# CE2004070EN.01015102.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/151

---

(2004/C 70 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2873/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Soot measurement as regards private cars: Directives 92/55/EEC, 96/96/EC and 1999/52/EC

Subject:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the risks to car manufacturers and car owners associated with soot measurement, which is required by Directive 92/55/EEC (1) (amended in 1996, 96/96/EG (2), and in 1999, 1999/52/EC (3))? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the risks to car manufacturers and car owners associated with soot measurement, which is required by Directive 92/55/EEC (1) (amended in 1996, 96/96/EG (2), and in 1999, 1999/52/EC (3))?

1

2

3

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the fact that, in Belgium, in view of the risks involved, soot measurement has not been carried out for quite some time and that, in Germany, tests of this kind are carried out only once every two years? Despite this, a Dutch car owner is required to have his or her car tested for soot in this way once a year. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, in Belgium, in view of the risks involved, soot measurement has not been carried out for quite some time and that, in Germany, tests of this kind are carried out only once every two years? Despite this, a Dutch car owner is required to have his or her car tested for soot in this way once a year.

| 3. | Is the Commission aware of the fact that, in implementing these Directives, the Netherlands Government has chosen a test method that is especially damaging to (diesel) automatics in particular, because it does not simulate normal road conditions, thereby putting excessive strain on the gearbox? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, in implementing these Directives, the Netherlands Government has chosen a test method that is especially damaging to (diesel) automatics in particular, because it does not simulate normal road conditions, thereby putting excessive strain on the gearbox?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that there is an alternative test method (using a rolling test bench) to that required in the Netherlands and that, while this method is more expensive, it is less damaging to the car? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that there is an alternative test method (using a rolling test bench) to that required in the Netherlands and that, while this method is more expensive, it is less damaging to the car?

| 5. | Is the Commission aware that, in Germany, tests have been carried out using a rolling test bench for some time? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission aware that, in Germany, tests have been carried out using a rolling test bench for some time?

| 6. | Does the Commission agree that the fact that Dutch consumers are not free to choose which method of soot measurement is used represents a hindrance to the free market? Is the Commission prepared to raise the matter with the Netherlands Government? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does the Commission agree that the fact that Dutch consumers are not free to choose which method of soot measurement is used represents a hindrance to the free market? Is the Commission prepared to raise the matter with the Netherlands Government?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

(6 November 2003)

The Commission is aware that there have been problems in implementing the ‘smoke test’ requirements of Directive 1992/55/EC (4). That is why the Commission proposed an amendment through Directive 1999/52/EC (5). This Directive adapts the original testing technique and introduces requirements to precondition the engine prior to testing. This requirement has, as far as the Commission is aware, solved the engine failure problem and Belgium does conduct soot measurement during technical inspection.

4

5

Directive 96/96/EC (6) lays down minimum standards that must be followed by Member States. The Directive allows Member States to stipulate a more frequent testing periodicity or more stringent technical requirements for their own registered vehicles provided those testing standards are not more severe than the vehicle was constructed to achieve. Consequently, the Dutch Authorities are within their right to require testing of passenger cars (and light commercial vehicles) every year although the minimum testing frequency specified within the Directive is every two years.

6

The aim of the roadworthiness test for vehicle emissions is to identify motor vehicles that are gross polluters, i.e. vehicles that pollute at levels significantly in excess of prescribed limits. The roadworthiness test needs to be relatively quick, simple and cost-effective to perform. Its aim is not to attempt to replicate real world conditions but to identify vehicles that are poorly maintained. Although German emission testing equipment is perhaps more ideal its cost is substantially higher. Consequently, the Commission does not think it necessary to harmonise testing methods around the more expensive practices that Germany has adopted.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 68.

1

(2)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 26.

3

(4)  Council Directive 92/55/EEC of 22 June 1992 amending Directive 77/143/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (exhaust emissions).

4

(5)  Commission Directive 1999/52/EC of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 96/96/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.

5

(6)  Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.

6

---