto livello di tutela ambientale e a contribuire all’adeguato funzionamento del mercato interno. Inoltre la direttiva proposta specifica che ogni singolo articolo dispone di un’unica base giuridica.
In effetti, gli articoli che fissano le disposizioni per la tutela ambientale si basano sull’articolo 175 del Trattato CE. Gli articoli che contengono disposizioni sull’adeguato funzionamento del mercato interno – ossia, gli articoli 4, 5 e 18 della direttiva proposta – si basano sull’articolo 95 del Trattato. Di conseguenza, questa duplice base giuridica non può generare alcuna incompatibilità giuridica delle procedure.
In secondo luogo, per ciò che concerne la definizione dei diversi tipi di pile – articolo 3, paragrafi 3 e 6, e considerando 8 e 9, emendamenti nn. 5, 6, 12 e 13: le definizioni di pile “portatili” e pile “industriali” sono importanti giacché definiscono il campo di applicazione del divieto sul cadmio e i requisiti per la raccolta. Quindi la Commissione ritiene che le definizioni debbano soddisfare i seguenti criteri: devono essere chiare, devono essere facilmente utilizzabili affinché gli Stati membri possano applicarle in maniera armonizzata, ed è necessario evitare qualsiasi sovrapposizione o lacuna.
In considerazione di quanto sopra, la Commissione sostiene le prime due parti dell’emendamento n. 12, in particolare l’introduzione del limite di peso nella definizione delle pile portatili. Tuttavia, la Commissione non appoggia le altre modifiche che sono state proposte per le definizioni dei diversi tipi di pile – emendamento n. 12, terza parte, e emendamento n. 13.
La Commissione accoglie con favore la cancellazione dell’elenco incompleto di esempi dai considerando, che migliora considerevolmente la formulazione dell’atto legislativo.
In terzo luogo, passo agli obiettivi di raccolta – articolo, 9, paragrafi 2 e 4, ed emendamenti dal n. 26 al n. 28. La Commissione ritiene che sia necessario fissare obiettivi di raccolta nella direttiva proposta: prima di tutto per garantire un livello minimo di tutela ambientale in tutti gli Stati membri e poi per controllare l’efficienza dei piani nazionali di raccolta delle pile. E’ importante che gli obiettivi di raccolta siano ambiziosi in termini ambientali, ma anche realizzabili, realistici ed efficienti in termini di costi.
Nella valutazione d’impatto ampliata la Commissione ha analizzato attentamente la questione ed è giunta alla conclusione che l’obiettivo di raccolta di 160 grammi – pari al 40 per cento – sarebbe l’obiettivo più efficiente in termini di costi, che corrisponde a parte dell’emendamento n. 26.
L’opportunità di un innalzamento dell’obiettivo nel lungo periodo sarà vagliata con attenzione, come previsto dall’articolo 20, paragrafo 2, lettera b), della direttiva proposta, per tener conto dei progressi tecnici e dell’esperienza pratica degli Stati membri. La Commissione quindi in linea di principio sostiene l’emendamento n. 26, ma si riserva di esprimere un parere sull’emendamento n. 56."@it12
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@lt14
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@lv13
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik zal mij nu uitsluitend richten op de amendementen die betrekking hebben op de drie belangrijkste punten in dit dossier: ten eerste, de rechtsgrondslag, ten tweede, de definities van “draagbare” en “industriële” batterijtypen en ten derde, inzamelingsstreefcijfers.
De Commissie steunt het amendement waarin voor lidstaten de mogelijkheid wordt geschrapt om van de voorgestelde inzamelingsstreefcijfers af te wijken – de “overgangsregelingen”. De Commissie had deze mogelijkheid geïntroduceerd omdat in haar oorspronkelijke voorstel de inzamelingsstreefcijfers gebaseerd waren op het gewicht per inwoner. Nu zijn deze cijfers gebaseerd op de verkoop en daarom zijn overgangsregelingen niet langer nodig.
