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 batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators repealing Directive 91/157/EEC amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2006-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, electricity storage device, electronic waste, electronics industry, environmental protection, waste recycling

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.1.2006 
COM(2006) 17 final 

2003/0282 (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 batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators repealing Directive 
91/157/EEC 

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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2003/0282 (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 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators repealing 
Directive 91/157/EEC 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is 
to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament  at  second 
reading.  The  Commission  sets  out  its  opinion  below  on  the  23  amendment  proposed  by 
Parliament.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

The  Commission’s  proposal  (COM(2003)  723  final)  was  transmitted  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  in  accordance  with  the  co-decision  procedure  provided  for  in 
Article 175 (1) of the EC Treaty on 24 November 2003. The Proposal was based on Article 95 
(1) and Article 175 (1) of the EC Treaty. 

The European Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on 28 April 2004. 

The Committee of the Regions gave its opinion on 22 April 2004. 

The European Parliament gave its opinion at first reading on 20 April 2004. 

Following the opinion of the European Parliament and pursuant to Article 251(2) of the EC 
Treaty,  the  Council  adopted  the  Common  Position  formally  on  18  July  2005.  The 
Commission’s Communication on the Common Position (COM(2005)378 final) was adopted 
on 23 August 2005 and the European Parliament adopted its position at second reading on 13 
December 2005.  

3. 

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL 

The purpose of the Commission’s Proposal is to avoid the final disposal of waste batteries by 
requiring a “closed-loop” system for all batteries placed on the Community market. The main 
elements of this proposed “closed-loop” system are (i) a collection target for portable batteries 
(160 grams), (ii) an additional collection target for portable cadmium batteries (which would 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
require the monitoring of the waste stream), (iii) a prohibition to landfill/incinerate industrial 
and automotive batteries and (iv) minimum recycling requirements for all collected batteries. 
Furthermore, the Proposal sets minimum rules for the functioning of national collection and 
recycling  schemes  in  order  to  enhance  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  to 
guarantee a level playing field for all the actors involved in the battery life-cycle. To this end, 
the  Proposal  introduces  producer  responsibility  for  the  waste  management  of  all  batteries 
placed  on  the  Community  market.  Once  adopted,  the  proposed  Directive  will  repeal  and 
replace the existing Community legislation on batteries (Directive 91/157/EEC,  as amended 
and Directive 93/86/EEC). 

In its First Reading, the European Parliament preferred (i) a restriction on the use of cadmium 
and lead in batteries, instead of the proposed “closed-loop” system, and (ii) higher collection 
targets  (50%  and  60%).  The  Commission  did  not  accept  these  changes,  since  its  Extended 
Impact  Assessment  (ExIA)  showed  that  the  proposed  “closed  loop  system”  would  entail  an 
equivalent level of environmental protection at lower costs. As regards the collection targets, 
the  Commission  accepted  to  move  from  a  “weight-based”  target  to  a  “sales-based”  target. 
However, since its ExIA showed that a target of 160 grams (or 40%) would be the most cost-
efficient target, the Commission did not accept to increase this. 

In its Common Position, the Council favoured (i) a limited restriction on the use of cadmium 
in portable batteries, instead of the proposed “closed-loop” system, and (ii) lower collection 
targets  (25%  and  45%).  The  Commission  accepted  that  new  available  information  in  the 
Council’s  Impact  Assessment  showed  that  the  proposed  “closed  loop  system”  could  face 
considerable  organisational  and  administrative  costs,  making  the  “closed-loop”  system 
comparatively more expensive. The Commission thus supported the restriction on the use of 
cadmium  of  the  Common  Position.  The  Commission  welcomed  the  increase  of  a  long-term 
collection  target  (45%),  but  suggested  that  the  time-frame  for  achieving  the  intermediate 
collection  target  (25%)  could  be  more  ambitious,  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  initial 
Proposal. 

4. 

