EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/106

(2004/C 78 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE), Johannes Blokland (EDD), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject: Interpretation of the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC)

The answer to the Written Question E-0789/03 (1) given by Mrs. Wallström on behalf of the Commission on 8 May 2003 reads: Article 2(3) does not provide for their use in new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 July 2006'. Here ‘their use’ refers to spare parts. However the question did not concern re-use as spare parts for electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market before 1 July 2006. It related to the re-use in new equipment of components that contain substances restricted by the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC (2)), but originate from used electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.

In Article 3(d) of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC (3)‘re-use’ is defined as: ‘any operation by which WEEE or components thereof are used for the same purpose for which they were conceived, including the continued use of the equipment or components thereof’. Application of this definition will allow the continued use of recovered components in any equipment regardless whether it is already in existence or new. Thus premature disposal of used components that are perfectly suitable for reuse will be avoided in line with the environmental objectives of the WEEE Directive.

If Article 2(3) of the RoHS Directive is interpreted narrowly as not allowing the re-use described above, this is in direct conflict with Article 4, Product design, of the WEEE Directive. Article 4 provides that ‘Member States shall encourage the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery, in particular the re-use and recycling of WEEE, their components and materials’. Thus, early disposal and destruction of components taken from used electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006, that contain substances restricted by the RoHS Directive, but are otherwise well suited for re-use, is in conflict with the purpose of Article 4 of the WEEE Directive.

Does the Commission share the view that it is permissible for new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market for the first time after 1 July 2006 to contain components that are re-used from electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before that date, even when these components contain the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

In the view of the Commission, one of the main objectives of the Directive 2000/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (4), the so-called RoHS Directive, is that new electrical and electronic equipment, i.e. put on the market for the first time from 1 July 2006, does not contain lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). For this reason, an explicit prohibition with this meaning is stipulated in Article 4(1) of the RoHS Directive. There are two sets of derogations to this hazardous substance restriction under the RoHS Directive. Firstly, it does not apply to the applications listed in an Annex to the RoHS Directive (5). In addition, Article 2(3) provides that ‘This Directive does not apply to spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse, of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006’. This aims to allow old equipment to be maintained with spare parts and to ensure that old electrical and electronic equipment is reused. This derogation is explicitly limited to old equipment, i.e. put on the market before 1 July 2006. Under the Directive, it is therefore allowed to market spare parts containing the hazardous substances for the repair of old equipment as well as to market old equipment for the purpose of reuse.

However, in reply to the question of the Honourable Members, the Commission does not consider it to be permissible for new electrical and electronic equipment to contain components re-used from electrical and electronic equipment, when these components contain the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive.

Firstly, this would in the Commission's view contradict the above-mentioned main objective of the Directive and also conflict with the express wording of Article 2(3) of the Directive. To take any other approach would run the risk of permitting retrofitting of new equipment with components containing hazardous substances. This would prolong the existence of hazardous substances in the waste stream and limit increased recycling efforts. It would of course also make the enforcement of the RoHS Directive as well as the Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, the so-called WEEE-Directive (6) difficult.

Furthermore, retrofitting of new equipment with components containing the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive was subject to consideration during the conciliation process but was rejected.

In the Commission's view, the above-mentioned interpretation of Article 2(3) of the RoHS Directive does not contradict Article 4 of the WEEE Directive. The RoHS Directive is concerned about restricting hazardous substances in new equipment and the WEEE Directive about avoiding a threat to human health and the environment caused by waste electrical and electronic equipment. The presence of these hazardous substances in new electrical and electronic equipment would be mutually exclusive to the objectives listed in Article 4 of the WEEE Directive, namely to encourage recycling and dismantling, for the reasons given above.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 118.

(2) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 19.

(3) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

(4) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

(5) Article 4(2), 5 and Annex.

(6) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.