Omdat in artikel 20, lid 2, onder b), van de voorgestelde richtlijn reeds melding wordt gemaakt van een onderzoek naar de langetermijndoelen, acht de Commissie het niet nodig een specifieke onderzoeksverplichting op te nemen die te maken heeft met een verhoging van de streefcijfers op een bepaalde datum.
Ik zal het secretariaat een stemlijst overhandigen, waarop vermeld staat welke amendementen voor de Commissie aanvaardbaar zijn en welke niet. Ik wil er graag op wijzen dat de Commissie haar standpunt over de achttien extra amendementen die tijdens de plenaire vergadering zijn ingediend, opschort. Er is namelijk meer tijd nodig om de gevolgen van die amendementen voor milieu, economie en maatschappij volledig te kunnen beoordelen.
Volgens mij kunnen het Europees Parlement en de Raad ten aanzien van dit dossier nu naar elkaar toe groeien en uiteindelijk tot overeenstemming komen. Ik hoop dat het medebeslissingsproces spoedig kan worden afgerond, zodat de lidstaten de richtlijn kunnen uitvoeren en op dit terrein een hoog niveau van milieubescherming kan worden bereikt.
Ten eerste, wat betreft de rechtsgrondslag, de preambule en overweging 1 – de amendementen 1 en 2: de Commissie blijft van mening dat een tweeledige rechtsgrondslag voor deze richtlijn juist is. Deze tweeledige rechtsgrondslag weerspiegelt de dubbele doelstelling van de voorgestelde richtlijn. Met de richtlijn wordt namelijk beoogd zowel de milieubescherming op een hoog peil te brengen als het correct functioneren van de interne markt te bevorderen. Bovendien wordt in de voorgestelde richtlijn vermeld dat elk afzonderlijk artikel slechts één rechtsgrondslag heeft.
De artikelen over milieubescherming zijn gebaseerd op artikel 175 van het EG-Verdrag. De artikelen over het correct functioneren van de interne markt, namelijk de artikelen 4, 5 en 18 van de voorgestelde richtlijn, zijn gebaseerd op artikel 95 van het EG-Verdrag. Daarom kan deze tweeledige rechtsgrondslag niet leiden tot een situatie waarin procedures onverenigbaar zijn.
Ten tweede, wat betreft de definitie van de verschillende soorten batterijen – artikel 3, lid 3 en lid 6, en overwegingen 8 en 9, de amendementen 5, 6, 12 en 13: de definities van “draagbare” batterijen en “industriële” batterijen zijn belangrijk, omdat daardoor de reikwijdte van het verbod op cadmium en het type inzamelingseisen wordt bepaald. Daarom is de Commissie van oordeel dat de definities aan de volgende criteria moeten voldoen: zij moeten helder zijn, zij moeten in de praktijk door de lidstaten op geharmoniseerde wijze kunnen worden toegepast en overlappingen of hiaten moeten worden voorkomen.
Gezien het bovenstaande steunt de Commissie de eerste twee delen van amendement 12, vooral de invoering van de gewichtsgrens voor de definitie van draagbare batterijen. De Commissie geeft echter geen steun aan de overige voorgestelde wijzigingen op de definities van de diverse soorten batterijen – amendement 12, derde deel, en amendement 13.
De Commissie is blij dat de niet-uitputtende lijst van voorbeelden uit de overwegingen is geschrapt. Daardoor wordt het concept van het wetgevingsbesluit aanzienlijk verbeterd.
Ten derde richt ik mij op de inzamelingsstreefcijfers – artikel 9, lid 2 en lid 4, en de amendementen 26-28. De Commissie acht het noodzakelijk in de voorgestelde richtlijn inzamelingsstreefcijfers op te nemen: allereerst om in alle lidstaten een ondergrens van milieubescherming te garanderen en op de tweede plaats om in de gaten te houden of de nationale batterij-inzamelingssystemen efficiënt werken. De streefcijfers dienen vanuit milieuoogpunt ambitieus te zijn, maar zij moeten ook haalbaar, realistisch en kosteneffectief zijn.
