Pilns teksts 
Procedūra : 2016/0014(COD)
Dokumenta lietošanas cikls sēdē
Dokumenta lietošanas cikls : A8-0048/2017

Iesniegtie teksti :


Debates :

PV 04/04/2017 - 5
CRE 04/04/2017 - 5
PV 18/04/2018 - 21
CRE 18/04/2018 - 21

Balsojumi :

PV 04/04/2017 - 7.2
CRE 04/04/2017 - 7.2
Balsojumu skaidrojumi
PV 19/04/2018 - 10.6
Balsojumu skaidrojumi

Pieņemtie teksti :


Otrdiena, 2017. gada 4. aprīlis - Strasbūra Pārskatītā redakcija

5. Mehānisko transportlīdzekļu un to piekabju, kā arī tādiem transportlīdzekļiem paredzētu sistēmu, sastāvdaļu un atsevišķu tehnisku vienību apstiprināšana un tirgus uzraudzība (debates)
Visu runu video

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Daniel Dalton im Namen des Ausschusses für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Genehmigung und die Marktüberwachung von Kraftfahrzeugen und Kraftfahrzeuganhängern sowie von Systemen, Bauteilen und selbständigen technischen Einheiten für diese Fahrzeuge (COM(2016)0031 - C8-0015/2016 - 2016/0014(COD)) (A8-0048/2017).


  Daniel Dalton, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, as is customary. We got to know each other very well during the many hours of discussions we had on this report. We had some disagreements, as is expected on a file of this importance, but I believe that we have come to a very good compromise in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection in the end.

Let us be clear: the Volkswagen scandal – and it was not just Volkswagen, but we have called it the Volkswagen scandal – was the tip of the iceberg. Consumers have been treated with contempt for a long, long time. They long ago gave up any trust in the fuel consumption claims that are made by manufacturers, and now they know that the emissions claims are wrong as well. This was a scandal that was waiting to happen.

But what we have here in front of us now is a fundamental change from the current system and a very good compromise. It is far from the status quo. Firstly, we have new tests. The RDE testing means cars that will be tested on the roads, not just in the labs. That is a fundamental change from the system that existed before. Secondly, we have a new market-surveillance system. Member States have an obligation under this proposal to test 20% of types every year. They have to have their plans approved by the Commission, and the Commission is also empowered to do whatever tests it wants to do in addition. Thirdly, we have a new forum, which the Commission will direct and with independent peer review. So the Commission will get all the information it needs from Member States, stakeholders, NGOs and civil society in order to know the problems much, much earlier and have the tools to deal with them.

Every Member State has to apply the same rules. There are fewer opportunities now for forum shopping and independent auditors will check on a periodic basis that rules are applied fairly and clearly. Fees cannot be paid directly by manufacturers to testing centres, which deals with the concerns that many had about manufacturers’ influence. And we have a proposal on consumer redress. The fines will go into a fund that will help consumers and the environment.

This is a big, broad and ambitious package which got huge support in the Internal Market Committee. No one change in the system will prevent fraud, but together all these changes will guard against, firstly, cars incorrectly being put on the market, and, secondly, cars being on the market for a long time before a fault is found. We cannot stop all non-compliant products getting on the market. If someone wants to cheat the system, they are going to try and cheat the system, but we need to make sure that we have a system that is as strong as possible to catch them when they do it.

I would also remind everyone that type-approval is not just about emissions. It is primarily about safety standards for cars on our roads. I also want to touch on the agency because we have had a big debate about the agency, which is still raging today. I am not against an agency if it can be proven that there is a benefit from the agency, but so far I have not seen a benefit. I have yet to see a consumer who wants an agency that is remote from the market and hidden from the consumer.

The justification also seems to be weak. Agencies are just as susceptible to political pressure as the Commission or Member States, and this gives an excuse for national Member States not to act when they should be acting. It has not been costed, there is no detailed impact assessment and there is no idea how it is going to manage the market surveillance system. Let us be clear: this will cost a lot of money and we need to be right, sure and confident that it is going to do the job before we propose it.

I also have a bit of concern with one of the amendments from the Greens: Amendment 343, on what I would call a ‘victim’s levy’. This will effectively be a fine on people who want to buy new cars.

This is a little bit like you getting mugged, the police coming to you and saying ‘we’re terribly sorry we didn’t stop you getting mugged, but we’ll take a bit more money out your pocket to try and stop it happening again’. This is not the right way to deal with the issue. It is not the right way to fund an agency or any of these measures. So I do not think we should be going down that line.

