EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10.12.2004 
COM(2004) 800 final 
2003/0172 (COD)   
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 
pursuant to the second subparagraph of  Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty 
 
concerning the 
common position of the Council on the adop tion of a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on establishing  a framework for the setting of Eco-design 
requirements for Energy-using Products a nd amending Council Directives 92/42/EC, 
96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC  
 
EN 2   EN 2003/0172 (COD) 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 
pursuant to the second subparagraph of  Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty 
 
concerning the 
common position of the Council on the adop tion of a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on establishing  a framework for the setting of Eco-design 
requirements for Energy-using Products a nd amending Council Directives 92/42/EC, 
96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC  
1. BACKGROUND  
Date of transmission of the propos al to the EP and the Council 
(document COM(2003) 453 final – C[5–0453/2003] - 2003/0172(COD)): 1 August 2003 
Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social 
Committee: 31 March 2004 
Date of the opinion of the European Pa rliament, first reading: 20 April 2004 
Date of the amended proposal (m ade orally to the WG of the 
Council) 27 April 2004 
Date of adoption of the common position: 29 November 2004 
2. OBJECTIVE
 OF THE  COMMISSION  PROPOSAL 
In the light of the estimation that over 80% of  all product-related environmental impacts (such 
as climate change linked to energy consump tion) are determined during the product design 
phase, the Commission proposed to establish a legislative framework for the adoption of 
implementing measures concerning eco-des ign requirements for energy-using products 
(EuPs) (excluding means of transport). Each implementing measure would be adopted by the 
Commission, assisted by a regulatory committee, and would address products in accordance 
with the criteria estab lished in this Directive. The objectiv e of the proposal is to ensure the 
free movement of energy-using products in the internal market and to  contribute both to 
environmental protection policy and to security of energy supply. 
 
EN 3   EN 3. COMMENTS  ON  THE  COMMON  POSITION 
3.1. Overall remarks on the common position 
The Commission is of the opinion that the common position improves the proposal by 
clarifying a number of issues, such as the sc ope of harmonisation of  the Directive, the 
conditions for particular products to become  subject to implementing measures and the 
procedure for adopting implementing measures. 
All the main elements put forward by Parl iament on first reading and accepted by the 
Commission are largely reflected  in the common position. Reference is made to the creation 
of a consultative forum to ensure stakehol ders’ involvement in the preparation of 
implementing measures; introduction of a work ing plan; emphasis on reduction of greenhouse 
gasses in the first years of implementation; revi sion clause for the fram ework directive and for 
the individual implementing measures; attentio n to conformity of imported products; impact 
on medium and small business; criteria fo r assessing self-regulation by industry. 
On the other hand, the Commission would have  preferred stricter drafting for clauses 
concerning market surveillance by the Member St ates and the inclusion of the eligibility 
criteria for self-regulatory activities. However,  the compromise text also appears acceptable 
on those points, considering th at, on the one hand, the Council objected to more detailed 
provisions on market surveillance more on the gr ounds of subsidiarity than substance and, on 
the other, the common position keeps a refe rence to the Commission communication (recital 
16) where the eligibility criteria are listed.  
3.2. Amendments accepted by the Commission a nd incorporated in full or in part in 
the common position 
Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were insert ed in the common position (recitals 2-7); 
amendment 5 with minor and amendment 10 with substantial redrafting. They provide in the 
recitals further justification for a framework Di rective to promote the eco-design of EuPs, in 
terms of environmental improvement and energy efficiency. 
Amendment 13: A recital (No 9) on consumer information was introduced in the common 
position based on EP amendment 13; it is accep table to the Commission because it further 
clarifies the need for consumer information. 
Amendment 16: Recital 11 of th e common position is a redrafti ng of EP amendment 16 in a 
way that is acceptable to the Commission (priority  on energy efficiency but in a way that is 
not detrimental to the integrated a pproach promoted by the Directive). 
Amendment 17: Recital 12 of th e common position is a redrafti ng of EP amendment 17 in a 
way that is acceptable to the Commission (com mitment to adopt implementing measures 
establishing specific eco-design requirements  within 12 months is not acceptable). 
Amendment 20: Recital 13 of the common position takes on board a small part of EP 
amendment 20 in a way that is acceptable to the Commission (adopti ng the whole of EP 
amendment 20 would lead to a generalisation of least life cycle cost (LLCC) analysis, with 
the risk of making decision-ma king too rigid and lengthy and would affect the Commission’s 
prerogatives on use of resources). 
 
