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 PERIOD 2014-2017
Date: 2020-01-30
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, 30.1.2020  COM(2020) 33 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 PERIOD 2014-2017  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, 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 PERIOD 2014-2017 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

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 to 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 the reporting period, the Commission is required to draw up 
an implementation report.   

This is the fourth report on the implementation of the ELV Directive, covering the reporting 
period 22 April 2014 to 21 April 2017. All previous reports are available on the 
Commission’s website.3 

25 Member States submitted responses for the 2014–2017 reporting period.  Three countries 
(Latvia, Malta and Hungary) have not done so yet. This is a slight reduction in the number of 
countries reporting compared with earlier reporting periods: as all Member States provided 
the Commission with the implementation reports for the 2008–2011 period, while two (the 
Netherlands and Spain) did not submit reports for 2011–2014.  

Overall, the information provided was mostly complete and of a satisfactory quality. It has 
been complemented by additional data sources, in particular national legislation, which has 
been checked directly for conformity with the ELV Directive, and by information from other 

1 OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34. 
2 OJ L 282, 26.10.2001, p. 77. 
3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/index.htm 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Commission reports4.  Furthermore, data on the Directive’s targets for reuse/recycling and 
reuse/recovery reported pursuant to the Commission Decision 2005/293/EC,5 has also been 
taken into account. 

2. 

INFORMATION ON TRANSPOSITION OF THE ELV DIRECTIVE 

The Directive is considered to be satisfactorily transposed in all Member States and there are 
no open infringements. 

Under the ELV Directive, vehicle and equipment manufacturers are required to limit the use 
of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium for materials and components put on 
the market after 1 July 2003, subject to the exemptions listed in Annex II to the Directive.  
These hazardous substances have been dramatically reduced via several amendments of 
Annex II6. While the limitation on the use of hazardous substances in vehicles was usually 
transposed in ELV-specific legislation, vehicle design to facilitate reuse and recovery or the 
integration of recycled material into new vehicles was often transposed in more generic waste 
legislation, with general requirements for these provisions across all markets. Austria is an 
example of good practice, as collection and recovery companies are required to use 0.5% of 
their turnover for waste prevention projects. Furthermore, the Directive also provides that 
vehicles are designed for reuse and recovery and that greater quantities of recycled materials 
are integrated in the vehicles. 

Manufacturers, importers and distributors must provide systems to collect ELVs and, where 
technically feasible, the used parts from repaired passenger cars. Producers are required to 
meet a significant part, if not all, of the costs involved in the delivery of ELVs to waste 
treatment centres. Member States typically transposed these requirements in a way that 
allows flexibility for economic operators, with the possibility for individual or collective 
schemes. In the majority of Member States, take-back is free, except for instances where 
essential components are missing, or if additional waste has been added, in line with the 
requirements of the Directive. As the value of the scrap metal and/or other components 
removed for recycling or reuse will almost cover the costs of collecting the vehicle from final 
owners, there is no significant challenge in meeting this obligation. 

Owners of ELVs must receive a certificate of destruction (CoD) in order to deregister their 
vehicle.  All Member States reported having set up national deregistration systems in which 
the issuing of a CoD is a condition of deregistration.  Processes for deregistration are key to 
ensuring ELVs are transferred to authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) and limiting illegal 
export of waste vehicles. Just under half of Member States have made use of a provision 
allowing producers, dealers and collectors to issue CoDs, in addition to the ATFs. While all 
Member States may have deregistration systems in place, there has been an increase in ELVs 

4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/events_en.htm 
5 OJ L 94, 13.4.2005, p. 30–33 
6 The Commission is currently preparing the 9th and 10th amendment to Annex II 

2 

 
 
                                                           
of unknown whereabouts over recent years (i.e. vehicles which are deregistered but have not 
been issued with a CoD, or for which the CoD is not available to the authorities). This 
indicates that the national deregistration systems are not operating as effectively as they could 
be. 

