COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on type-approval of motor vehicles and of engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009
Date: 2022-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: approval, electricity storage device, energy consumption, engine, market supervision, motor fuel, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, product life, technical standard, vehicle parts

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.11.2022  SWD(2022) 358 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on type-approval of motor vehicles and of engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009                            {COM(2022) 586 final} - {SEC(2022) 397 final} - {SWD(2022) 359 final} - {SWD(2022) 360 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The  legal  basis  for  this  propoposal  is  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union  (TFEU).  According  to  this  Article,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  shall  adopt 
measures  which  have  as  their  object  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market. 
Furthermore, the Euro emission standards have the objective to ensure  a high level environmental 
and health protection. 

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of Internal Market policy, the Union’s competence is shared. Article 114(4) of the TFEU 
indicates  that  a  Member  State  shall  notify  the  Commission  if  it  deems  it  necessary  to  maintain 
national  provisions  after  the  adoption  of  a  European  harmonisation  measure  on  grounds  of  major 
needs1 or relating to the to the protection of the environment or the working environment. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 22: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

In order to collect evidence and ensure transparency, the Commission sought feedback from relevant 
stakeholder groups – Member States and national authorities, automotive industry (including vehicle 
manufacturers,  component  suppliers  and  other  industry  stakeholders),  civil  society  (including 
consumer  organisations  and  environmental  NGOs)  and  citizens  –  through  multiple  consultation 
activities: 

  The  initiative  was  discussed  for  the  first  time  with  stakeholders  during  a  stakeholder 
conference  in  October  2018.  Subsequently,  the  Advisory  Group  on  Vehicle  Emission 
Standards (AGVES) was set up by merging relevant expert groups from industry, civil society 
and Member States, with ten meetings and one ad-hoc workshop on simplification from July 
2019 to April 2021.  

  The Inception Impact Assessment was launched on 27 March to 3 June 2020. The  18-week 
Public Consultation on the proposal followed on 6 July 2020 and was open for contributions 
until 9 November 2020.  

  Two 14-week targeted consultations – one for the Evaluation of Euro 6/VI (4 March to 8 June 
2020) and one for the Impact Assessment of Euro 7 (3 August to 9 November 2020)  – were 
performed focussing more on the detailed and technical aspects of to the initiative.  

The explanatory memorandum of the proposal and the impact assessment under chapter 3 contain 
sections on the principle of subsidiarity confirming that  continued harmonised EU action to further 
reduce vehicle pollutants emission is fully justified (see 2.2). 

1 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012. Article 36. 
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
                                                           
2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

Both the explanatory memorandum and the accompanying impact assessment specify that the Euro 
emission  standards  concerning  the  emission  type-approval  of  motor  vehicles  contributes  to  the 
implementation  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  goods.  This  Euro  7  proposal  aims  at 
rendering the implementation of this legislation more effective as part of the overall policy objective 
to deepen the internal market strategy. 

The second reason is the transnational nature of air pollution and  road transport. Even though the 
effects of the main toxic air pollutants are most severe close to the source, the effects on air quality 
are not limited to the local level and cross-border pollution is a serious environmental problem that 
often frustrates national solutions. Atmospheric modelling shows that the pollution emitted in one 
Member State contributes to pollution in other Member States. In order to solve the problem of air 
pollution, concerted action at the EU scale is required. 

The development and governance of Euro emission standards at EU level is key to ensure  properly 
functioning internal market. Differences in air quality policy ambitions among Member States could 
easily lead to a patchwork of different national measures that would create considerable obstacles 
for industry and pose  great  risk to the  internal market. Hence,  continued harmonised EU action to 
further reduce vehicle pollutants emission is fully justified. 

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

Due  to  the  transnational  nature  of  air  pollution  and  road  transport,  the objective  of  the  proposed 
action of further reducing pollutants emission from road transport towards zero-pollution as rapidly 
as possible cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting alone without putting at risk 
the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  Since  also  the  need  to  further  reduce  pollutants 
emissions  from  road  transport  is  widespread  across  the  EU,  continued  harmonised  EU  action  to 
further reduce vehicle pollutants emission is necessary. 