De Commissie heeft een uitvoerige effectbeoordeling verricht, waarbij dit vraagstuk zorgvuldig werd geanalyseerd, en kwam tot de conclusie dat het inzamelingsstreefcijfer van 160 gram of 40 procent het kosteneffectiefst was. Dit percentage wordt in amendement 26 genoemd.
Er zal nauwkeurig worden onderzocht of het streefcijfer voor de langere termijn naar boven moet worden bijgesteld, zoals voorzien in artikel 20, lid 2, onder b), van de voorgestelde richtlijn. Daarbij zal de Commissie rekening houden met de technische vooruitgang en de praktijkervaring in de lidstaten. In beginsel steunt de Commissie dus amendement 26, maar zij schort haar standpunt over amendement 56 op."@nl3
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, vou limitar-me, agora, às alterações relativas a três questões fulcrais deste processo: em primeiro lugar, a base jurídica; em segundo lugar, as definições de tipos de pilhas “portáteis” e “industriais”; e, em terceiro lugar, as metas de recolha.
A Comissão apoia a alteração que suprime a possibilidade de os Estados-Membros derrogarem aos objectivos de recolha propostos – as “disposições transitórias”. A Comissão propusera essa possibilidade porque, na sua proposta inicial, os objectivos de recolha baseavam-se no peso por habitante. Uma vez que, agora, os objectivos de recolha se baseiam nas vendas, deixou de ser necessário prever essa possibilidade em disposições transitórias.
Uma vez que a directiva proposta já prevê uma revisão dos objectivos a longo prazo no nº 2, alínea b), do seu artigo 20º, a Comissão não vê necessidade de uma obrigação de revisão específica para aumentar os objectivos até uma data específica.
Vou entregar ao Secretariado uma lista de votação, indicando quais as alterações que são aceitáveis para a Comissão e quais as que o não são. Gostaria de fazer notar que a Comissão reserva a sua opinião sobre as outras 18 alterações apresentadas ao plenário, já que é necessário mais tempo para avaliar integralmente os respectivos impactos ambiental, económico e social.
Acredito que o Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho estão agora em condições de avançar em direcção a um acordo neste processo. Fico a aguardar uma conclusão rápida do processo de co-decisão, de modo a que a directiva possa ser aplicada pelos Estados-Membros e a que possamos alcançar um nível elevado de protecção ambiental neste domínio
Em primeiro lugar, sobre a base jurídica, o preâmbulo e o considerando 1 – alterações 1 e 2: a Comissão continua a apoiar o conceito de que a base jurídica correcta para esta directiva é uma base jurídica dupla. Essa base jurídica dupla reflecte o objectivo duplo da directiva proposta. Com efeito, a directiva visa quer alcançar um nível elevado de protecção ambiental, quer contribuir para o bom funcionamento do mercado interno. Além disso, é de notar que a directiva proposta especifica que cada artigo tem uma única base jurídica.
Com efeito, os artigos que estabelecem disposições relativas à protecção ambiental baseiam-se no artigo 175º do Tratado CE. Os artigos que estabelecem disposições relativas ao bom funcionamento do mercado interno – nomeadamente os artigos 4º, 5º, e 18º da proposta de directiva – baseiam-se no artigo 95º do Tratado. Por conseguinte, esta base jurídica dupla não pode dar origem a quaisquer incompatibilidades jurídicas entre procedimentos.
Em segundo lugar, sobre a definição dos diferentes tipos de pilhas – nº 3 e nº 6 do artigo 3º e considerandos 8 e 9, alterações 5, 6, 12 e 13: as definições de pilhas “portáteis” e de pilhas “industriais” são importantes porque determinam o âmbito da interdição do cádmio e o tipo de requisitos em matéria de recolha. Por estas razões, a Comissão é de opinião de que as definições deveriam satisfazer os seguintes critérios: deveriam ser claras, deveriam ser utilizáveis na prática, para os Estados-Membros as aplicarem de maneira harmonizada, e deveriam ser evitados quaisquer sobreposições ou lapsos.