The ELV Directive has provisions to ensure that ELVs are properly and timely treated in 
treatment facilities that have obtained a permit by the competent authorities.  These facilities 
are also subject to inspections. These conditions are put in place to reduce any negative 
environmental impacts and promote reuse and recycling of vehicle components. All Member 
States reported having transposed measures pursuant to the Directive’s requirements in this 
regard. Romania and Finland were the only Member States to report minor changes in 
legislation since the last reporting period: Romania has updated the permits required to 
handle and dismantle ELVs, while Finland has introduced a specific Government Decree for 
ELVs (123/2015) which updates the restrictions of the use of hazardous substances in 
vehicles. The majority of countries do not allow for derogations 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 inspection7, with only Denmark, Italy, Romania and 
the UKs’ responses suggesting that they do so (this is also a change for Romania since the 
previous reporting period). 

Member States are required to encourage reuse and recycling activities, and the ELV 
Directive sets out targets for reuse, recycling and recovery.  By 1 January 2015, Member 
States had to achieve the following targets: with deadlines in 2006 and 2015: 

  95% reuse and recovery (on average per vehicle per year by weight); and 
  85% reuse and recycling (on average per vehicle per year by weight. 

In 2017, 14 Member States met both targets of 85% and 95% for recycling and recovery. 
Achievement of targets is discussed in more detail in Section 3. 

A few Member States reported innovative measures for the encouragement of reuse and 
recycling. Italy requires Regional Authorities to adopt measures that ensure public bodies 
(and companies that are predominantly publically owned) to source at least 30% of their 
annually required goods/products from recycled materials. The Italian legislation also 
requires replacement tyre purchases for public vehicles fleets to comprise of at least 20% re-
treaded tyres. France meanwhile requires the traceability of dissembled parts for their reuse. 
In Slovenia, before shredding dismantled vehicles, managers of dismantling facilities are 
required to strip 10% of the total annual weight of accepted ELVs of their components, 
materials and fluids and send them for reuse or recycling. 

7 Derogation from the permit requirements according to Article 6(2) of the ELV Directive 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
Under the ELV Directive, coding standards require producers to mark (or ‘code’) component 
and materials, in order to facilitate the identification of those components and materials, 
which are suitable for reuse and recovery.  

Almost all Member States report having fully transposed legislation requiring producers to 
use coding standards. The exceptions are Denmark, where the legislation does not 
specifically mention coding standards, and Greece, which replied that they do not have any 
vehicle manufacturers; the Czech Republic referenced legislation that was not available to be 
checked by the Commission.  

Producers must also supply dismantling information for each vehicle type within six months 
of it being placed on the market, such as through manuals or via databases. By far the most 
popular way of having producers provide the required information on dismantling, storage 
and testing is via the International Dismantling Information System (IDIS – the International 
Dismantling Information System).8 20 Member States reported making use of IDIS and some 
Member States report using also other national measures.  

All Member States have transposed legislation ensuring that producers provide dismantling 
information for each type of new vehicle put on the market within six months after the 
vehicle is put on the market.   

3. 

INFORMATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELV DIRECTIVE 

The national implementation reports also provide information on how a number of the ELV 
Directive’s provisions have been implemented by Member States. 

Notable examples of where waste prevention measures have been introduced include Ireland, 
which requires producers to promote waste prevention through a range of measures applying 
to certain specified vehicles. These include: restricting the use of hazardous substances, 
taking into account dismantling, reuse, recovery and recycling at end-of-life when designing 
new vehicles, and increasing the proportion of recycled material used in the production of 
specified vehicles.   

In Romania, preliminary assessments are undertaken to ensure that vehicles meet certain 
targets, and vehicle producers have developed a new activation standard via a standardised 
on-board diagnostics (OBD) interface. 

The number of Member States able to provide detailed information on the quantity of 
recycled materials used in vehicle manufacture was limited. Points of interest include 
Poland’s statement that while recycled plastics are used, recovered plastics require a specific 
cleaning process before they can be used in vehicle production. In addition, Romania 
commented that the most frequently used recycled plastic material for vehicle parts is 

8 IDIS | The International Dismantling Information System, accessed 19 March 2019, https://www.idis2.com/ 

4 

 
 
                                                           
propylene, and that recycled plastic accounts for more than 10% of the total mass of plastic 
used in vehicles manufactured within its borders. 