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

Both  air  pollution  and  road  transport  have  a  transnational  nature.  Even  though  the  effects  of  the 
main toxic air pollutants are most severe close to the source, the effects on air quality are not limited 
to the local level and cross-border pollution is a serious environmental problem that often frustrates 
national  solutions.  Atmospheric  modelling  shows  that  the  pollution  emitted  in  one  Member  State 
contributes to pollution in other Member States. In addition, neither freight transport nor passenger 
transport stops at the national borders of the Member States. 

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty3 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

National action is likely to conflict with the core objectives of Article 114 of the TFEU. 

The  development  and  governance  of  vehicle  emission  standards  at  EU  level  is  key  to  ensure  the 
proper functioning of the internal market. Differences in air quality policy ambitions among Member 
States  could easily  lead  to  a  patchwork  of  different national measures  that  could  result  in  internal 

3 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

2 

 
 
                                                           
market fragmentation, with a risk of tailoring national legislation to suit local industry and increased 
compliance  costs  (passed  on  to  consumers)  for  both  component  suppliers  and  vehicle 
manufacturers.  

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Member States have the ability and possibility to address pollutant emissions from vehicles, notably 
through  financial  incentives  or  measures  limiting  access  to  certain  areas,  and  this  may  create 
synergies with the Euro 7 emission standards. However, those measures would not be sufficient to 
tackle the magnitude of the problem of air pollutants related to road transport, taking into account 
the need to drive change at EU-wide level and to create economies of scale. Uncoordinated action at 
national  or  local  level  in  the  absence  of  action  at  EU  level  could  put  at  risk  the  free  movement of 
persons and goods in the internal market. The objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved 
sufficiently by the Member States acting alone. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

Air  pollution  from  road  transport  is  in  particular  a  problem  at  local  and  regional  level  in  Europe’s 
urban  areas  and  differs  in  magnitude  between  cities.  While  in  cities  like  Athens,  Milan  and 
Luxembourg more than 70% of NOx emissions are a direct consequence of road transport, this share 
is  only  around  20%  in  cities  like  Lisbon,  Budapest  and  Warsaw.  However,  atmospheric  modelling 
shows that the pollution emitted in one Member State also contributes to pollution in other Member 
States.  In  conclusion,  the  problem  and  its  causes  are  present  across  local,  regional,  national  and 
transnational levels throughout the EU.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

While the magnitude  of  the  problem  differs  between  cities  and  Member  States,  even  low  level  air 
pollution  was  recently  shown  to  be  associated  with  increased  mortality  due  to  cardiovascular, 
respiratory  and  lung  cancer.  Hence,  the  need  to  further  reduce  pollutants  emissions  from  road 
transport is widespread across the EU. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

No, the  planned measure is  intended  to  support  the  EU’s  Zero Pollution  Action  Plan,  and  the  Euro 
emission  standards  notably  support  Member  States  in  meeting  their  commitments  under  the 
National Emission Ceilings Directive. 

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

The policy instrument of setting Euro emission standards for new vehicles is recognized by national, 
regional and local authorities as a key tool for reducing pollutants emission from road transport. 

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

By  continuing  harmonised  EU  action  by  adopting  Euro  7  emission  standards  for  vehicles,  the 
automotive industry can benefit from the full potential of the internal market to create economies of 

3 

 
 
scale.  In  addition,  EU  intervention  is  required  to  achieve  the  desired  result  of  further  reducing 
pollutants  emission  from  road  transport  towards  zero-pollution,  as  required  by  the  Zero  Pollution 
Action Plan, as rapidly as possible.  

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

Yes, the evaluation of the Euro 6/VI emission standards as well as the impact assessment of the Euro 
7 emission standards have shown clear benefits of EU action to ensure a high level of environmental 
and health protection by reducing pollutants emission from road transport in the EU. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

Yes, the measure specifically aims at ensuring the functioning of the internal market by preventing 
market fragmentation. By continuing harmonised EU action, economies of scale can be achieved for 
the  automotive  industry.  If  Member  States  were  expected  to  act  to  reduce  pollutant  emissions,  a 
fragmented approach would be realised, resulting in less effective intervention at significantly higher 
costs for automotive industry. It continues to be more effective to tackle vehicle pollutants emission 
at EU level considering that more can be achieved there than at the national level.  

