REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2000/53/EC ON END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES FOR THE PERIODS 2008-2011 AND 2011-2014
Date: 2017-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, disclosure of information, environmental protection, prevention of pollution, vehicle, waste, waste disposal, waste recycling

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.2.2017  COM(2017) 98 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2000/53/EC ON END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES FOR THE PERIODS 2008-2011 AND 2011-2014  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS 

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2000/53/EC  
ON END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES 

FOR THE PERIODS 2008-2011 AND 2011-2014 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 
Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles1 (the ELV Directive) primarily aims to prevent 
the production of waste from vehicles and their components so as to reduce the final disposal 
of  waste  and  its  overall  environmental  impact.  Moreover,  the  measures  laid  down  in  the 
Directive seek to improve the environmental performance of all economic operators involved 
in a vehicle’s life cycle, especially, the operators directly involved in the treatment of end-of-
life  vehicles  (ELVs).    Overall,  the  ELV  Directive  follows  a  circular  economy  approach  by 
encouraging ecodesign, providing for the elimination of hazardous substances in the vehicles 
and  establishing  high  reuse/recycling/recovery  targets,  thus  aiming  reuse  the  valuable 
materials from the ELVs and keep precious resources in the economy.  

Article 9 of the ELV Directive obliges Member States to report to the Commission at three-
year intervals on the implementation of the Directive based on a questionnaire established by 
Commission  Decision  2001/753/EC.2  The  questionnaire  consists  of  two  parts:  the  first  part 
concerns  details  on  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  into  national  law  and  the  second 
contains information on the actual implementation of the Directive. Based on the information 
provided  by  Member  States,  for  each  reporting  period,  the  Commission  draws  up  an 
implementation report. 

This  is  the  third  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  ELV  Directive  and  it  covers  two 
reporting  periods:  from  21  April  2008  to  20  April  2011;  and  from  21 April 2011  to 
to 
20 April 2014.  The  first 
20 April 2005,  was  published  in  2007;  the  second  implementation  report,4  covering 
21 April 2005 to 20 April 2008, was published in 2010. 

implementation  report,3  which  covered  21 April 2002 

The  reporting  punctuality  and  quality  for  this  third  implementation  report  improved 
compared  to  previous  reporting  periods.  All  Member  States  provided  the  Commission  with 
the  implementation  reports  for  the  2008-2011  period,  whereas  two  Member  States  did  not 
send  reports  for  2011-2014.5  The  information  provided  was  complete  and  overall  of 
satisfactory  quality.  It  has  been  complemented  by  further  information  available  to  the 
Commission, such as from checking the conformity of national measures implanting the ELV 
Directive. 

1 
2 
3  
4  
5  

OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34. 
OJ L 282, 26.10.2001, p. 77. 
COM/2007/0618 final. 
COM/2009/635 final. 
The Netherlands and Spain. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Furthermore,  according  to  Commission  Decision  2005/293/EC,6  data  on  the  Directive’s 
targets for reuse/recycling and reuse/recovery are to be reported on an annual basis within 18 
months after the end of the reference year. This information has also been taken into account 
in this report. 

2. 

INFORMATION ON TRANSPOSITION OF THE ELV DIRECTIVE 

The ELV Directive has been  transposed into the national legislation of each Member State. 
While  the  Directive  was  overall  found  to  have  been  well  transposed,  15  infringement 
procedures for non-conformity of national implementation measures were still under way in 
the  2008-2014  period,  including  cases  still  open  from  the  previous  reporting  period.  Cases 
against five Member States were referred to the European Court of Justice, all of which have 
since  been  closed.  Since  October  2015  there  have  been  no  open  infringements  procedures 
related to the ELV Directive. 

More information on the transposition of individual provisions of the Directive is provided in 
the  national  reports.  Some  of  the  Directive’s  requirements  (for  instance  provisions  on 
prevention,  collection,  reuse  and  recovery)  may  be  transposed  by  means  of  agreement. 
Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and Hungary have used this possibility. 

Ireland and the United Kingdom made use of the option to exempt vehicles produced in small 
series  and  their  producers  from  the  requirements  concerning  reusability,  recyclability  and 
recoverability,  coding  standards  and  dismantling  information  as  well  as  from  reporting 
obligations. 