Most Member States have seen an increase in the number of Authorised Treatment Facilities 
(ATFs) operating within their borders. Although three countries did not provide data on 
numbers of ATFs for 2015–2017 (Belgium, Hungary and Latvia), assuming that the numbers 
in those countries have stayed the same as previously reported, then the total number of ATFs 
in the EU28 has increased from 12,589 in 2012–2014 to 14,173 in 2015–2017.  

18 Member States reported that within their borders there are treatment establishments with a 
certified environmental management system (EMS). Throughout the EU28, the proportion of 
treatment establishments with an EMS has increased from 1.9% in 2012–2014 to 3.73% in 
2015–2017. Belgium is an example of good practice, as in Flanders and Wallonia all 
approved centres for depollution, dismantling and destruction of ELVs have an 
environmental care system, due to legislation which stipulates that such centres must submit 
an annual report to the authorities giving the results of an examination of the company’s 
activities by an independent inspection institution, and a negative evaluation can lead to 
approval being withdrawn. 

Only 10 Member States were able to provide specific information on the number of ELVs 
with no or a negative market value delivered to ATFs while five were able to give a partial 
response. Treating ELVs with negative value is important to reduce the disposal of waste.  
Meanwhile, 13 Member States were not able to answer the question, owing to the fact that no 
such data is recorded.  Of the Member States which did provide definite information, in seven 
cases (Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) this was because there 
were no such vehicles with no or a negative market value; in other words, in all cases in these 
countries ELVs still held a positive market value.  Meanwhile, Greece reported that all ELVs 
delivered to ATFs have no market value – however, it is unclear how the positive value of 
scrap metal is accounted for, even if the ELVs as such do not have a value on the second-
hand vehicle market.  Only Lithuania and Malta reported quantitative figures. 

Data on the achieved reuse/recycling and reuse/recovery rates are shown in Figure 1 and 
Figure 2.  Data has been collected by Eurostat following Member States obligation to report 
on the ELV targets every year within the context of the reporting requirement under the 
Commission Decision on details for monitoring compliance with the Directive.9 

In 2017, 20 Member States had met the minimum reuse and recycling target of 85% by 
average weight per vehicle and year, 2 Member States had not reached the targets although 
they are close and for 6 Member States data was not available. The average reuse and 
recycling rate for the EU28 as a whole was 89%, four percentage points above the target. 

9 

EUROSTAT 

- 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waselvt&lang=en 

Explorer, 

accessed 

Eurostat 

(2019) 

Data 

25  March 

2019, 

5 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: ELV Reuse and Recycling Rates (%)10 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czechia 
Croatia 
Denmark 
Germany  
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Hungary 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 

2012 
88,7 
89,5 
80,3 
97,2 
92,4 
92,3 
80,9 
81,8 
82,8 
83 
82,4 
80,8 
84,7 
97,6 
89,2 
85 
95,8 
84,4 
83,7 
83,4 
90,4 
82,7 
84 
100 
89,9 
82,5 
85 
84,1 
100 
77,2 
75,5 

2013 
88,2 
93,2 
80,3 
100 
86,6 
89,8 
77,7 
80,4 
88,8 
83,6 
85,3 
82,2 
84,3 
92,4 
92,1 
84 
91,9 
90,7 
86 
85 
88,6 
82,9 
83,8 
: 
92,5 
82,5 
84,6 
85,5 
99,6 
78,2 
75,4 

2014 
89,2 
94,1 
80,3 
89,5 
86 
89,5 
87 
82,1 
80,4 
84,3 
85,9 
83,4 
87,7 
92,2 
93,5 
87 
45 
90,3 
86,1 
85,8 
85,5 
83,8 
84,1 
85,9 
94,8 
82,8 
84,4 
86,9 
97,7 
78,7 
82,9 

Figure 2: 2016 ELV Reuse and Recovery Rates (%)11 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czechia 
Croatia 
Denmark 

