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 amending for the twentieth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)
Date: 2002-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, dangerous substance, environmental protection, marketing restriction, paraffin

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.1.2002
COM(2002) 42 final

2000/0104 (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

amending for the twentieth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions
on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)

2000/0104 (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

amending for the twentieth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions
on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)

1.

STATE OF PROCEDURE

The  above  mentioned  proposal  [COM(2000)  260 final]  was  adopted  by  the
Commission  on  20 June 2000  and  then  transmitted  to  the  Council  and  European
Parliament.

The Economic and Social Committee gave its Opinion on 29 November 2000.

The  European  Parliament  approved  the  proposal  with  amendments  in  the  first
reading on 1 February 2001.

The  Commission’s  amended  proposal  [COM(2001)  268 final]  was  adopted  on
17 May 2001 and then transmitted to the Council.

The Council reached a political agreement with a qualified majority on 31 May 2001
and adopted its Common Position on 27 June 2001.

The  European  Parliament  adopted  two  amendments  in  its  second  reading  on
29 November 2001.

According to letter  c) of  the  second  paragraph  of  Article 251  of  the  EC Treaty,  the
Commission  delivers  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  European
Parliament in its second reading.

2.

OBJECTIVE OF THE DIRECTIVE

The  Proposal,  which  is  based  on  Article 95  of  the  Treaty,  has  the  following  two
objectives:

– 

– 

to  preserve  the  Internal  Market  by  introducing  harmonised  provisions  with
regard to the marketing and use of Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCP);

to  provide  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment  by  prohibiting  the
placing on the market of SCCP for use in metalworking and leather processing.

2

3.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

3.1.

Summary of the Commission’s position

The  Commission  can  not  accept  the  two  amendments  proposed  by  the  European
Parliament in its second reading.

3.2.

Amendment No. 1

Amendment No. 1 demands the full implementation of PARCOM Decision 95/1 i.e. an
extension of the scope of the proposed ban to include a ban on the use of SCCP as a
plasticiser in paints or coating or as flame retardants in rubber, plastics or textiles. To
add  a  ban  on  these  uses,  which  have  not  been  shown  to  pose  risks  by  the  risk
assessment,  would  not  be  justified  and  would  undermine  the  scientific  basis  of  the
basis  proposed  Directive.  Furthermore,  it  would  not  respect  the  Community  risk
assessment.

3.3.

Amendment No. 2

Amendment No. 2 demands the Commission to make proposals to reduce the use of
other  related  substances.  Other  chlorinated  paraffins  are  currently  subject  to  risk
assessment and could, if appropriate, be subject to risk reduction measures once the
risk assessments have been finalised.

4.

CONCLUSION

Taking account of the above, the Commission delivers a negative opinion on the two
amendments and is not amending its proposal.

3