EN   EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 14.7.2021  
SWD(2021) 188 final  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
Subsidiarity Grid  
Accompanying the document  
Proposal for a Regulation  
of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as 
regards strengthening of the CO2 emission performance standards for new cars and 
new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition      
      
 
{COM(2021)  556 final}  - {SEC(2021)  556 final}  - {SWD(2021)  613 final}  -
 {SWD(2021)  614 final}   
 
1 
 Subsidiarity Grid  
 
1. Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action?  
1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are  used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative?  
The legal basis for this proposal is Article 192 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU). In accordance with Article 191 and 192(1) TFEU, the European Union shall contri bute to the 
pursuit, inter alia, of the following objectives: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the 
environment; promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide 
environmental problems, and in particular combat ing climate change.  
  
1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature?  
In the case of environment, the Union’s competence is shared.  
2. Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act?  
2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21: 
- Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act?  
- Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level?  
The Commission organised a n on -line public consultation between 13 November 2020 and 5 
February 2021 on the EU Survey website  aiming to gather opinions from citizens, organisations and 
industry stakeholders on t he justifications, objectives, potential design and scope as well as impacts 
of the initiative.  The inception impact assessment was open to public feedback on the Better 
Regulation Portal between 29 October and 26 November 2020.  
 
In addition , the Commissio n services engaged in extensive bilateral consultations with public 
authorities within the EU, as well as with business associations, social partners, individual companies 
and NGOs.  
 
Articles 191 to 193 of the TFEU confirm and specify EU competencies in th e area of climate change. 
Climate change is a trans -boundary problem, which cannot be solved by national or local action 
alone. Coordination of climate action must be taken at European level and, where possible, at global 
level. EU action is justified on g rounds of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty of the 
European Union. Since 1992, the European Union has worked to develop joint solutions and drive 
forward global action to tackle climate change. More specifically, action at EU level will pr ovide for 
cost effective delivery of the 2030 and long -term emission reduction objectives while ensuring 
fairness and environmental integrity.  
 
In light of the emission reduction target for 2030, and in the perspective of the climate neutrality 
objective to be achieved by 2050, stronger EU action is needed.  
 
                                                           
1 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN   
 
2 
 The explanatory memorandum of the proposal and the impact assessment under chapter 3 contain 
sections on the principle of subsidiarity.   
2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) a ccompanying the 
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity?  
Both the explanatory memorandum and the accompanying impact assessment specify that climate 
change is a trans -boundary problem that cannot be effectively solved by national or local action 
alone. Coordination of climate action is necessary at EU level and,  where possible, at global level, and 
EU action is justified on grounds of subsidiarity.  
Although initiatives at the national, regional and local level can create synergies, alone they will not 
be sufficient. Lack of coordinated EU action via the strength ening of CO2 emission standards would 
translate into a risk of market fragmentation due to the diversity of national schemes, differing 
ambition levels and design parameters. On their own, individual Member States would also represent 
too small a market to  achieve the same level of results, therefore, an EU wide approach is needed to 
drive industry level changes and to create economies of scale.  
 
2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 
achieved sufficiently  by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)?  
This proposal aims to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU to achieve 
the updated target for 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050 by setting strengthened CO 2 emissio n 
performance standards for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.  
(a) Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross -border aspects to the problems being 
tackled? Have these been quantified?  
The problem tackled, i.e. climate change, is inherently of a transnational/cross -border nature.  
(b) Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 
the Treaty2 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States?  
National action could conflict with the core objectives of the Treaty, notably the objective set out in 
Article 32, which establishes in letter (c) ‘the objective of avoiding distorting conditions of 
competitions within the custom union’.  
 