All  Member  States  but  one7  reported  that  they  had  adopted  measures  encouraging  vehicle 
manufacturers,  in  liaison  with  material  and  equipment  manufacturers,  to  limit  the  use  of 
hazardous substances in vehicles in order to facilitate dismantling, reuse and recovery and to 
integrate  an  increasing  quantity  of  recycled  materials  in  vehicles.  All  Member  States 
indicated  that  their  national  legislation  restricts  the  use  of  lead,  mercury,  cadmium  and 
hexavalent  chromium  for  materials  and  components  of  vehicles  put  on  the  market  after 
1 July 2003, subject to the exemptions listed in Annex II to the Directive.  

All  Member  States  that  submitted  a  report  confirmed  that  they  had  taken  the  necessary 
measures to ensure that economic operators in most cases the producers and/or importers of 
vehicles  set  up  systems  for  collecting  ELVs  and  (as  far  as  technically  feasible)  waste  used 
parts removed when repairing passenger cars. They also confirmed having taken measures to 
ensure  the  adequate  availability  of  collection  facilities;  at  least  six  Member  States8  have 
either defined a maximum distance to the next collection point or set a minimum number of 
collection points per city/region or per number of inhabitants. 

6 
7  

8  

OJ L 94, 13.4.2005, p. 30. 
Greece has literally transposed the ELV Directive but reported that ‘no car production takes place in 
Greece and all cars are imported, therefore no measures pursuant to Article 4(1) and 4(2) need to be 
taken’ implying that no further implementing measures have been adopted. 
Belgium; France; Ireland; Lithuania; Romania; Slovenia 

3 

 
 
                                                            
All Member States reported having set up a system requiring the presentation of a certificate 
of  destruction  as  a  condition  for  vehicle  deregistration.  Fourteen  Member  States  used  the 
option to allow producers, dealers or collectors to issue certificates of destruction on behalf of 
an authorised treatment facility, provided there is a guarantee that the ELVs are transferred to 
authorised treatment facilities. 

All  respondents reported having  adopted measures to  ensure that ELVs can  be delivered to 
authorised treatment facilities without any cost for the last holder or owner. However, in most 
Member  States,  delivery  is  not  free  of  charge  if  the  vehicle  does  not  contain  the  essential 
components or if it contains added waste. This option is in line with the Directive. 

All  Member  States  reported  that  they  require  certificates  of  destruction  issued  in  other 
Member States to be recognised and accepted by the competent authorities. 

In all Member States, treatment establishments or undertakings must have a permit from or 
be  registered  with  the  competent  authorities.  Only  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom  availed 
themselves  of  the  derogation  from  the  permit  requirements  for  operations  to  recover  waste 
from ELVs after they have been properly treated according to the ELV Directive and subject 
to annual inspection.9 

All  Member  States,  except  one  reported  means  to  encourage  treatment  establishments  or 
undertakings  to  introduce  certified  environmental  management  systems10  such  as  the  EU 
Eco-Management  and  Audit  Scheme.  Member  States  have  implemented  a  variety  of 
incentives  and  supporting  measures  to  that  end.  These  include  funding;  relieving 
administrative  burden (for  example  reduced  frequency  and scope  of  monitoring,  derogation 
from  drawing  up  waste  management  plans,  facilitated  approval  as  authorised  treatment 
facility,  reduced  financial  guarantees);  and  support  provided  by  guidance  documents, 
information brochures and training courses. 

All  Member  States  which  submitted  a  report  confirmed  that  they  had  adopted  measures  in 
line with the waste hierarchy in order to promote the reuse of components which are suitable 
for  reuse  and  the  recovery  of  components  which  cannot  be  reused,  with  a  preference  for 
recycling. 

All  reporting  Member  States  had  introduced  measures  to  ensure  that  economic  operators 
achieve  the  reuse/recovery  and  reuse/recycling  targets  set  in  the  ELV  Directive.  Most 
Member States transposed the targets set in the Directive literally. The Netherlands adjusted 
their  initially  very  ambitious  date  by  which  the  targets  of  95 %  reuse/recovery  and  85 % 
reuse/recycling had to be met as early as in 2007 rather than in 2015 as required under the 
Directive.  In  Bulgaria,  a  recovery  target  of  87 %  and  a  recycling  target  of  81 %  had  to  be 
attained  by  31 December  2008;  the  targets  were  gradually  raised  to  95 %  for  recovery  and 
85 %  for  recycling  by  2015.  The  Czech  Republic,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom used the possibility 
to set lower targets for vehicles produced before 1 January 1980. 