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

The  proposal  is  not  replacing  national  policies,  since  it  is  the  continuation  of  harmonised  Euro 
emission standards for vehicles since 1992. The continuation of Euro emission standards is beneficial, 
as it provides considerable added value and benefits through higher effectiveness and efficiency at 
EU level.  

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

Both  air  pollution  and  road  transport  have  a  transnational  nature.  While  local  action  can  be 
beneficial, action at a larger scale is necessary to further reducing cost-effectively pollutants emission 
from  road  transport  towards  zero-pollution  as  rapidly  as  possible.  The  EU,  as  a  supranational 
organisation is well-placed to establish effective emission standards for the internal market. EU-level 
action  in  the  form  of  Euro  7  emission  standards  for  vehicles  will  also  support  Member  States  in 
meeting their commitments under the National Emission Ceilings Directive. 

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

The  proposal  provides  legal  clarity  for  the  automotive  industry  for  moving  towards  zero-pollution 
mobility. 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

4 

 
 
Yes, the proposal is proportionate as it provides for the necessary legal change and at the same time 
does not go beyond what it necessary to achieve the objectives of reduction of pollutant emissions 
from motor vehicles on the one hand and ensuring legal certainty for vehicle manufacturers on the 
other. It provides for the necessary legal conditions to uphold, to the extent possible, a level playing 
field among vehicle manufacturers. 

This proposal replaces the Euro 6/VI emission standards for cars, vans, lorries and buses to further 
reduce  air pollutants emission from road transport towards zero-pollution  as part of the European 
Green Deal. 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The  proposed  action  builds  on  an  existing  and  well-functioning  policy  that  has  demonstrated  its 
ability to ensure the proper functioning of the single market by setting adequate, cost-effective and 
future-proof rules for vehicle  emissions and a high level of environmental and health protection in 
the EU by reducing air pollutants emission from road transport. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes,  the  initiative  is  limited  to  the  objective  of  further  reducing  air  pollutants  emission  from  road 
transport  towards  zero-pollution  as  rapidly  as  possible  that  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the 
Member States acting alone without putting at risk the proper functioning of the internal market.  

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

The use of a Regulation is considered to be appropriate in that it provides the required assurance for 
direct  and  harmonised  application  and  enforcement  throughout  the  EU  of  automotive 
manufacturers’ obligation to meet  the  Euro 7 emission standards  while  not  requiring transposition 
into Member States’ legislation. 

This proposal is also a recast of two existing Regulations. The recast technique allows in this case the 
merger  of  the  two  largely  similar  earlier  Regulations  into  a  single  legislative  text  which  makes  the 
desired amendments, codifies those amendments with the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts, 
and repeals those acts. 

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument og approach?) 

Yes.  Member  States  may  notify  technical  prescriptions  imposed  by  national,  regional  or  local 
authorities under the notification procedure of Directive 2015/15354. 

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

4 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical 
regulations and of rules on Information Society services; see also 2015/1535 notification procedure 

5 

 
 
                                                           
governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

Euro  7  emission  standards  for  vehicles  are  expected  to  increase  regulatory  costs  for  vehicle 
manufacturers in terms of  equipment  costs for emission control technologies and the related R&D 
and calibration costs including facilities and tooling cost. At the same time, simplification measures 
will lead to regulatory costs savings comprising compliance costs savings during testing, witnessing of 
tests by type-approval authorities and type-approval fees as well as administrative costs savings for 
reporting and other information obligation as part of the type-approval procedures. 

The total regulatory costs endured by the manufacturers are expected to be passed on to consumers, 
resulting in vehicle price increases that are expected to have low negative impact on affordability for 
consumers and SMEs. 

Since monetary health and environmental benefits resulting from reductions in pollutants emission 
from vehicles outweigh the total regulatory costs, these costs commensurate with the environmental 
and health objectives to be achieved. 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

The Euro 7 emission standards for cars, vans, lorries and buses set requirements to be complied with 
by the automotive industry operating across the Union. 

6