2012 
93 
91,3 
86,3 
99,9 
92,6 

2013 
93 
94,1 
86,3 
100 
86,7 

2014 
94,2 
95 
86,3 
96,2 
86,1 

10 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/data/database 
11 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/data/database 

6 

2015 
91,3 
94,4 
90,2 
92,8 
91,2 
87,7 
86 
83,3 
64,5 
85 
87,5 
84,6 
89,1 
86,6 
94,6 
87 
77,7 
94,6 
87,7 
86,9 
94,7 
84 
85,1 
: 
88,4 
82,8 
84,6 
87,3 
98,5 
80,5 
85,2 

2015 
96,7 
95,1 
95,7 
99,5 
97,6 

2016 
92,1 
94,6 
90,3 
93,9 
88,8 
89,3 
85,8 
86 
100 
85,4 
86,9 
82,5 
90,3 
94,3 
94,9 
86 
54,4 
95,4 
88,9 
87,2 
94,3 
83,5 
: 
: 
96,1 
82,8 
86,7 
86,4 
96,8 
75,6 
85,2 

2016 
96,4 
95,6 
95,4 
99,5 
97,1 

2017 
93,2 
97,6 
91,9 
99,3 
91,5 
89,5 
85,9 
85,9 
91,9 
85,8 
87,4 
: 
: 
84 
94,8 
94,3 
: 
95,5 
: 
86,6 
95,7 
85,2 
: 
: 
95,7 
82,8 
88,2 
86,5 
: 
75,1 
: 

2017 
97 
98,8 
95,6 
99,7 
99,6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Hungary 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 

106,3 
85,1 
87,8 
90,3 
88,2 
87 
82,3 
86,9 
97,9 
90,1 
95 
96 
86,2 
96,1 
94,2 
92,8 
87,6 
86 
103 
91,2 
95 
90,6 
88,1 
100 
92,7 
93,8 

103,8 
86,4 
91,6 
91,5 
91,5 
89,3 
82,8 
86,6 
92,6 
92,4 
95 
91,9 
91,7 
95,9 
96,7 
90,3 
90,5 
87,4 
: 
93,7 
95 
91,3 
88,9 
99,6 
89 
94,7 

101,4 
88,4 
90,7 
85,5 
93,5 
91,3 
85,1 
90,2 
92,4 
94,4 
95 
45 
95,6 
96 
96,1 
88 
92,7 
88,5 
91,3 
96 
97,3 
91,3 
90,7 
97,7 
90,6 
97,5 

95,8 
87 
91,8 
68,9 
95 
94,3 
84,7 
90,7 
87 
95 
97 
77,7 
95,2 
97 
96,9 
97 
92,7 
90,8 
: 
89,4 
97,3 
96,8 
96,9 
98,5 
90,8 
96,7 

98 
89,8 
92,8 
108 
93,4 
94,8 
82,6 
93,2 
94,5 
95,4 
96 
54,5 
95,8 
98,7 
96,9 
96,3 
92,1 
: 
: 
97,4 
97,3 
94,6 
92,2 
96,8 
85,6 
97,7 

98,4 
89,9 
94,6 
99,5 
94 
94,6 
: 
: 
84,1 
95,1 
96,2 
: 
96,9 
: 
97,9 
98,6 
93,8 
: 
: 
97,5 
97,3 
97,2 
94,1 
: 
84,7 
: 

As of 2017, 15 Member States had met the minimum reuse and recovery target of 95% by an 
average weight per vehicle and year, 7 Member States that have not yet reached the 95% 
target but are very close and 6 Member states have not yet reported.  The average reuse and 
recovery rate for the EU28 as a whole was 94%, just below the target. 

A significant number of Member States with established ELV management infrastructure and 
processes appear to be missing their recovery targets but this fact can possibly be indicative 
of a greater focus on recycling rather than other forms of recovery (e.g. France, Spain, 
Sweden and the UK meet their recycling targets but not recovery targets) in line with the 
concept of the circular economy. It could also be indicative of more robust, improved 
reporting methods which contributes to a better implementation of the Directive.  The 
Member States that have missed the targets have explained the reasons and the measures put 
in place to reach the targets.   