Tendo em conta o acima exposto, a Comissão apoia as duas primeiras partes da alteração 12, em especial a introdução do limite de peso na definição das pilhas portáteis. No entanto, a Comissão não apoia as outras modificações propostas para as definições dos diferentes tipos de pilhas – a terceira parte da alteração 12 e a alteração 13.
A Comissão acolhe com agrado a supressão da lista não exaustiva de exemplos nos considerandos, supressão que melhora consideravelmente a redacção do acto legislativo.
Em terceiro lugar, passo aos objectivos de recolha – nº 2 e nº 4 do artigo 9º, alterações 26 a 28. A Comissão entende que é necessário estabelecer objectivos de recolha na directiva proposta: em primeiro lugar, para assegurar um nível mínimo de protecção ambiental em todos os Estados-Membros e, em segundo lugar, para controlar a eficiência dos sistemas nacionais de recolha de pilhas. É importante que os objectivos de recolha sejam ambiciosos em termos ambientais, mas devem também ser viáveis, realistas e eficientes relativamente aos custos.
O estudo alargado de impacto da Comissão procedeu a um exame atento desta questão, tendo chegado à conclusão de que o objectivo de recolha de 160g ou 40% seria o mais eficiente relativamente aos custos, o que corresponde a parte da alteração 26.
A pertinência de um aumento do objectivo a longo prazo será objecto de estudo atento, tal como previsto no nº 2, alínea b), do artigo 20º da proposta de directiva. Nesse estudo, a Comissão terá em conta o progresso técnico e a experiência prática adquirida nos Estados-Membros. Assim, a Comissão apoia, em princípio, a alteração 26, mas reserva a sua opinião sobre a alteração 56."@pt17
"Mr President, I will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of ‘portable’ and ‘industrial’ battery types and, thirdly, collection targets.
The Commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for Member States to derogate from the proposed collection targets – the ‘transitional arrangements’. The Commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. Since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements.
Since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in Article 20(2)(b), the Commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date.
I will give a voting list to the Secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the Commission. I should like to point out that the Commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. I look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the Member States and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and Recital 1 – Amendments 1 and 2: the Commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. This dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. Indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis.
Indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on Article 175 of the EC Treaty. The articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market – namely Articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive – are based on Article 95 of the Treaty. Consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures.
Secondly, on the definition of the different battery types – Articles 3(3) and (6) and Recitals 8 and 9, Amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of ‘portable’ batteries and ‘industrial’ batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the Member States to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided.
Taking into account the above, the Commission supports the first two parts of Amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. However, the Commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types – Amendment 12, third part, and Amendment 13.
The Commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act.
Thirdly, I turn to the collection targets – Article 9(2) and (4) and Amendments 26 to 28. The Commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all Member States and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. It is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient.
The Commission’s extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of Amendment 26.
The appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in Article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. In this review, the Commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in Member States. The Commission thus in principle supports Amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on Amendment 56."@sk18
".
Herr talman! Jag kommer nu endast att koncentrera mig på de tre ändringsförslag som rör de tre nyckelfrågorna i denna akt: för det första den rättsliga grunden, för det andra definitionerna av ”bärbara batterier” och ”industribatterier” och för det tredje insamlingsmålen.
Kommissionen stöder de ändringsförslag som innebär att medlemsstaterna inte ges möjlighet att sänka de föreslagna insamlingsmålen – ”övergångsbestämmelserna”. Kommissionen hade föreslagit denna möjlighet eftersom insamlingsmålen i det ursprungliga förslaget grundade sig på vikt per invånare. Eftersom insamlingsmålen nu baseras på försäljning är det inte längre nödvändigt att tillhandahålla denna möjlighet med övergångsbestämmelser.
Eftersom det i det föreslagna direktivet redan förutses en översyn av de långsiktiga målen i artikel 20.2b, ser inte kommissionen något behov av en särskild undersökningsplikt för att höja målen ett visst datum.
