Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise - amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2001-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental law, noise, noise protection, public awareness campaign

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.10.2001
COM(2001) 621 final

2000/0194 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

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

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise

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

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

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

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise

1.

INTRODUCTION

Article  251,  paragraph  2,  letter  c)  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community
establishes  that  the  Commission  gives  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the
European Parliament in the second reading. The Commission sets out its opinion below on the
10 amendments proposed by Parliament.

2.

BACKGROUND

–  Date  of  transmission  of  the  proposal  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council

(COM(2000)468): 26 July 2000

–  Date  on  which  the  European  Parliament  gave  its  opinion  at  first  reading:

14 December 2000

–  Date  on  which  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  adopted  its  opinion:

29 November 2000

–  Date  on  which 
14 February 2001

the  Committee  of 

the  Regions  adopted 

its  opinion:

–  Date 

on  which 

the  Commission 

proposal:
(because  of  the  short  period  between  European  Parliament’s  first  reading  –
14/12/2000  -  and  the  Council’s  political  agreement  on  a  common  position  –
18/12/2000,  the  Commission  did  not  have  the  opportunity  to  adopt  an  amended
proposal)

amended 

adopted 

its 

–  Date  on  which 

the  Common  Position  was 

adopted  by  Council:

7 June 2001

–  Date  on  which 

the  Common  Position  was 

received  by 

the  EP:

13 June 2001

–  Date on which the Commission communicated its view on the Common Position

(SEC(2001)892 final): 8 June 2001

2

On 3 October 2001 the European Parliament at its Second Reading adopted 10 amendments.
Parliament mainly makes the case for daughter directive to be proposed by the Commission
setting limit values for noise from sources, modifies the timetable of the common position and
reintroduces some of the Commission’s original proposal wording.

3.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL

Environmental noise is a serious health problem, which reduces the health and quality of life
of  over  90  million  people  in  the  EU.  The  Commission  agreed  to  take  action  to  address  the
problem in its 1996 Green Paper on Future Noise Policy. The objective of this Proposal is to
provide  a  common  basis  for  tackling  the  noise  problem  across  the  EU.  Its  underlying
principles are similar to those for other overarching environment policy directives:

–  Monitoring the environmental problem; by requiring member states to submit noise data
for  major  roads,  railways,  airports  and  agglomerations  to  us  using  harmonised  noise
indicators  Lden  and  Lnight.  These  common  indicators  will  enable  us  to  produce  a  strategic
noise map showing the number of people annoyed and sleep-disturbed respectively 

–  Producing  local  noise  action  plans;  these  are  for  competent  authorities  to  draw  up  and
publish  with  close  public  participation.  The  measures  in  the  plans  are  entirely  at  the
discretion  of  the  competent  authorities,  but  they  must  be  published,  even  where  the
decision is to take no action at all.

–  Informing  and  consulting  the  public;  in  line  with  the  principles  of  the  Aarhus

Convention

Developing  a  long-term  EU  strategy,  which  includes  objectives  to  reduce  the  number  of
people affected by noise in the longer term, and provides a framework for developing existing
Community policy on noise reduction from source

4.

OPINION  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  BY  THE  EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

On  3  October  2001  the  European  Parliament  adopted  10  amendments.  6  amendments  have
been  accepted  by  the  Commission  in  full  (Amendments  4,  18,  30,  31,  32  &  35).  The
remaining 4 amendments (Amendments 3, 11, 20 & 33) cannot be accepted.

4.1.

Amendments accepted by the Commission

(cid:1)  The  Commission  accepts  amendment  4,  which  reinstates  the  Commission’s  initial
proposal  wording  for  the  objectives  of  the  directive  laid  down  in  article  1  (“to  avoid,
prevent  or  reduce  harmful  effects  on  human  health  due  to  exposure  to  noise”),  in
replacement of the common position’s text (“to combat on a prioritised basis”).

(cid:1)  The Commission accepts  amendments 30,  31, 32 & 35, that  seek  to  partly  reintroduce
technical specifications for noise mapping from the original Commission’s proposal. These
amendments will allow for a better protection of quiet areas while at the same time seeking
compromise with the Council.

(cid:1)  Amendment 18 seeks to reintroduce the original deadline proposed by the Commission for
provision  by  Member  States  of  information  on  the  agglomeration  and  infrastructures

3

concerned  by  the  second  phase  of  noise  mapping.  The  Commission  can  support
amendment 18. However, some attention will need to be paid to the general consistency
of  the  timetable  of  the  directive,  with  a  view  to  avoiding  incoherent  or  inappropriate
deadlines (since only this deadline was modified).

4.2.

Amendments rejected by the Commission

(cid:1)  Amendments 3 and 33 insert in recital 4 and in article 1 new clauses making the case for
proposals  from  the  Commission,  within  three  years  from  the  entry  into  force  of  the
directive, for “daughter directives laying down binding quality standards for all sources of
emission”. As already stated during the debate in Parliament, the Commission believes that
it  would  be  premature  to  consider  setting  new  limit  values  before  any  noise  maps  have
been  produced  –  i.e.  before  any  comparable  information  about  noise  exposure  of
populations  across  Europe  is  available.  Besides,  the  expressions  “quality  standards”  and
“all sources of emission” are not defined in the particular context of the proposed directive.
For these reasons, the Commission cannot accept amendments 3 and 33.

(cid:1)  Amendment  11  reinstates  the  obligation  to  use  the  common  noise  indicators  Lden  and
Lnight  for  acoustical  planing  and  noise  zoning.  The  Council  agreed  that  common
indicators  should  be  used  only  for  the  purpose  of  strategic  noise  mapping  (global
assessment of the noise exposure situation in Member States to which the Directive is now
limited),  while  the  evaluation  of  the  need  for  more  harmonisation  of  indicators  (i.e.  for
acoustical planning and noise zoning) was postponed to the evaluation clause under article
11. For this reason, the Commission cannot support amendment 11.

(cid:1)  Amendment 20 deletes the two-phase approach for action plans for noise from roads and
railways; however, this approach  is kept  for noise  maps.  This  will lead  to  “minor”  roads
and railways having action plans drawn up without the information from the noise maps –
whose  preparation  will not  be  compulsory  in  the  first  phase.  Amendment  20  is  therefore
likely to introduce inconsistencies in the implementation of the directive. For this reason,
the Commission cannot support amendment 20.

5.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out
above.

4