Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251(2) (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a European Parliament and Council recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States, amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2000-08-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, approximation of laws, environmental law, environmental monitoring, member country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 04.08.2000
COM(2000) 526 final

1998/0358 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTIONS
IN THE MEMBER STATES

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty

1998/0358 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTIONS
IN THE MEMBER STATES

1.

BACKGROUND

The Commission sent the above proposal for a recommendation based on Article
175(1) (then Article 130(s)(1))of the Treaty to the European Parliament and Council
on 17 December 1998 (COM(1998) 772 final – 1998/0358 (COD)).

The Economic and Social Committee gave its Opinion on 28 April 1999 (OJ C169,
16.6.1999, page 12).

The Committee of the Regions gave its opinion on 16 September 1999 (OJ C374,
23.12.1999, page 48).

The European Parliament gave its Opinion under the co-decision procedure at the
first reading in plenary session on 16 September 1999.

Following the Opinion of the European Parliament and pursuant to Article 250(2) of
the EC Treaty the Commission adopted an Amended Proposal (COM(1999)652
final) on 3 December 1999.

The Council adopted its Common Position unanimously on 30 December 1999. The
Commission accepted the Common Position.

On 6 July 2000 at
amendments to the Council’s Common Position.

its Second Reading the European Parliament adopted 18

This Opinion sets out the Commission’s position on the European Parliament’s
amendments in accordance with Article 251(2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

2.

AIM OF COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The proposed Recommendation will contribute to preserving, protecting and
improving the quality of the environment and protecting human health as required by
Article 174 of the EC Treaty.

The purpose of the Proposal is to establish guidelines for minimum criteria in
installations and other enterprises and
environmental

inspections of industrial

2

facilities (‘controlled installations’) whose air emissions, water discharges or waste
activities are subject to authorisation, permit or licence under Community law. The
guidelines relate to the organisation and carrying out of such inspections as well as
follow up and publicity for the results of inspections Its aim is to strengthen
compliance with, and contribute to a more consistent
implementation and
enforcement of, Community environmental legislation in all Member States.

The proposal provides for environmental inspections to check and promote the
controlled installations with Community legislation transposed or
compliance of
applied in the member States. For this purpose, it is provided that:

- inspections, which may be routine or non-routine, should include site visits,
verification of self monitoring by the operators of the controlled installations,
checking the premises,
the equipment and the adequacy of the environmental
management at the site as well as the records kept by the operators.

- Member States should draw up in advance plans for environmental inspection
activities, covering all their territory and the installations within it.

- site visits should as soon as possible be followed by reports, containing findings,
evaluations and conclusions

To increase transparency and public involvement,
is provided that advance
inspection plans and site visit reports should be available to the public in accordance
with the Directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment
(Directive 90/313/EEC).

it

The Commission is invited to review the operation and effectiveness of the
Recommendation as soon as possible after receipt of reports from the Member States
on their experience with its operation.

3.

COMMISSION’S OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PARLIAMENT

3.1.

Summary of the Commission’s position

Commission’s position: None of the amendments seeking to change the form of the
proposal from a recommendation to a directive can be accepted. With regard to
amendments as to substance,
three part amendments could be accepted if the
proposal remains as a recommendation.

3.2.

Parliament’s amendments on second reading

Amendments relating to change the form of the act from a recommendation to a
directive - Amendments 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10(part), 11, 12(part), 13(part), 15(part),
16, 17, 18.

These cannot be accepted by the Commission. Considerable thought was given as to
the form the proposal should take. The form of a recommendation was eventually
decided on as being appropriate for the following reasons:

– Given the wide disparity in Member States' environmental inspection activities, it
was desirable to ensure that minimum inspection tasks were performed, as a first

3

step, with a view to a directive on inspections generally (minimum criteria,
frequency of inspections, training etc.) being proposed in due course in the light
of experience of the operation of the recommendation.

– Technically, it would have been difficult for those Member Sates with inspection
systems which were not highly developed to comply immediately with a directive
(some may have been in infringement from the outset). It was preferable to
provide for capacity building and development of the less developed systems as a
first phase.

– There was strong resistance from the Member States and IMPEL to a directive.
They felt it was premature and that a step by step approach was to be preferred.

Amendments
(amendments 12 (second element), 13 (second element) and 14)

seeking to make changes

to the reporting requirements

– Amendment 12 (second element) is identical to an amendment rejected by the
Commission at First Reading stage because it does not add anything. The proposal
already provides for reports on site visits to be in “a readily accessible database”.

– Amendment 13 (second element) was accepted (subject to drafting changes) in the
Commission’s revised proposal and strengthened further in the Common Position.
The Commission prefers the Common Position wording and cannot therefore
accept this amendment.

– Amendment 14 is identical to an amendment rejected by the Commission at First
Reading stage. “Brief data” on compliance with EC requirements is not sufficient
to allow the Commission to check meaningfully on compliance.

Amendments
(amendments 2, 15 (first and second elements) )

seeking

involve

to

the European Environment Agency

Amendments 2 and 15 (first substantive element, reference to EEA) are identical to
amendments at First Reading stage which were incorporated by the Commission in
its revised proposal. However, they could only be accepted if the proposal were to
remain in the form of a recommendation.

The Commission could accept the following wording for Amendment 2 which could
be inserted as new Recital 15a in the Common Position text:

“(15a) The European Environment Agency can advise the Member States on
developing, setting up and extending their systems for monitoring environmental
the
provisions and whereas
Commission and Member States in monitoring environmental provisions by giving
support in respect of the reporting process, so that reporting is co-ordinated.”

the European Environment Agency can assist

The Commission could accept the following wording for Amendment 15 (first
substantive element) in relation to point IX, paragraph 1 of the Common Position
text:

this
“1. The Commission should review the operation and effectiveness of
Recommendation, as soon as possible after the receipt of the Member States’ reports
mentioned in Point VIII above, with the intention of developing the minimum criteria

4

further in their scope in the light of the experience gained from their application, and
including
taking into account any further contributions from interested parties,
IMPEL and the European Environment Agency.”

Amendment 15 (second substantive element) is rejected because the Common
Position improves on the Commission’s original drafting.

Amendments relating to cooperation between Member States, IMPEL and the
Commission (amendments 6, 10 (second element) and 11)

– Amendments 6 and 11 refer to a reporting and advice scheme (a sort of “peer
review”) which the EP wishes to make mandatory rather than voluntary. The
Commission cannot accept that this should be mandatory as this is not in the spirit
of the recommendation.

– Amendment 10 (second element) was included in the Commission’s revised
proposal subject to some drafting changes and can be accepted if the proposal
remains in the form of a recommendation. The wording which could be accepted
by the Commission in Point III, as new paragraph (2a) to the Common Position
text is:

– “(2a) In order to prevent illegal cross-border environmental practices, the Member
States should, in co-operation with IMPEL and the Commission, encourage the
co-ordination of inspections and inspection services between the Member States.”

Other amendments (no 5)

Amendment 5 is identical to an amendment which was rejected at the First Reading
stage. It requests that a timetable be developed for Member States to develop
permitting systems with support from the Commission within which distinctions can
be made between EU regulations and national regulations with which controlled
installations need to comply. The Commission cannot accept this amendment as it is
for Member States to transpose and implement Community acts as they think fit. It is
not for the Commission to help develop systems which can make distinctions
between EU and national law.

3.3. Amended proposal

Having regard to Article 250 paragraph 2 of the Treaty, the Commission modifies its
proposal as indicated above.

5