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 on waste from electrical and electronic equipment
Date: 2002-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, environmental policy, industrial waste, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 27.6.2002
COM(2002) 353 final

2000/0158 (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

on waste from electrical and electronic equipment

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

2000/0158 (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

on waste from electrical and electronic equipment

1.

BACKGROUND

The  proposal  for  a  European  Parliament  and  Council  Directive  on  waste  electrical
and electronic equipment (COM (2000) 347 final) was adopted by the Commission
on 13 June 2000 and published in the Official Journal C 365E of 19 December 2000.

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

The Committee of Regions gave its Opinion on 14 February 2001.

The European Parliament gave its Opinion (First Reading) on 15 May 2001.

The  Commission  adopted  the  amended  proposal  on  6  June  2001  (COM  (2001)315
final).

The Council adopted its Common Position on 4 December 2001.

The European Parliament gave its Opinion (Second Reading) on 10 April 2002.

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  proposal  establishes  measures  on  the  prevention  of  waste  from  electrical  and
electronic equipment, on the collection of electrical and electronic equipment as well as
their  treatment,  recycling  and  recovery.  It  is  proposed  that  Member  States  set  up
separate collection of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and ensure
the proper treatment, recovery and disposal of  WEEE.  The treatment, recovery  and
disposal  of  WEEE  shall be financed  by  producers  to  create  economic  incentives  to
adapt the design of electrical and electronic equipment to the prerequisites of sound
waste  management.  Consumers  shall  have  the  possibility  to  return  their  equipment
free of charge. Quantified targets for reuse, recycling and recovery are set out.

2

3.

COMMISSION'S OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PARLIAMENT

3.1.

Summary of the Commission's position

The  European  Parliament  has  adopted  46  amendments.  17  amendments  can  been
accepted by the Commission in full (amendments 9, 11, 12, 13,  15, 17, 18,  19, 24,
27,  28,  39,  40,  44,  45,  50  and  57)  1  amendment  can  been  accepted  in  part
(amendment  23)  and  17  in  principle  (amendments  5,  6,  7,  10,  21,  41,  42,  47  (first
part),  48,  49,  51,  52,  53,  54,  55,  66  and  92).  The  remaining  11  amendments
(amendments 2, 4, 8, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 56, 64 and 68) cannot be accepted.

3.2.

Parliament's amendments on second reading

3.2.1.

Amendments accepted

The  Commission  agrees  on  the  following  amendments  concerning  recitals:
amendments  9  (strengthening  individual  producer  responsibility  in  recital  16),  11
(information  on  obligation  to  no  longer  dispose  of  waste  equipment  with  unsorted
waste  in  recital  18),  12  (inspection  and  monitoring  in  new  recital  19a)  and  13
(information on exports of WEEE).

The  Commission  accepts  the  deletion  of  a  temporary  exemption  for  small
independent manufacturers in amendment 15, the clarification that a reseller should
not be regarded as the producer if the name of the producer appears on the equipment
in  amendment  17,  the  clarification  that  the  first  holder  shall  be  deemed  to  be  the
professional  importer  under  finance  agreements  in  amendment  18  and  the  new
definition of individual financing in  amendment 19. It also welcomes making more
explicit that treatment needs to be done using state-of-the-art recovery and recycling
technology  in  amendment  24  and  supports  advancing  the  date  by  which  re-use,
recycling  and  recovery  targets  have  to  be  achieved  to  31  December  2005
(amendment 27).

The Commission supports the higher targets for automatic dispensers in amendment
28,  clarifying  the  date  and  the  conditions  for  review  of  the  re-use,  recycling  and
recovery targets in amendment 39 and the obligation for Member States to encourage
the  development  of  new  technologies  in  amendment  40.  It  is  also  in  favour  of
extending information requirements for users on the obligation no longer to dispose
of WEEE together with unsorted urban waste in amendment 44 and on the presence
of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment in amendment 45. It
supports the provision of information and manuals for treatment facilities, including
re-use centres and recycling plants (amendment 50). The Commission welcomes new
Article 16a on enforcement, inspection and monitoring in amendment 57.

3.2.2.

Amendments accepted in part

On  amendment  23,  the  Commission  supports  the  obligation  of  Member  States  to
ensure that WEEE is no longer disposed of together with unsorted urban waste (new
paragraph –1) and the possibility for distributors to refuse contaminated WEEE (Art.
4 (1) third subparagraph after (a) and (b)).

It accepts in principle that Member States shall ensure that producers can set up and
operate individual and/or collective take-back systems (provided that these are in line
with the objectives of this Directive) (Art. 4 (1) subparagraph after (a) and (b)). This

3

also  applies  for  the  option  for  producers  to  set  up  take-back  systems  from  private
households (Art. 4 (2)). The obligation of Member States to set up specific collection
facilities  for  contaminated  WEEE  should  not  lead  to  excessive  costs  (Art.  4  (1)
second  subparagraph  after  (a)  and  (b)).  The  date  of  31  December  2007  for  the
adoption of new targets for the years beyond 2008 is acceptable without prejudice to
the Commission’s right of initiative (Art. 4 (4) last subparagraph).