Jag kommer att ge sekretariatet en omröstningslista som anger vilka ändringsförslag kommissionen godtar och inte godtar. Jag vill påpeka att kommissionen uttrycker sina betänkligheter om de övriga 18 ändringsförslag som har lagts fram i kammaren eftersom det behövs mer tid för att göra en fullständig bedömning av de miljömässiga, ekonomiska och sociala följderna.
Jag anser att Europaparlamentet och rådet nu kan börja gå mot en överenskommelse om denna akt. Jag ser fram emot ett snabbt slutförande av medbeslutandeprocessen så att medlemsstaterna kan genomföra direktivet och vi kan uppnå en hög miljöskyddsnivå inom detta område.
Först och främst, när det gäller den rättsliga grunden, ingressen och skäl 1 – ändringsförslag 1 och 2: kommissionen fortsätter att stödja principen om en dubbel rättslig grund för detta direktiv som den korrekta. Den dubbla rättsliga grunden speglar det dubbla syftet med det föreslagna direktivet. Direktivet syftar till att uppnå både en hög nivå av miljöskydd och till att bidra till att den inre marknaden fungerar väl. Det bör dessutom noteras att det i det föreslagna direktivet anges att varje enskild artikel endast har en rättslig grund.
Artiklarna om fastställande av bestämmelser för miljöskydd grundar sig på artikel 175 i EG-fördraget. Artiklarna om fastställande av bestämmelser som har att göra med att den inre marknaden fungerar väl – nämligen artiklarna 4, 5 och 18 i det föreslagna direktivet – grundar sig på artikel 95 i fördraget. Den dubbla rättsliga grunden kan därför inte leda till några rättsliga oförenligheter i förfarandet.
För det andra, och när det gäller definitionerna av de olika batterityperna – artikel 3, led 3 och 6, och skäl 8 och 9, ändringsförslagen 5, 6, 12 och 13: definitionerna av ”bärbara batterier” och ”industribatterier” är viktiga eftersom de fastställer kadmiumförbudets räckvidd och typen av insamlingskrav. Kommissionen anser därför att definitionerna bör uppfylla följande kriterier: de bör vara tydliga, de bör vara lätthanterliga för medlemsstaterna att genomföra praktiskt på ett harmoniserat sätt och alla former av överlappningar eller luckor bör undvikas.
Med hänsyn till det som nämnts ovan stöder kommissionen de första två delarna av ändringsförslag 12, särskilt införandet av en viktbegränsning för att definiera bärbara batterier. Kommissionen stöder emellertid inte de andra föreslagna ändringarna av definitionerna av de olika batterityperna – ändringsförslag 12, tredje delen, och ändringsförslag 13.
Kommissionen välkomnar strykningen av den icke uttömmande förteckningen över exempel i skälen, vilket avsevärt förbättrar utarbetandet av rättsakten.
För det tredje övergår jag till insamlingsmålen – artikel 9, punkt 2 och 4, och ändringsförslagen 26 till 28. Kommissionen anser att det är nödvändigt att ställa upp insamlingsmål i det föreslagna direktivet: för det första för att garantera en miniminivå av miljöskydd i alla medlemsstaterna och för det andra för att övervaka de nationella batteriinsamlingssystemens effektivitet. Det är viktigt att insamlingsmålen är ambitiösa från miljösynpunkt men de bör också vara uppnåeliga, realistiska och kostnadseffektiva.
I kommissionens utökade konsekvensbedömning analyserades denna fråga noggrant och man kom fram till att insamlingsmålet på 160 gram eller 40 procent bör vara det mest kostnadseffektiva målet, vilket motsvarar en del av ändringsförslag 26.
Det kommer att ske en noggrann undersökning om huruvida det är lämpligt att höja målen på lång sikt, vilket förutses i artikel 20.2b i det föreslagna direktivet. I denna undersökning kommer kommissionen att ta hänsyn till de tekniska framsteg och praktiska erfarenheter som medlemsstaterna har gjort. Kommissionen stöder alltså i princip ändringsförslag 26, men uttrycker sina betänkligheter om ändringsförslag 56."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(ΕΝ)"10
"Charlie McCreevy,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,10,13,4
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples