WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/02 by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Exemption for nickel-cadmium batteries on electric vehicles within the provisions of Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles.
Date: 2002-04-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cadmium, choice of technology, derogation from EU law, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, environmental protection, marketing restriction, soft technology, waste management

C 301 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Therefore, the Commission does not intend to propose ratification of the above-mentioned Protocols. The
Commission does, however, believe it would be important for the Community to become a Party to the
Alpine Convention’s Transport Protocol. To this end, the Commission adopted on 16 January 2001 a
Proposal on the signature of the Transport Protocol (3), which is currently being considered by the Council.

As to the signature or ratification of the three other Protocols, the Commission does not intend to make
further proposals, this should however not be seen as a lack of interest in the promotion of sustainable
development in the Alpine region.

Indeed, the Commission stresses the interest it attaches to mountain regions. This interest is exemplified by
the fact that the Commission, in its second Report on Cohesion, recognised that mountain regions are
already at a disadvantage and have, as such, been included as one of ten priorities for the future of the
Community’s cohesion policy. Moreover, the Commission intends to launch a study on mountain areas.
The objectives of this study are to define mountain areas (zoning), to set up a database including different
kind of indicators,
in particular those linked to environment and hazards, and finally, to analyse the
situation of these regions in a sustainable development perspective. Other Community policies such as its
rural development and environment policy are also contributing to the sustainable development of
mountain regions including the Alpine region, and to the conservation of mountain eco-systems and
biodiversity.

As far as the ‘dorsale d’Allemagna’ is concerned, this road is not included in the list of trans-european
transport network projects identified by Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport network (4).
However, the fact that the ‘dorsale d’Allemagna’ is not a trans-european transport project as such does not
prevent the Italian authorities to build this road as long as this is done in compliance with the relevant
Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 61, 12.3.1996.
(2) Written reply, 12.3.2002.
(3) COM(2001) 18 final.
(4) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2002/C 301 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/02

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Exemption for nickel-cadmium batteries on electric vehicles within the provisions of Annex II to

Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles

Directive 2000/53/EC (1) on end-of-life vehicles stipulates that materials and components of vehicles put on
the market after 1 July 2003 must not contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium other
than in cases listed in Annex II.

In a press release issued on 6 March 2002 the Commission announced its decision to propose prohibiting
cadmium batteries in electric vehicles as from the end of 2005. However, the proposed revision of Annex
II provides that, in order to ensure that electric vehicles continue to be available, the Commission must
analyse the possibility of substituting cadmium in the batteries of electric vehicles and publish its
conclusions by 31 December 2004, on which date a decision will be taken to extend the marketing of
nickel-cadmium batteries for electric vehicles. Will the Commission therefore explain why this press release
only partially reflects the decision taken and announces a ban which may be reconsidered in 2004 if no
alternative technologies are available?

Furthermore, while 21 categories of materials and components are listed in Annex II, the press release only
refers to the proposal on nickel-cadmium batteries. Will the Commission explain why it has not referred to
its proposals on the other categories?

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/93

Directive 2000/53/EC already stipulated, with regard to cadmium in the batteries of electric vehicles, that
the Commission should assess what substitute products were available and take account of the need to
ensure that such vehicles continued to be available.

Will the Commission also explain its reasons for believing that possible restrictions on the marketing of
nickel-cadmium batteries
jeopardise the future of electric vehicles, given that
manufacturers developing new generations of such vehicles had asked for an exemption until 2008?

in 2005 will not

Will it state why nickel-cadmium batteries are not treated in the same way as lead batteries, the only other
technology which is industrially available for electric vehicles, namely on the basis of an exemption
without time limits?

Lastly, will the Commission state what manufacturer,
100 % electric vehicle running on a battery technology other than nickel-cadmium or lead?

in which Member State, can currently supply a

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles
provides that materials and components of vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003 do not contain
lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium, unless an exemption is provided for in Annex II of the
Directive. The decision to prohibit cadmium in batteries for electric vehicles was taken by the Parliament
and the Council at the time of adoption of the Directive.

The Commission revises Annex II on a regular basis in the light of technical and scientific progress. In the
course of the revision, the Commission analyses, inter alia, for which applications the use of heavy metals
is or has become avoidable and if not, what maximum concentration values should be tolerated.