9  
10  

Derogation from the permit requirements according to Article 6(2) of the ELV Directive. 
According to Article 6(5) of the ELV Directive, Member States must encourage treatment operations to 
introduce certified environmental management systems. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
All  responding  Member  States  but  one11  reported  having  taken  measures  to  ensure  that 
producers,  in  concert  with  material  and  equipment  manufacturers,  use  component  and 
material  coding  standards  and  require  components  manufacturers  to  make  information  on 
dismantling, storage and testing of components available to authorised treatment facilities. In 
all Member States, producers have to provide dismantling information for each type of new 
vehicle  put  on  the  market.  Most  Member  States  pointed  to  the  use  of  the  International 
Dismantling  Information  System12  which  was  set  up  by  manufacturers  to  provide 
comprehensive and regularly-updated information for treatment operators in order to promote 
the environmental treatment of ELVs. 

All  Member  States  except  Sweden  reported  having  obliged  economic  operators  —  mostly 
producers  —  to  publish  information  concerning  vehicle  design,  environmentally  sound 
treatment,  waste  prevention  and  progress  achieved  with  regard  to  recovery  and  recycling. 
Sweden  reported  that  current  legislation  is  directed  to  the  producer  and  not  towards  the 
economic operators, and this is included in an ongoing review of the legislation. 

3. 

INFORMATION ON PRACTICE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELV DIRECTIVE 

The national reports on the implementation of the ELV Directive also provided information 
on  progress  and  good  practices  followed  by  the  economic  operators  that  have  contributed 
positively to the implementation of the ELV Directive. 

Member  States  have  achieved  the  high  reuse/recycling/recovery  targets  mainly  due  to  the 
development  of  new  post-shredding  technologies;  the  substantial  reduction  in  heavy  metals 
used  in  new  cars  (as  shown  by  the  amendments  of  Annex  II  to  the  ELV  Directive);  the 
implementation  of  coding  standards  to  facilitate  dismantling  and  better  use  and  reuse  and 
recovery of components and materials; and more and improved treatment facilities following 
EU environmental standards. 

In relation to waste prevention, several Member States referred to automotive sector activities 
such  as  the development  of  the  Global  automotive  declarable  substance  list,  a  group  which 
facilitates  communication  and  exchange  of  information  regarding  the  use  of  certain 
substances  in  automotive  products  throughout  the  supply  chain.13  They  also  referred  to  the 
adaptation  of  the  International  Dismantling  Information  System  to  show  the  material 
composition along the production chain. 

Some  Member  States  referred  to  further  measures  to  improve  the  treatment  process  and 
simplify  dismantling  and  depollution.  For  instance,  Germany  reported  improved  post-
shredder  technology  to  extract  more  recyclable  fractions  and  France  reported  that  some 
vehicle producers reduce the diversity of materials and the structure of components for easier 
treatment and had developed their own network for the collection, reclamation and reuse of 
parts to prevent waste generation. Other measures improving the design for recycling include 

11  
12  
13  

Greece referring to the fact that there are no local vehicle producers. 
http://www.idis2.com/. 
http://www.gadsl.org/. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
the development of the on-board diagnosis tool for the simple and safe trigger of pyrotechnic 
components in cars. 

Only  limited  quantitative  information  was  provided  about  types  and  quantities  of  recycled 
materials  and  the  market  situation.  Member  States  agreed  that  the  metal  trade  market 
functions  well  for  ferrous  and  for  non-ferrous  metals.  This  ensures  high  recycling  rates  for 
metals. The plastic recycling market is seen to be more heterogeneous: use of recycled plastic 
materials in vehicles, though increasing, is still at a relatively low level. At present, the share 
of recycled plastics used in vehicle manufacturing rarely exceeds a few per cent of the total 
plastic. Car producers have committed themselves to increasing the use of recycling plastics 
in vehicles to 20 %. Germany stated that reused tyres and products from material recycling 
(granulates) have a positive market value, whereas sending tyres for treatment and disposal 
normally requires extra payment. 

The majority of Member States observed that ELVs have a positive market value as long as 
they are delivered complete and are not stripped of essential components. Portugal stated that 
the value of materials resulting from dismantling and shredding, in particular for ferrous and 
non-ferrous metals, has remained at levels which ensure the sustainability of the processing 
chain.  Nevertheless,  eight  countries  reported  explicitly  that  even  vehicles  with  no  or  a 
negative market value were collected in 2008-2014. In the United Kingdom, the few vehicles 
with negative market value were mostly collected in remote, rural areas such as certain island 
communities in Scotland. Poland estimates that the number of ELV with no or negative value 
equals the number of incomplete cars. 