EN 4   EN Amendment 23: Recital 17 of th e common position is a redrafti ng of EP amendment 23 in a 
way that is acceptable to the Commission. 
Amendment 24: Recital 18 of th e common position is a redrafti ng of EP amendment 24 in a 
way that is acceptable to the Commission (by de leting the requirement to report on market 
surveillance activities every two years). 
Amendment 25: Recital 22 of th e common position is a redrafti ng of EP amendment 25 in a 
way that is acceptable to the Commission (infor mation on market surveillance is separated 
from technical knowledge; the Commission’s pr erogative on the way of running preparatory 
work on draft measures and use of its resources is not affected). 
Amendment 26: Recital 23 of th e common position is a redrafti ng of EP amendment 26 in a 
way that is acceptable to the Commission (t he Commission’s prerogative on the way of 
running preparatory work on draft measures a nd use of its resources is not affected). 
Amendment 35: Article 2(5) of the common position is identical to EP amendment 35. 
Amendment 47: Article 3(2) and (3) of th e common position takes on board most of EP 
amendment 47; in line with the Commission position, there is no reference to voluntary 
agreements; the Commission can also accept the modified version on consumer information 
because it maintains the essential elements. 
Amendment 48: Article 4(5), 2nd indent, of th e common position takes on board the only part 
of EP amendment 48 that wa s accepted by the Commission. 
Amendment 59 and Article 13 of the common pos ition deal with two issues not included in 
the original Commission proposa l: the “working plan” (WP) to be presented periodically by 
the Commission and priority implementing meas ures to be proposed pending the adoption of 
the first working plan. The Commission can agre e with the formulation of Article 13, given 
that a realistic timefra me and efficient procedure (WP s hould be adopted by the Commission, 
after consultation with stakeholders, reference to Article 12) for the adoption of the WP is 
established. With regard to the priority measures aimed at reducing CO 2 emissions in the 
context of Kyoto, the formulation of Article 13(2) of the common position is acceptable since it meets the criteria of Article 12. It does not  pre-empt the outcome of impact assessments, 
and nor does it limit the Commission’s right of in itiative to adopt implementing measures or 
not. 
Amendment 63 and Article 14 of the common position deal with the creation of a new 
consultation body (not provided fo r in the Commission’s origin al proposal). The Commission 
can agree with the formulation of Article 14, gi ven that it makes for a balanced representation 
and proper involvement of stakeholders. 
Amendment 65 and Article 19 of the common positi on deal with the review of the Directive. 
The Commission can agree with the formulation of  Article 19, given that it does not pre-empt 
the outcome of the review and it  does not single out particular  environmental themes in the 
light of which this review must take pl ace (as is the case with EP amendment 65). 
Amendment 66 refers to Annex I, which, as redrafted by the Council, is acceptable to the 
Commission; it introduces a number of clarificat ions which seem useful, while not affecting 
 
EN 5   EN the eco-design parameters; it also further clarifies the role of the producer and, as requested 
by the EP, provides for a separate chapter c overing the requirements on information supply. 
The last part of EP amendment 69 (drafting improvement) accepted by the Commission is 
reflected in the common position (Annex IV). 
EP amendment 73 (and the part of amendm ent 60 accepted by the Commission) aims to 
introduce eligibility criteria for voluntary comm itments by industry to be taken as an 
acceptable alternative to regulatory implem enting measures. Although it has not been 
incorporated as such in the common position, rec ital No 16 refers to the relevant chapter of 
the Commission’s Communication on Environmental agreements, which includes the criteria 
of amendment 73. 
3.3. Amendments accepted by the Commission  and not incorporated in the common 
position 
None 
3.4. New elements introduced by the Council  
Article 1.4 makes clear that the proposed directive is withou t prejudice to other Community 
environmental legislation. Recita l 20 highlights the importance of  taking into account existing 
national environmental legislation when preparing implementing measures. 
A number of new definitions ha ve been added in Article 2 a nd others amended. In order to 
ensure that in all cases (inc luding for imported products) an identifiable natural or legal 
person is responsible for the conformity of th e product, the definition of “manufacturer” has 
been modified to include text previously  in Article 7 of th e Commission’s proposal. 
The scope of harmonisation of the proposed Direc tive has been further de fined (Articles 5(1), 
5(2), 12(6), last sentence, and Annex VII (3)).  Existing national environmental legislation 
which the Member States consider to be releva nt shall be taken into account when preparing 
implementing measures (Article 12(4)(c)). 
In Article 7, the Council maintains Annex V as  an option for conformity assessment (Annex 
V has been amended with a view to leaving manufacturers the option of using quality management systems as instruments for provi ng conformity, as long as they meet the 
requirements laid down in that Annex). 
In Article 12, criteria to be met by particul ar products before they can be subject to 
implementing measures have been  added (Article 12(2) ), in particular a minimum sales and 
trade volume threshold (this restricts the scope by excluding  marginal products, the overall 
environmental impact of which would in a ny case not be significan t at EU level). The 
necessary steps for adopting implementing meas ures have also been further developed 
(Article 12(4)(b) to (f)).  
Implementing measures may extend the possibi lity of using other “ecolabels” for proving 
conformity, mirroring what is accepted as a rule for the Community Eco-label (Article 8(4)). 
In Annex I, the role of the ma nufacturer is further clarified. 
 
EN 6   EN Each implementing measure will include date s for evaluation and possible revision (Annex 
VII.9). 
Remark: the Commission had rejected the pa rt of amendment 58 providing that the 
Commission shall  (instead of “may”) adopt implemen ting measures when the criteria of 
Article 12 are met (as infringing its right of initiative). However, in order to further circumscribe the delegation of powers to be  exercised by the Commission, the Council has 
introduced this amendment. The Commission can accept this as part of an overall compromise, given that implementing measures will be needed unless market forces properly 
address the issue.  
4. CONCLUSION 
The Commission considers that the common po sition unanimously adopted on 10 June 2004 
further clarifies certain issues, and introduces additional and cost-effective flexibility for the 
implementation by manufacturers, while not altering the aims and approach of its proposal. It 
can therefore support it.