The high rates reported by Greece can be attributed to the fact that dismantling facilities 
chose to store for an extended time some ELVs that had not yet had fluids removed, most 
likely due to the low market values of metals, which were then shredded subsequent to the 
year of their decontamination.  This resulted in a high number of ELVs treated in a year. 

7 

 
 
 
New measures to encourage reuse and recycling that have been introduced include measures 
around ELV component reuse in Hungary, awareness raising and communications activities 
in Portugal, and financial assistance for new research and development projects around ELV 
waste prevention, recycling and component reuse in Spain, with priority given to projects 
focussing on the recycling of automobile plastics, windshield glass and tyres. 

4  

UNKNOWN WHEREABOUTS AND ILLEGAL DISMANTLING OF ELVS 

The most challenging implementation and enforcement deficit of the ELV Directive remains 
the high number of “ELVs of unknown whereabouts”.  This has already been pointed out in 
the previous Commission’s report on the implementation of the ELV Directive for 2011 to 
201412 and in the Commission’s ex-post evaluation of five waste directives13.  To assess the 
problem, the Commission conducted a “Compliance Promotion Initiative to assess the 
implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles (the ELV Directive) with 
emphasis on the end-of life vehicles of unknown whereabouts”14.   

Member States are asked by Eurostat to provide details on numbers of vehicles collected and 
transferred to ATFs.  These figures are compiled in table 1 below. 

Table 1: Total number of end-of-life vehicles, 
collected and transferred to ATFs,  2008–201615 
(number of vehicles) 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

European 
Union  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 

6.301.000  9.039.000 
140.993 
55.330 

141.521 
38.600 

7.383.000  6.789.000  6.286.000  6.234.000 
134.506 
61.673 

165.016 
62.937 

160.615 
57.532 

170.562 
69.287 

6.150.000 
126.835 
80.862 

5.964.000 
107.425 
85.946 

5.920.000 
106.458 
92.706 

Czechia 

147.259 

155.425 

145.447 

132.452 

125.587 

121.838 

131.987 

139.440 

145.928 

Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
  Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 

101.042 
96.830 
417.534  1.778.593 
7.528 
152.455 
115.670 
952.367 
1.109.876  1.570.593 

13.843 
127.612 
55.201 
748.071 

: 

: 

1.203.184  1.610.137 
17.303 
10.590 
19.656 
6.908 
26.020 
: 
191.980 

14.273 
10.968 
19.534 
2.865 
37.196 
: 
152.175 

: 

100.480 
500.193 
7.268 
158.237 
95.162 
839.637 

93.487 
466.160 
11.413 
134.960 
112.454 
671.927 

106.504 
476.601 
12.835 
102.073 
84.456 
687.824 

125.650 
500.322 
14.712 
92.467 
86.205 
734.776 
1.583.283  1.515.432  1.209.477  1.115.280 
32.135 
876.052 
13.212 
9.003 
26.482 
2.290 
14.897 
1.198 
183.451 

1.246.546 
13.219 
10.640 
23.351 
6.303 
15.907 
330 
232.448 

35.213 
902.611 
17.547 
10.228 
22.885 
2.834 
15.357 
2.530 
187.143 

: 
952.461 
17.145 
9.387 
26.619 
2.341 
13.043 
2.526 
195.052 

104.413 
512.163 
14.720 
86.950 
82.863 
724.820 
1.084.766 
19.388 
853.584 
11.160 
9.268 
29.982 
2.225 
15.283 
2.646 
188.487 

98.929 
473.386 
12.884 
74.910 
87.050 
689.760 
1.016.326 
16.900 
958.245 
8.293 
8.924 
26.546 
1.617 
16.788 
4.509 
167.777 

89.039 
412.801 
11.184 

98.213 

46.573 
611.446 
1.046.083 
20.386 
978.960 
5.151 
8.049 
21.306 
1.854 
15.141 
: 

197.488 

12 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/implementation_en.htm 
13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm 
14 Compliance Promotion Initiative to assess the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles 
(the ELV Directive) with emphasis on the end-of life vehicles of unknown whereabouts 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/events_en.htm) 
15 Source: Eurostat (online data code: env_waselvt)  