The infrastructure for ELV treatment improved over the 2008-2014 period. In most Member 
States, the number of authorised treatment facilities increased and the differences between the 
Member  States  with  regard  to  the  density  of  the  treatment  network  have  diminished.  The 
number of authorised  treatment facilities varies from two in  Luxembourg to  about  1 800 in 
the United Kingdom. Altogether, there are nearly 13 000 treatment facilities in the EU, which 
corresponds to approximately one treatment facility per 40 000 inhabitants. 

The  total  number  of  vehicles  transferred  to  authorised  treatment  facilities  in  the  EU  rose 
sharply from 6.3 million in 2008 to 9 million in 2009. This increase is to be attributed to the 
introduction of scrapping incentives schemes in more than 10 Member States in the 2008 and 
2009.  The  main  contributors  to  the  significant  rise  of  ELV  were  Germany  (increase  of  1.4 
million  vehicles),  France  (increase  of  0.46  million  vehicles),  Italy  (increase  of  0.41  million 
vehicles)  and  Spain  (increase  of  0.2  million  vehicles).  After  2009,  the  number  of  ELVs 
transferred to the authorised treatment facilities decreased stepwise to 6.2 million vehicles in 
2013, which corresponds to the level before 2008-2009. 

By no later than 2006, Member States were required to meet the reuse and recycling rate of 
80 % and the reuse and recovery target of 85 % set in Article 7(2) of the ELV Directive. The 
2013  rates  reported  by  Member  States  are  shown  in  Figure  1.14  The  target  for  reuse  and 
recycling  was  achieved  by  all  Member  States  except  Estonia,  which  reported  a 

14  

For Romania and Slovenia the rates refer to 2012 since the data for 2013 were not yet available. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
reuse/recycling  rate  of  78 %  but  had  met  the  target  in  2012.  The  reuse  and  recovery  target 
was also met by all countries except for Italy, which achieved 83 %. 

reuse and recycling

recycling target

120,0

100,0

80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0

8
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

Figure 1:  Reuse/recycling rates reported for 2013 

reuse and recovery

recovery target

120,0

100,0

80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0

…
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

Figure 2:  Reuse/recovery rates reported for 2013 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Germany and Slovenia reported reuse/recovery rates above 100 %. In Germany, stock storage 
effects caused the seemingly implausible rates since ELVs are not necessarily treated in the 
year they are delivered to a treatment facility (for example because of capacity limitations). 
Also, for Germany, this phenomenon can still be attributed to the scrapping incentive scheme 
for  2008/2009.  In  Slovenia,  the  high  rate  reported  appears  to  be  a  temporary  phenomenon 
caused by the transition from a public service system to a producer responsibility scheme. 

As of 1 January 2015, the ELV Directive raises the reuse/recycling and the reuse/ recovery 
target  to  85 %  and  95 %  respectively.  Figure  1  shows  that  17  countries  already  met  this 
reuse/recycling rate in 2013, and most of the remaining countries are close to the target. More 
efforts were envisaged to be needed to comply with the 95 % reuse/recovery target. However, 
in 2013 seven Member States had already met this target.15 

Respondents  did  not  in  general  detect  any  competition  distortions  between  or  within  the 
Member States. Between 2008 and 2011, the vehicle market was strongly influenced by the 
financial crisis and the scrapping incentives introduced in Member States to stabilise the car 
market. In Germany, the significant increase in ELVs resulting from the 2008/2009 scrapping 
incentive scheme resulted in a surplus of spare parts on the market and the market price of 
stripped  vehicles  dropped  to  EUR 10-20/tonne.  In  2010-2012,  the  numbers  of  ELVs 
generated and the market prices went back to pre-2009 levels and the temporary storage of 
ELVs has been reduced. Other countries, such as Estonia, reported a drastic decrease in new 
car sales and a lower number of ELVs. Hungary reported that the average age of vehicles on 
the market rose from 10 years in 2006 to 13 years in 2013. 