The Commission cannot accept the possibility for Member States to depart from the
principle of free take back for consumers as this may undermine the motivation for
consumers and the integration of waste management costs into the product price (Art.
4  (1b)  second  subparagraph).  The  obligation  for  Member  States  to  ensure  that
exported used electrical and electronic equipment is suitable and intended for re-use
is rejected  because  Member States  cannot control what is done with the  equipment
outside  their  borders  (Art.  4  (3),  new  second  subparagraph).  In  the  same
subparagraph,  the  reference  to  new  paragraph  –1  is  considered  unnecessary  as  this
new  paragraph  concerns  a  general obligation whereas the other paragraphs referred
to (1 and 2) refer to collection from private vs. non-private sources. In Art 4 (4), first
subparagraph,  the  Commission  considers  the  new  binding  target  of  six  kilograms
from private households as very ambitious but is prepared to accept such a target. As
data collection and transmission takes time, the Commission considers, however, the
target date of 31 December 2005 as defined in the amendment (i.e. a proof already to
be given by this date) as unrealistic and therefore rejects this part of the amendment.

3.2.3.

Amendments accepted in principle

The  Commission  agrees  in  principle  on  the  following  amendments  concerning
recitals: amendment 5 (deletion of the statement that the provisions of the Directive
do not restrict the sources of financing; no objection but no particular reason for this
deletion),  amendment  6  (prohibition  of  disposal  with  urban  waste  and  obligatory
collection target; the level of the target should not be quoted in the recital; the second
sentence  of  the  recital  should  be  reworded  as  follows:  “In  order  to  ensure  that
Member States set up efficient collection systems, they should be required to achieve
a  high  rate  of  collection  of  WEEE  from  private  households.”)  and  amendment  7
(preference  to  re-use  and  achieving  a  recycling  and  recovery  level  as  high  as
possible; the term “as high as possible” is unclear and recycling and recovery should
only be encouraged if environmentally beneficial and justified from a sustainability
point of view; the amendment should be reworded as follows: “Where appropriate,
priority should be given to the re-use of WEEE and its components, sub-assemblies
and  consumables.  Where  re-use  is  not  preferable,  all  WEEE  collected  separately
should  be  sent  for  recovery,  in  the  course  of  which  a  high  level  of  recycling  and
recovery should be achieved.”).

In  amendment  10,  the  Commission  agrees  fully  with  the  strengthened  reference  to
individual producer responsibility (first sentence), with allowing to maintain existing
finance  agreements  for  10  years  (third  sentence)  and  with  sharing  the  financing  of
historical waste among producers according to their market share  (fourth sentence).
It agrees in principle with internalising the waste management costs into the product
price (second sentence; this should only be seen as a general  principle  as it  will  be
difficult  to  determine  the  waste  management  costs  in  every  instance  and  verify
whether they are internalised in the product price; this should also leave options open
for  specific  solutions  for  certain  product  groups,  if  needed;  for  this  reason,  the
Commission proposes the following re-wording: “The costs of collection, treatment

4

and  environmentally  sound  disposal  should,  as  appropriate,  be  internalised  within
the product price.”). It agrees in principle with allowing producers to show the costs
for  historical  waste  in  the  product  price  and  that  these  costs  should  represent  the
actual costs  (  fifth  and sixth sentences; without prejudice to Arts.  88  and  89  of  the
Treaty; at the end of the fifth sentence, the following words should be inserted: “[...
of historical waste] in line with articles 88 and 89 of the Treaty.”).

The  new  definition  of  finance  agreement  in  amendment  21  can  be  accepted  in
principle (if consistent with other relevant Community legislation).

On amendment 41 (Art. 7 (2)), the Commission  can accept  in  full  the  strengthened
individual  financial  responsibility  for  producers  in  the  first  subparagraph.  The
remaining  parts  of  this  amendment  can  be  accepted  in  principle.  The  practical
modalities of the request to the Commission referred to in the second subparagraph
are unclear. No formal confirmation by the Commission should be required as such a
confirmation cannot be done without considerable additional human resources for the
Commission.  Instead,  it  is  proposed  to  use  a  notification  procedure  on  the  basis  of
which  the  Commission  can  launch  an  infringement  procedure  in  case  of  non-
compliance with the conditions  of  this  amendment.  This  could  be  done  as  follows:
“Member  States  may  use  collective  financing  schemes  if  they  can  demonstrate  that
the  introduction  of  individual  financing  schemes  would  involve  disproportionately
high  costs.  They  shall  notify  such  systems  to  the  Commission  with  an  appropriate
justification.”  The  principle  of  internalisation  of  waste  management  costs  in  the
product price can be supported though this might rather a matter for a recital than a
legally  binding  provision.  It  may  be  difficult  to  determine  these  costs  and  control
their  internalisation  in  every  instance.  Maintaining  existing  financial  arrangements
for a limited period is acceptable for the Commission although the details may need
some further discussion.