Recently, the Commission prepared a new proposal for a revision of Annex II in light of an elaborate
scientific and technical assessment. This assessment included a recent technical study on heavy metals in
vehicles carried out by an independent consultant, as well as investigations carried out directly by the
Commission. The Commission also benefited from several meetings with the economic operators
concerned, as well as discussions with the Member State experts within the Technical Adaptation
Committee referred to by Article 11 of the Directive. The study of the independent consultant is available
on the below web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/heavy_metals.pdf.

Cadmium in batteries in electrical vehicles is one of the applications, which has been reviewed by the
Commission as a matter of priority. A large part of the electrical vehicles in Europe is equipped with
cadmium batteries. The assessment carried out by the Commission showed that practicable alternatives to
cadmium batteries (cid:1) such as Pb-acid (lead acid), NiMh (nickel-metal-hydride) and Li-ion (lithium-ion)
batteries (cid:1) are already available or will become available on the market in the near future.

The Commission has extensively discussed the issue of the availability of electrical vehicles after a
cadmium substitution with the industry, as well as national experts in this field. It followed from those
consultations that the availability of electrical vehicles will be maintained in the absence of cadmium in
batteries for electrical vehicles. Already at this moment, several car manufacturers rely on NiMH batteries
for series production of electrical vehicles. For example, Toyota markets Toyota RAV4 100 % electrical
vehicles in Europe, which are powered by NiMH batteries.

In light of the above, the Commission reached agreement on the substitution of cadmium batteries in
electrical vehicles by 31 December 2005. The press release of 6 March 2002 (1) only concerns this political
agreement and does therefore not deal with the revision of other applications of Annex II.

C 301 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

In order to guarantee the availability of electrical vehicles on the market, the Commission will closely
monitor the substitution process of cadmium in batteries in electrical vehicles. This substitution process is
already taking place and is expected to be further encouraged after the entry into force of the revised
Annex II. At the end of 2004, the Commission will publish the findings of its analysis on this substitution
process.
the
Commission may propose to extend the exemption period for cadmium in batteries in electrical vehicles.

the availability of electrical vehicles could be jeopardised,

If those findings prove that

Lead in batteries is another application which has been reviewed by the Commission as a matter of
priority. Most automotive vehicles with a combustion engine, which account for a large percentage of all
vehicles registered in Europe, operate on the basis of lead-acid starter batteries.

The assessment carried out by the Commission showed that, contrary to cadmium in batteries for electrical
vehicles, there are no practicable alternatives for lead-acid batteries available on the market and that no
substitutes are expected to be available in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Commission has proposed
to maintain the exemption for the application lead in batteries in Annex II, without an expiry date.

(1)

IP/02/366.

(2002/C 301 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1155/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: European quick-claims procedure

Consumer confidence is crucial if a modern and competitive internal market is to function properly. The
former is, however, severely undermined by non-payment in cross-border transactions with other Member
States, where debt recovery is slow, expensive and uncertain.

In the light of this, and the creation of the European Extra-judicial Network, Community internal market
specialists have proposed introducing ‘quick-claims’ courts at which the judicial authorities, having been
provided with the necessary supporting evidence by the vendor, can reach on-the-spot decisions.

Does the Commission believe that, in order to revitalise the single European market and overcome the lack
of confidence in the current slow judicial processes, it should initiate a European quick-claims procedure
which would allow vendors with genuine claims to recover their debts immediately?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The Honourable Member raises the question whether the Commission considers to take initiatives aimed at
overcoming the obstacles for vendors who want to enforce their clearly justified claims in cross-border
cases which are caused by slow, expensive and uncertain judicial procedures. More specifically, the
Honourable Member asks whether the Commission envisages the creation of a European ‘Injonction de
payer’ procedure.

The Union faces the challenge of ensuring that in a genuine European Area of Justice individuals and
businesses are not prevented or discouraged from exercising their rights by the incompatibility or
complexity of the legal and judicial systems in the Member States. The European Council meeting in
Tampere (15-16 October 1999) called for initiatives to establish special common procedural rules for
simplified and accelerated litigation in several areas, notably with regard to small consumer and
commercial claims and uncontested claims. Also the Council programme of measures for implementation
of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters recognises that in some
areas the abolition of exequatur might coincide with the establishment of a specific, uniform or
harmonised procedure laid down within the Community and envisages the areas of uncontested claims
(European ‘Injonction de payer’ procedure) and small claims as examples of such an approach.