4  

UNKNOWN WHEREABOUTS AND ILLEGAL DISMANTLING OF ELVS 

While  the  Directive’s  legal  provisions  have  been  fully  transposed  into  national  legislation, 
there is evidence of implementation and enforcement deficits across the EU. Assessments on 
behalf of the Commission suggest that there may be 3.5 to 4.5 million vehicles per year with 
‘unknown whereabouts’.16 These ‘missing cars’ are deregistered in the Member States but are 
not reported to the Commission as legally treated ELVs and are also not found in the data of 
legal exports of second-hand vehicles in the Foreign Trade Statistics. Possible reasons for the 
inadequate  follow-up  may  be  inadequate  follow-up  of  deregistered  cars  within  Member 
States  or  in  the  case  of  intra-EU  trade,  ELVs  being  dismantled  within  the  EU  in  non-
authorised treatment facilities, or the unregistered export of used cars or ELVs. A study and 
related  stakeholder  consultations  are  being  carried  out  to  assist  the  Commission  in 
investigating  the  causes  for  the  unknown  whereabouts  and  identifying  additional  effective 
measures  to  be  put  in  place  to  improve  the  situation.  This  is  part  of  the  Commission’s 
initiative to assess the implementation of the ELV Directive and promote compliance. 

The  Member  States’  implementation  reports  and  additional  information  provided  show  that 
some  countries  (such  as  Ireland,  France,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom)  have 
taken  repressive  action  against  illegal  treatment  and/or  have  intensified  controls  on  ELV 

15  
16  

Data available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/key-waste-streams/elvs. 
For the reference years 2012 and 2013: Preliminary results of an assessment currently being carried out 
on behalf of the Commission. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
dismantling/treatment  facilities.  Portugal  has  successfully  reduced  the  illegal  treatment  of 
ELVs  through  a  package  of  measures,  including  an  annual  road  tax,  a  scrappage  incentive 
programme, increased taxation and a national plan for the eradication of illegal scrapping. It 
has  also considerably  increased  the number  of  authorised  treatment  facilities.  In  the  United 
Kingdom,  the  Environment  Agency  launched  a  coordinated  national  campaign  to  tackle 
illegal  ELV  and  scrap  metal  sites.  It  introduced  harsh  penalties,  as  a  result  of  which  about 
half  of  the  illegal  sites  closed  or  were  brought  into  regulation  within  12  months.17  Ireland 
increased the number of authorised treatment facilities from 53 in 2003 to 173 in 2013. 

In  some  Member  States,  such  as  the  United  Kingdom,  the  car  owner  is  responsible  for  the 
vehicle and is liable to pay taxes  until a certificate of destruction  is produced. Portugal has 
introduced  a  centralised  computer  system  for  issuing  certificates  of  destruction  for  ELVs 
which  enables  the  national  waste  authority  to  have  better  control  over  the  total  number  of 
certificates  of  destruction  and  the  respective  issuing  authorities  and  to  produce  statistics 
relating to ELV management more quickly. 

Spain  reported  for  the  2008-2011  period  that  the  majority  of  non-authorised  treatment 
facilities  had  closed  because  they  could  not  issue  certificates  of  destruction.  Denmark 
addresses  the  trade  and  illegal  treatment  of  ELVs  by  paying  a  premium  that  only  the  last 
registered owner can receive. In contrast, Hungary reports that the number of its authorised 
treatment  facilities  has  decreased  and  illegal  dismantling  is  on  the  rise.  Whereas  several 
countries, including Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, pointed out that vehicle exports 
from  their  countries  to  the  Eastern  European  countries,  but  also  to  Africa  and  the  Middle 
East,  are  still  high,  Poland  drew  attention  to  its  specific  situation  where  the  number  of 
imported used cars is twice as high as the number of new cars sold in Poland. 

Some Member States have conducted studies to assess the problem in their countries and find 
ways to address it. In 2016, Germany also conducted a study aiming to analyse the reasons 
for the high number of ‘missing’ vehicles, to identify the whereabouts of these vehicles and 
to develop measures and instruments to effectively improve the coverage of ELV statistics.  

To  date,  different  steps  have  been  taken  at  EU  level  to  address  the  problem  of  missing 
vehicles.  In  2011,  Guidelines  for  waste  vehicles18  were  worked  out.  These  Guidelines 
represent  the  common  understanding  of  the  Member  States  on  how  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1013/2006  on  shipments  of  waste  should  be  interpreted  in  providing  criteria  to 
differentiate  between  waste  vehicles  and  used  vehicles.  Two  Member  States19  made  the 
Correspondents’ Guidelines for waste vehicles part of the inspection documents. 

17  

. 
18  

19  

See  also,  End-of-life  vehicles:  Legal  aspects,  national  practices  and  recommendations  for  future 
successful approach (study for the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health 
and Food Safety, 2010) at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/elv.pdf 

Shipments 

Waste 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/guidance.htm). 
Austria and Belgium’s Wallonia region. 

