Procedure : 2016/2747(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : B8-0738/2016

Texts tabled :

B8-0738/2016

Debates :

Votes :

PV 08/06/2016 - 12.18
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2016)0270

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
PDF 224kWORD 71k
See also joint motion for a resolution RC-B8-0733/2016
1.6.2016
PE596.904v01-00
 
B8-0738/2016

to wind up the debate on the statement by the Commission

pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure


on endocrine disruptors: state of play following the Court of Justice judgment of 16 December 2015 (2016/2747(RSP))


Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy on behalf of the ALDE Group

European Parliament resolution on endocrine disruptors: state of play following the Court of Justice judgment of 16 December 2015  (2016/2747(RSP))  
B8‑0738/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products(1),

–  having regard to the Commission roadmap for defining criteria for identifying Endocrine Disruptors in the context of the implementation of the Plant Protection Product Regulation and Biocidal Products Regulation(2),

–  having regard to the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2015 in Case T‑521/14 (case brought by Sweden against the Commission, Sweden being supported by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, Denmark, Finland, France and the Netherlands)(3),

–  having regard to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

–  having regard to Articles 265 and 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to the letter of 22 March 2016 addressed by President Jean-Claude Juncker to the President of the European Parliament ((2016)1416502),

–  having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas, according to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the Commission shall, no later than 13 December 2013, adopt delegated acts specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties of active substances and biocidal products;

B.  whereas the Commission has still not adopted the scientific criteria, which are now more than two and a half years overdue;

C.  whereas the General Court of the European Union declared in its judgment of 16 December 2015 in Case T-521/14 that the Commission breached EU law by failing to act to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties;

D.  whereas the Court ruled in its judgement that the Commission had a clear, precise and unconditional obligation to adopt delegated acts in order to establish the aforementioned scientific criteria no later than 13 December 2013;

E.  whereas the Court went on to state that no provision in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 required an impact assessment of scientific hazard-based criteria, and even if the Commission considered that such an impact assessment was necessary, it would not exonerate the Commission from respecting the deadline laid down in the Regulation (paragraph 74 of the judgment);

F.  whereas the Court further ruled that the specification of scientific criteria can only be done in an objective manner on the basis of scientific data related to the endocrine system, independently of any other consideration, in particular economic ones (paragraph 71 of the judgment); whereas the Court thus clarified that a socio-economic impact assessment is inappropriate to decide on a scientific matter;

G.  whereas the Court further ruled that the Commission, in the context of the application of the powers delegated upon it by the legislator, cannot question the regulatory balance laid down by the legislator between improvement of the internal market and the protection of both human and animal health and the environment (paragraph 72 of the judgment); whereas the Court thus clarified that it is inappropriate for the Commission to assess regulatory changes of sectoral legislation as part of the impact assessment related to the adoption of a delegated act;

H.  whereas, pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, the institution whose failure to act has been declared contrary to the Treaties shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

I.  whereas at the European Parliament’s plenary sitting of February 2016, Vytenis Andriukaitis, the Commissioner responsible for Health and Food Safety, announced that the Commission would nevertheless continue to conduct the impact assessment, considering it a ‘useful and even essential tool to guide its future decision on the criteria’;

J.  whereas the Commission is obliged to carry out impact assessments for legislative and non-legislative initiatives which are expected to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts to map out alternative solutions, meaning that impact assessments are valuable tools helping regulators to assess policy options after relevant scientific questions have been clarified;

K.  whereas Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker confirmed in his letter of 22 March 2016 to Parliament President Martin Schulz the intention of the Commission to first seek the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on the impact assessment before deciding on the scientific criteria;

L.  whereas there is therefore no doubt that the Commission has not yet taken action to comply with the judgment of the Court, but rather persists in its breach of EU law as declared by the Court, and is thus now also in breach of Article 266 TFEU;

M.  whereas it is absolutely unacceptable for the Commission, as the Guardian of the Treaties, not to comply with the Treaties;

1.  Agrees with the General Court that it is inappropriate for the Commission to conduct a socio-economic impact assessment for the determination of a scientific matter and that the Commission is not entitled to change the regulatory balance laid down in a basic act via the application of powers delegated to it pursuant to Article 290 TFEU, an issue that the Commission, however, evaluates as part of its impact assessment;

2.  Condemns the Commission not only for the failure to comply with its obligation to adopt delegated acts pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, but also for the failure to comply with its institutional obligations as laid down in the Treaties themselves, notably in Article 266 TFEU;

3.  Calls on the Commission to comply immediately with its obligations under Article 266 TFEU and to adopt immediately hazard-based scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties;

4.  Supports the Commission’s use of impact assessments for its initiatives at the correct stage of the regulatory process to improve decision- and law-making procedures by assessing policy options and their consequences after scientific questions have been resolved;

5.  Considers this Resolution as a formal notice to the Commission to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU;

6.  Reserves its right pursuant to Article 265 TFEU to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have the infringement of Article 266 TFEU established, should the Commission not define its position within the next two months;

7.  Instructs its President to forward this motion for a resolution to the President of the Council and the President of the Commission, and to notify them of the result of the vote on it in plenary.

(1)

OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.

(2)

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2014_env_009_endocrine_disruptors_en.pdf

(3)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d51da24ab07e534c8a920ba78762970884.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuTa3r0?text=&docid=173067&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=717530

Legal notice