8 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 
Iceland 

 Liechtenstein 

Norway 

63.975 
189.871 
107.746 
51.577 
6.780 
39.769 
103.000 
150.197 

87.364 
210.218 
107.946 
55.875 
7.043 
67.795 
96.270 
133.589 

82.144 
259.576 
107.419 
190.790 
6.807 
35.174 
119.000 
170.658 

80.004 
295.152 
77.929 
128.839 
6.598 
39.171 
136.000 
184.105 

64.809 
344.809 
92.008 
57.950 
5.447 
33.469 
119.000 
185.616 

73.993 
402.416 
92.112 
37.989 
: 
36.858 
99.300 
189.748 

59.904 
454.737 
86.713 
42.138 
6.260 
29.175 
94.540 
186.967 

1.210.294  1.327.517  1.157.438  1.220.873 
4.075 
94 
124.563 

4.195 
107 
112.537 

9.386 
91 
130.018 

5.109 
72 
95.000 

1.163.123  1.149.459  1.106.846 
5.245 
188 
139.920 

4.463 
326 
141.452 

5.824 
114 
119.905 

47.926 
478.202 
84.158 
41.886 
: 
26.176 
99.630 
188.810 

995.527 
6.063 
230 
145.098 

48.077 
380.529 
88.559 
: 
: 
36.931 
114.460 
186.875 

1.103.050 
6.527 
260 
142.280 

The data in the table refer to reported ELVs that have received a CoD and are being treated in 
ATFs.  In the Guidelines addressed to the Member States, Eurostat is also asking Member 
States to report on the total number of ELVs arising instead of only on those for which a CoD 
has been issued.  However, very few Member States submit such data as ELV arising is not 
mandatory reporting under the ELV Directive and the Commission Decision 2005/293/EC on 
the monitoring of the reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling targets of the ELV Directive.  
Therefore, data from other sources16 had to be used to estimate the ELV arising. A 
comparison of the data on ELVs that have received a CoD and are being treated by ATFs 
with data on ELV arising shows discrepancies.  The graphic below from the recent 
Commission’s study shows the number of ELVs17 legally reported (i.e. those that received a 
CoD and legally treated) and the high number of the ELVs of unknown whereabouts in 2014 
in the EU.  The graphic is taking into account the vehicle entries to the national registration 
systems and exits of the EU-28 vehicle stock.   The number of the ELVs of unknown 
whereabouts remains a great concern. 

16 Eurostat, Foreign Trade Statistics (FTS); European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA); 
Eurostat, dataset: road_eqs; road_eqr); POLK.  These sources were used in the Commission’s Compliance 
Promotion Initiative to assess the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles (the ELV 
Directive) with emphasis on the end-of life vehicles of unknown whereabouts 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/events_en.htm) 
17 The ELV Directive’s scope are vehicles M1 (for the carriage of passengers with no more than eight seats in 
addition to the driver’s seat) and N1 (vehicles for the carriage of goods having a maximum mass not exceeding 
3.5 tonnes) 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
For an example of how such discrepancies can occur, Finland reported that some citizens and 
operators do not take ELVs to the producers' official take-back system, and thus the total 
amount of ELVs is considerably higher than the actual number of CoDs. Furthermore, 
Finland highlighted that the increase in appropriate treatment of ELVs in 2017 may have 
resulted from the rise of metal prices and improvements to the online deregistration system.  

Germany reported that its relatively low number of ELVs collected and treated, compared 
with its approximately 2.8 million cars permanently deregistered annually, is due to the 
export of used vehicles, and that reports conducted in 2017 reduced the ‘statistical gap’ of 
vehicles of unknown whereabouts.18,19  The closure of these gaps was primarily achieved 
through a recalculation of the actual number of permanently deregistered motor vehicles, and 
by means of qualified estimations regarding the statistical data on used vehicle export (to EU 
and non-EU countries). 