OPINION  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  BY  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

On 13 December 2005, the European Parliament adopted 23 of the 59 amendments that were 
tabled. Out of the 23 amendments adopted, the Commission can accept 12 amendments in full 
and  1  amendment  in  part.  10  of  the  adopted  amendments  are  not  acceptable  to  the 
Commission. 

4.1. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission 

4.1.1.  Amendments Accepted in Full  

Amendment 3 proposes a new recital referring to the 1988 Council Resolution on cadmium. 
This is a useful clarification in line with Article 4 of the proposed Directive. 

Amendment  9  deletes  the  possibility  to  establish  a  “de  minimis”  rule  on  the  basis  of  a 
comitology procedure and provides that all producers should be registered in recital 17. The 
Commission can accept the deletion of the possibility of adopting a “de minimis” rule through 
comitology, since such a “de minimis” rule could lead to free riders on the market and could 
jeopardise  the  credibility  of  each  national  collection  system.  The  required  registration  of 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
producers  is  in  line  with  Article  14  of  the  proposed  Directive  and  thus  also  accepted  by 
Commission. 

Amendment 12 adds button cells and battery packs to the definition of portable batteries. This 
useful clarification is acceptable for the Commission. 

Amendment  15  replaces  the  wording  ‘sold  to  end-users’  by  ‘placed  on  the  market’  in  the 
definition  of  collection  rate.  The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  is  a  useful 
clarification which seems easier to monitor for the Member States. 

Amendment 17 introduces the obligation for Member States to promote research to increase 
the environmental performance of batteries. This amendment is in line with the Commission’s 
initial Proposal and can thus be accepted.  

Amendment 19 obliges Member States to take the necessary measures to maximise collection 
and  prevent  disposal.  This  amendment  re-introduces  amendment  27  of  the  European 
Parliament’s First Reading, which was accepted by the Commission. 

The Commission also accepts amendment 25, which transfers the definition of collection rate 
to  Article  3,  since  this  is  a  useful  drafting  clarification.  Moreover,  the  Commission  also 
considers  the  requirement  for  Member  States  to  start  calculating  the  collection  rate  4  years 
after  entry  into  force  of  the  proposed  Directive  a  useful  clarification  as  this  would  allow 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  gain  experience  with  the  calculation  method  of  the 
collection target, 2 years before the target itself becomes legally binding. 

Amendment  29  specifies  that  “best  available  techniques”  in  Article  10  of  the  proposed 
Directive refer to the protection of human health and the environment and that the schemes of 
this  Article  should  comply  with  Community  legislation.  The  Commission  accepts  this 
amendment since it contains useful clarifications. 

The  Commission  accepts  amendment  31  which  re-introduces  Article  17  of  the  initial 
Commission Proposal. 

The deletion of the term ‘broadly’ in Article 12, paragraph 2 of the proposed Directive laid 
down in amendment 32 is also in line with the Commission’s initial Proposal and can also be 
accepted. 

In  line  with  amendment  9,  the  Commission  also  accepts  amendment  36  which  deletes  the 
possibility to establish a ‘de minimis’ rule on the basis of a comitology procedure. 

The  Commission  accepts  amendment  38  which  requires  that  the  battery  capacity  will  be 
indicated on a label. This amendment is in line with the Communication on IPP (see Chapter 
5.3 “Giving consumers the Information to Decide”). This is also in line with Article 5 of the 
Commission’s initial Proposal. 