Due to the diversity of national schemes, differing  ambition levels and regulatory design parameters, 
national action could result in market fragmentation, with a risk of tailoring national legislation to 
suit local industry and increased compliance costs (passed on to consumers) for both component 
supplie rs and vehicle manufacturers.  
(c) To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 
measures?  
Member States have the ability and possibility to address CO 2 emissions from transport, notably 
through fiscal measures, and thi s may create synergies with the CO 2 emission standards. However, 
those measures would not be sufficient to tackle the problem, in particular for the longer -term and 
in a sufficiently coherent manner, taking into account the need to drive change at EU -wide level and 
                                                           
2 https://europa.eu/european -union/about -eu/eu -in-brief_en   
 
3 
 to create economies of scale.  
(d) How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill -over effects) vary 
across the national, regional and local levels of the EU?  
The problem and its causes are present across national, regional and local levels throughout the EU.  
(e) Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States?  
The need to address climate change and reduce CO 2 emissions from road transport is widespread 
across the EU.  
(f) Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure?  
No, the measure is intended to support climate policy in the EU and the CO 2 emission standards 
notably support Member States in meeting their targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation.  
(g) How do the view s/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 
differ across the EU?  
The policy instrument of setting CO 2 emission performance standards for new vehicles is recognized 
as a key tool for reducing CO 2 emissions from road transport .  
2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 
better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)?  
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a trans -boundary issue that req uires effective action at the 
largest possible scale. The CO 2 emission performance standards for cars and light commercial 
vehicles will tackle specifically the increasing CO 2 emissions from road transport. Acting at EU -wide 
level offers the opportunity to  leverage the full potential of the internal market to create economies 
of scale.  
(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  
Yes 
(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 
benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved?  
Yes, the measure specifically aims at preventing market fragmentation and by driving change 
towards zero -emission mobility at EU -wide level, economies of scale can be achieved.  
(c) What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 
homogenous policy approach?  
The proposal is not replacing national policies, since it is an amendment of an existing Regulation. 
Coordinated EU action through the strengthening of CO 2 emission standards for cars and vans can 
catalyse the transformation of the automotive sector, and it can provide the entire automotive value 
chain with the necessary long -term, stable market signal and regulatory certainty needed to make 
the large capita l investments that are necessary to deploy zero -emission vehicles on the market.  
(d) Do the benefits of EU -level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at na tional, 
regional and local levels)?  
 
4 
 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is fundamentally a trans -boundary issue that requires effective 
action at the largest possible scale. The EU, as a supranational organisation is well -placed to establish 
effective clima te policy in the EU. EU -level action in the form of CO 2 emission performance standards 
for cars and vans will also support Member States in meeting their targets under the Effort Sharing 
Regulation.  
 
(e) Will there be improved legal clarity for those having t o implement the legislation?  
The proposal provides legal clarity for the automotive industry and sets a clear pathway for moving 
towards zero -emission mobility.  
3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act  
3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with th e 
principle of proportionality?  
Yes, the proposal complies with the proportionality principle because it does not go beyond what is 
necessary in order to achieve the Union’s objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a cost -
effective manner, while  ensuring fairness and environmental integrity.  
  
The Climate Law agreed by the European Parliament and the Council has endorsed an overall 
economy -wide and domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 55% below 1990 
levels by 2030 and clima te neutrality by 2050.  
 
This proposal revises the existing CO 2 emission standards for cars and light commercial vehicles to 
contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as part of a comprehensive package of 
coherent proposals with a view to rea ching the overall climate objectives.  
3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objecti ves?  
The proposed action builds on an existing and well -functioning policy that has demonstrated its 
ability to ensure reductions in CO 2 emissions from cars and light commercial vehicles.  
(a) Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cann ot achieve satisfactorily on 
their own, and where the Union can do better?  
Yes 
(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 
coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the object ives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co -legislation, etc.)?  
The proposal sets out amendments to an existing Regulation. This instrument is necessary in order to 
ensure direct applicability and enforcement throughout the EU of automotive manufacturers’ 
obligation to meet their CO 2 emission targets.  
(c) Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
 
5 
 satisfactorily the object ives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?)  
Yes  
(d) Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 
governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved?  
Strengthening of the CO 2 emission targets is likely to increase investment costs for manufacturers 
and automotive component suppliers in res earch, development and market deployment of zero -
emission technologies.  
 
For users of vehicles, the impact assessment shows the benefits in terms of total costs of ownership 
for consumers in particular through increased fuel cost savings.  
(e) While respecting  the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 
States been taken into account?  
 
The CO 2 emission standards set targets to be complied with by the automotive industry operating 
across the Union.