Correspondents’  Guidelines 

No 

9 

on 

shipment 

of 

waste 

9 

 
 
                                                            
Furthermore, the Commission (Eurostat) has revised the guidelines on the annual reporting20 
on the ELV targets in order to improve the data it uses to assess the situation. The revised 
guidelines now also request Member States to annually report vehicles registered and de-
registered in the national market, in addition to reporting the number of certificates of 
destruction required. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The assessment concludes that the ELV Directive has been fully transposed by the Member 
States.  Some cases  of non-conformity  became subject to  infringement procedures and were 
solved as Member States brought their ELV legislation in line with the Directive.  

The implementation of the ELV Directive is mainly positive with the notable exception of the 
issue  of  the  ELV  of  unknown  whereabouts.  Member  States  have  reported  good  practices 
working with manufacturers on the composition of materials and the reuse of materials and 
components,  ecodesign  is  continuously  improving,  hazardous  substances  used  in  cars  are 
almost  eliminated,  and  targets  for  reuse/recycling/recovery  are  largely  met.  Most  Member 
States also recognise the positive value of the ELVs when delivered intact to the authorised 
treatment facilities. 

Member  States  have  also  reported  qualitative  improvements.  The  infrastructure  for  the 
treatment of ELVs has improved, more Member States have post-shredding facilities and the 
overall number of authorised treatment facilities has increased. 

Statistics on the ELV targets show how implementation of the Directive has improved over 
time.  By  2013,  almost  all  Member  States  had  reached  the  2006  ELV  targets  of  80 % 
reuse/recycling  and  85 %  reuse/recovery.  9  Member  States  had  already  reached  the  2015 
targets  of  95 %  for  reuse/recovery  and  17  Member  States  had  reached  those  of  85 %  for 
reuse/recycling  per  vehicle.21  The  remaining  Member  States  are  close  to  the  targets 
applicable  as  of  January 2015,  although  achieving  the  reuse  and  recovery  target  of  95 %  is 
challenging for several Member States. 

Illegal  collection  and  trafficking  of  ELVs  remain  a  challenge  for  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive.  Sub-standard  treatment  of  ELVs  has  a  negative  impact  on  health  and  the 
environment and  leads to a  loss of valuable resources. The Commission  will work together 
with  the  Member  States  to  identify  the  causes  of  illegal  collection  and  trafficking  of  ELVs 
and measures that need to be taken to address this issue at different levels. At EU level, the 
Waste Shipment Correspondents’ Guidelines  on waste vehicles agreed on 8 July 2011 are a 
helpful  tool  for  national  authorities.  However,  further  measures  may  be  required,  such  as 
reviewing  Commission  Decision 2005/293/EC  to  reinforce  the  monitoring  of  the  national 
vehicle market.22 

20  

21  

22  

to 

Guidance  document  How 
Decision 2005/293/EC (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/reporting/2015). 
According to Article 3 of Commission Decision 2005/293/EC, Member States have to report within 18 
months of the end of the relevant year. 
Article 1(3)(a) of Commission Decision 2005/293/EC. 

report  on  end-of-life  vehicles  according 

to  Commission 

10 

 
 
                                                            
The  ELV  Directive  is  a  proven  example  of  the  circular  economy:  the  extended  producers' 
responsibility  scheme  is  applied  from  the  conception  of  the  vehicle  to  the  end-of-life 
treatment, ecodesign is continuously improving and hazardous substances used in the cars are 
almost eliminated in line with technical and scientific progress, as required by the Directive.  
The ELV Directive is also driving innovative research for the substitution of the hazardous 
substances and the best treatment of the ELVs so to valorise the positive value of this waste 
stream.    

Nevertheless, the quality of monitoring data for the targets set in the Directive is a continuing 
challenge. Issues relating to the data quality and comparability of reporting have already been 
addressed, but require further attention.  Reporting obligations were addressed in the recent 
review  of  EU  waste  legislation  in  which  the  Commission  proposed  to  repeal  provisions 
obliging Member States to produce triennial implementation reports. These reports have not 
proven  effective  for  verifying  compliance  with  the  Directive,  its  implementation  and  its 
impact,  being  in  addition,  resource-intensive  and  burdensome.  The  Commission  instead 
proposed  to  base  compliance  monitoring  exclusively  on  statistical  data  that  Member  States 
must provide the Commission with annually. 

In  conclusion,  improved  annual  reporting  on  the  ELV  targets,  accompanied  by  national 
reporting methodologies, will help improve the monitoring of the implementation of the ELV 
Directive. 

11