The principles of collective responsibility for historical waste and a “visible fee” for
a  limited  period  in  amendment  42  can  be  accepted  though  this  should  be  without
prejudice  to articles  88 and 89 of the  Treaty.  This could  be  clarified  by  adding  the
following words at the end of the second paragraph of Art. 7  (3):  “[... of historical
waste] in line with articles 88 and 89 of the Treaty.”

Amendment 47 (first part as adopted by the European Parliament) can be accepted in
principle though the ways how Member States can ensure that consumers participate
in  collection  are  unclear.  In  particular,  this  should  not  lead  to  excessive  penalties.
This  might  be  done  by  the  following  re-wording:  “Member  States  shall  adopt  all
appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that  consumers  participate  in  the  collection  of
WEEE  and  to  encourage  them  to  facilitate  the  process  of  re-use,  treatment  and
recovery.”

The extension of the obligation in amendment 48 to mark electrical equipment with
the  crossed  out  dustbin  to  all  equipment  is  acceptable  in  principle  though  it  seems
unnecessary for large, bulky equipment.  Similarly, the  obligation in  amendment  49
to apply a mark to identify equipment put on the market after a specified date can be
supported  although  modalities  might  still  need  to  be  defined.  This  also  applies  to
amendment 51.

The  additional  information  required  in  amendment  52  (register  of  producers,
specification  according  to  collection  routes  and  quantities  exported)  can  be  useful

5

although  the  practical  implications  and  additional  bureaucratic  load  should  be
verified before a final decision on this amendment. The shorter reporting rhythm and
the  change  of  deadlines  in  amendments  53,  54  and  55  is  acceptable  in  principle
though the availability of resources required for this should be considered carefully
before  a  final  decision  on  these  amendments.  Furthermore,  consistency  with
Directive 91/692/EEC should be guaranteed.

Amendment 66 changing the scope of equipment which contains certain substances
and for this reason should be treated according to specific conditions is acceptable in
principle  though  the  details  should  be  verified  before  final  adoption  of  this
amendment.  Amendment  92  changing  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  oblige
producers to share the costs for new “orphan” waste to an obligation to all producers
to  provide  appropriate  financial  guarantees  is  acceptable  in  principle.  This
amendment introduces, however, fundamental changes and needs careful evaluation.
Moreover, further details might need to be developed.

3.2.4.

Amendments not accepted

The Commission cannot accept the following amendments on recitals: amendment 2
(new  recital  10  a  on  the  revision  of  the  Batteries  Directive;  this  infringes  the
Commission’s  right  of  initiative  and  is  out  of  the  scope  of  the  present  directive),
amendment  4  (new  recital  11a  leaving  the  conditions  on  refusal  of  contaminated
WEEE to Member States; this should be done preferably on a Community level) and
amendment 8 (new recital 15a on exports of used equipment; Member States cannot
control what is done with the equipment outside their borders, see  also  amendment
23).

Amendment  22  on  design  for  re-use  and  recycling  cannot  be  accepted  because  the
details  of  design  requirements  should  be  elaborated  more  carefully  in  line  with  the
principles discussed in the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy. In particular, it
might be more appropriate to improve the environmental performance of equipment
throughout its life cycle than to focus on design for re-use  and recycling only. One
option to elaborate these details may be the planned Directive on the environmental
design of electrical and electronic equipment.

Amendment 25 is rejected because the obligations for the sound treatment of WEEE
are already defined in the Directive and it is inappropriate to define conditions on the
shipment  of  waste  in  this  Directive.  This  is  a  horizontal  matter  for  Regulation
259/93. This also applies for amendment 26 which allows Member States to refuse,
under certain conditions, shipments which are allowed under Regulation 259/93.

The Commission opposes amendments 29, 32 and 68 increasing the recovery targets
for three groups of product categories without a simultaneous increase of the re-use
and  recycling  rates  as  it  was  suggested  by  the  Environment  Committee  of  the
European  Parliament.  The  increased  margin  between  recovery  and  re-use/recycling
may create an incentive for incineration of waste fractions which are not necessarily
suited  for  environmentally  sound  incineration.  It  should  be  noted  that  for  most
fractions of WEEE, re-use and/or recycling are preferable to incineration with energy
recovery. Other fractions contain substances that may be problematic in incineration,
in  particular  if  not  appropriately  controlled.  This  may  be  particularly  critical  in
countries  with  little  capacities  for  sound  incineration  and  facing  difficulties  to

6

achieve  high  re-use  and  recycling  rates.  As  a  result,  there  is  a  risk  that  these
amendments may lead to badly controlled incineration and environmental pollution.

Amendment 56 puts an obligation to the Commission to produce a report within nine
months  after  the  end  of  the  reporting  period.  This  cannot  be  accepted  as  the
Commission can only produce such a report in a reasonable time after it has received
the  national  reports.  Therefore,  the  text  of  the  Common  Position  should  be
maintained.  Amendment  64  is  rejected  because  all  asbestos  contained  in  WEEE  is
asbestos waste.

4.

CONCLUSION

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

7