The recent Commission’s study further shows that some of the reasons for the high number 
of the ELVs of unknown whereabouts point to deregistration systems with deficiencies and 
improper handling of ELVs (i.e. not all ELVs are transferred to collection points, and of those 
transferred, not all of them receive a CoD; ELVs that are being dismantled in non-authorized 
facilities).  Moreover, there are ELVs that are illegally exported as second-hand vehicles.   

In addition, there are inadequate links and follow-up between registration and de-registration 
or re-registration systems which may perhaps imply that only a part of deregistered ELVs 
receive a certificate of destruction (CoD) although legally treated;  second-hand vehicles 
registered in another Member State that have never been deregistered from the Member State 
of origin; lack of good quality data, in particular regarding data on export of second-hand 
vehicles and ELVs and leakages of raw materials; need for improvement of the reporting 

18  Sander,  K.,  Wagner,  L.,  Sanden,  D.J.,  and  Wilts,  H.  (2017)  Entwicklung  von  Lösungsvorschlägen, 
einschließlich  rechtlicher  Instrumente,  zur  Verbesserung  der  Datenlage  beim  Verbleib  von  Altfahrzeugen, 
p.333 

19  Kohlmeyer  et  al  (2017)  Clarification  of  the  whereabouts  of  end-of-life  vehicles,  Recycling  and  Raw 

Materials, Vol.10 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
methods from the Member States; illegal collection and dismantling of ELVs in unauthorized 
treatment facilities without environmental standards; and, therefore, need for better 
enforcement, including inspections of the collection points and the ATFs. 

There are Member States that have already taken measures to address the problem such as 
Denmark that has introduced a premium to the last registered owner that delivers its ELV to 
an authorised treatment facility (ATF) or France and the United Kingdom that have reported  
significant rise on the number of inspections to ATFs.   

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The ELV Directive has been transposed into the national legislation of all Member States and 
is considered satisfactory. 

Overall, the implementation of the ELV Directive appears to be mainly appropriate. In 2017, 
the 2015 target of 85% reuse and recycling by an average weight per vehicle and year had 
been met by 20 out of 28 Member States (5 Member States failed to report). There were more 
challenges with achieving the reuse and recovery target of 95% by an average weight per 
vehicle and year.  However, around half of those Member States failing to meet the targets 
only missed them with a few percentage points of meeting them.  

The use of the banned hazardous substances is continuously diminishing as they show the 
amendments to the Annex II of the ELV Directive20 with the constantly reduced entries 
allowing their use.  Furthermore, the number of authorised treatment facilities has increased, 
and Member States are beginning to report innovative measures such as incorporating 
recycled content, supporting waste prevention projects and introducing environmental care 
systems, all of which can be looked at by other countries as examples of best practice. 

One notable exception to this generally positive trend is the issue of ELVs of unknown 
whereabouts. Illegal collection, treatment and trading of parts removed from ELVs remain a 
challenge.  Besides the loss of valuable resources (recoverable components and materials), 
this problem and the treatment of ELVS in non-authorised treatment facilities also has a 
negative impact on health and the environment.  This is reflected in preamble 7 of Directive 
2018/849/EU21 that indicates that Directive 2000/53/EC should be reviewed and, if necessary 
amended, taking into account of the “problem of ELVs that are not accounted for, including 
the shipment of used vehicles suspected to be ELVs and the application of Correspondents’ 
Guidelines No 9 on shipment of waste vehicles”. 

The European Commission is currently carrying out an evaluation of the ELV Directive 
aiming to assess to what extent EU legislation rules on ELVs deliver the benefits for the 

20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/legislation_en.htm 
21 OJ 150, 14.6.2018, p. 93 

11 

 
 
                                                           
environment, the public and industry.  The evaluation will be finalised in 202022.  Topics 
being explored include efficiency of the implementation of the Directive, including the 
problem of ELVs of unknown whereabouts, coherence with the definitions of other 
legislation relevance and feasibility of setting targets for specific materials, reporting and 
monitoring methods and relevance with regard to the challenges of the new technologies, 
including electric and hybrid vehicles, and changes in the material composition of vehicles.   

22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/evaluation_en.htm 

12