4.1.2.  Amendments Accepted in Part  

Amendment  41  changes  the  word  ‘target’  into  ‘efficiency’,  clarifies  that  Member  States 
should achieve the recycling efficiencies, requires a ‘closed-loop’ of the recycled heavy metal 
content,  increases  the  recycling  efficiency  target  for  non-hazardous  batteries  from  50%  to 
55%  and  provides  that  the  efficiencies  can  be  amended  on  the  basis  of  a  comitology 
procedure. This amendment is partly acceptable. The reference to closed-loop system is  not 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
acceptable,  since  the  Commission  has  accepted  that  it  may  create  impracticalities  from  an 
implementation and cost point of view. The other parts of this amendment are accepted by the 
Commission.  The  reference  to  ‘efficiencies’  and  the  recycling  efficiency  for  non-hazardous 
batteries of 55% target are in line with the Commission’s initial Proposal, which was based on 
the Commission’s Extended Impact Assessment. The reference to technical adaptations on the 
basis of a comitology procedure, is in line with Article 10 (5) (b) of the proposed Directive. 

4.2. 

Amendments rejected by the Commission 

Amendment  11,  which  changes  the  subject  matter  into  specifying  the  environmental 
objectives  of  the  proposed  Directive  is  not  acceptable  since  it  is  not  in  line  with  the  inter-
institutional drafting guidelines. 

Amendment 14 clarifies what is meant by “energy recovery” in Article 3 (8) of the proposed 
Directive.  This  amendment  is  not  accepted  by  the  Commission.  The  proposed  Directive 
focuses  on  recycling  as  the  treatment  operation  for  batteries,  not  on  energy  recovery. 
Moreover,  the  term  ‘energy  recovery’  could  be  reviewed  within  the  framework  of  the 
Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. 

Amendment  18  introduces  the  requirement  that  batteries  should  be  readily  removable  by 
consumers with a list of exemptions in amendment 40. These amendments are not acceptable. 
From  an  environmental  point  of  view  this  requirement  is  redundant  now  that  the  WEEE 
Directive  requires  the  collection  of  batteries  incorporated  into  appliances.  From  a  technical 
point  of  view,  it  may  hamper  technological  developments  of  applications  which  require  a 
battery soldered into the appliance.  

Amendment  20  deletes  the  reference  to  population  density  for  the  setting  up  of  national 
collection  schemes  for  portable  batteries.  Furthermore,  it  specifies  that  collection  points  do 
not need a licence under Directive 75/442/EEC or 91/689/EEC. The deletion of the reference 
to population density was not accepted by the Commission in the European Parliament’s first 
reading.  The  specification  that  collection  points  do  not  need  a  licence  under  Directive 
75/442/EEC  is  unnecessary  since  this  is  already  covered  by  Article  7  (2)  of  the  proposed 
Directive. 

Amendment 23 obliges distributors to take-back portable batteries. This is not accepted by the 
Commission  since  this  is  already  covered  by  Article  7  (2)  (b)  of  the  proposed  Directive, 
which leave the role of distributors in the collection of portable batteries to the discretion of 
the Member States, in line with the subsidiarity principle. 

Amendment  24  deletes  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  adopt  deposit  schemes  and 
introduces  specific  conditions  for  adopting  economic  instruments.  The  Commission  did  not 
accept  this  amendment  since  the  adoption  of  economic  instruments  should  be  left  to  the 
discretion of the Member States. The conditions for adopting national economic instruments 
are already governed by primary EC law. 

The  Commission  does  not  accept  amendment  33,  which  makes  producers  financially 
responsible  for  information  campaigns  for  the  public.  The  Commission  considers  that  this 
issue, which is already covered by Article 17 (2) of the proposed Directive, should be left to 
the discretion of the Member States, in line with the subsidiarity principle. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Amendment  34,  which  regulates  financial  producer  responsibility  for  historic  waste,  is  not 
accepted  by  the  Commission,  since  the  Commission  prefers  to  leave  this  issue  to  the 
discretion of the Member States, in line with the subsidiarity principle. 

Amendment  37  obliges  distributors  to  inform  end-users  about  the  possibility  of  discarding 
waste  portable  batteries  at  their  sales  points.  The  Commission  does  not  accept  this 
amendment, since according to Article 17 (2) of the proposed Directive, this issue should be 
left to the discretion of the Member States, in line with the subsidiarity principle. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

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

EN 

6 

   EN