As I said before, we have got a good agreement in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection that was supported by most Members. It is robust, good for consumers, good for the environment and fair for industry. I do not think we should confuse that issue with an agency. But now I am looking forward to hearing all your remarks. I know that there are going to be plenty of remarks, and I am looking forward to a very good debate.


  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Commission and on behalf of my colleague Commissioner Bieńkowska, who, as she said, had to leave us, I welcome today’s debate on the type approval proposal. I thank Mr Dalton, as the rapporteur on this file, and also his shadow rapporteurs. We welcome the opportunity it gives us to reiterate the importance that we attach to this proposal. It is the most important measure to restore confidence in our system and the credibility of the industry.

It is very timely to hold this debate just after the debate on the report and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector (EMIS). If there is a clear lesson to learn from the car industry’s emission manipulations it is that our system was not fit for purpose. Yes, we knew that emissions were higher on the road than in the laboratories, so already way back in 2012 we started a review of the EU type approval framework for motor vehicles, but the events of September 2015 really opened our eyes. The Volkswagen case showed that there is a massive problem and further revelations have underlined that. They have shown that this is not only about Volkswagen. There has been a systematic failure of the type approval system right across Europe – a system that could not prevent one of the biggest ever industrial scandals in Europe.

So maintaining the status quo is not even an option; we need real change, we need a 180° shift to our regulatory system. We have to show that Europe can make a difference to people’s lives. Air quality in many of our cities is unacceptably poor and it causes premature deaths, and citizens have been cheated. It is time for citizens to see that we are all pulling in the same direction and that we are all putting their interests, their health and their environmental concerns first.

So the Commission very much welcomes the good progress made by Parliament. We commend the hard work of the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs. This was a huge effort and we know it has not been an easy process. You are sending a strong and a clear message to our citizens and to our industry. Type approval must put safety, environmental protection and the well-being of citizens first. When they buy a car, consumers must be able to trust the promises on emission limits, fuel consumption, safety rules and so on.

This is the aim of our proposal and we are very pleased that the Internal Market Committee report supports the main pillars of our proposal, namely reinforcing the independence and quality of the car testing system, introducing a system to control cars on the road, and reinforcing the type approval system with greater European oversight. These pillars are fundamental to ensure that industry will comply with the rules, and that there will be high quality, high transparency and a level playing field between manufacturers.

It is not only manufacturers who need to change. Everyone involved will have to follow the rules strictly and to apply the requirements in a harmonised manner, whether they be importers, testing bodies and laboratories, or type approval and market surveillance authorities. No exceptions, no gaps.

You push us for even stronger actions, for instance mandatory targets for national market surveillance or reinforcing the Commission’s powers. These proposals go in the right direction and we are ready to consider them constructively. I believe that we should concentrate our efforts on these main pillars, so that we can make swift and effective progress. Other issues such as the provision of repair and maintenance information can be better addressed through parallel strands of work.

Let me tackle now the main open issue, which is the creation of an EU agency for vehicle market surveillance. I know that you discussed this at length and that you will continue discussing this today. In fact we already assessed the possibility of creating an EU agency as part of our type approval proposal. We discarded the idea at the time, mainly in the interest of speed, efficiency and budgetary resource implications.

In the meantime, we have seen how difficult it is to ensure proper enforcement in a system of 28 different national authorities. So far, only a handful of them have taken action against emissions cheating and only one Member State seems truly decisive, so effectively the remaining Member States are making the case for an agency by not acting. You will have noticed that the White Paper on the Future of Europe refers to a possible enforcement agency. Let us take the discussion further in that context. We are eager to listen to your opinions and concrete proposals today.

Mr President, honourable Members, whichever option we finally choose we need to make certain that it delivers a real 180° change. We have a duty to our citizens. They have been badly let down and they need to see that there has been real change. This is not just important for their health and their safety, it is also important for the environment and the future of the planet. By the way, it is important also for the future competitiveness of our car industry.


  Karima Delli, rapporteure pour avis TRAN. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, 30 millions de véhicules poubelles sont sur nos routes. Il s’agit de véhicules qui ne respectent pas les normes votées dans cet hémicycle il y a dix ans et qui les dépassent de dix fois, voire de quinze fois pour certains. Autrement dit, lors de ces fameux épisodes de pollution de l’air, c’est la santé de nos citoyens qui est directement touchée.

Certes, ces dépassements de normes ont pour cause directe la fraude des constructeurs pendant les tests d’homologation. Mais c’est aussi à cause d’un système complaisant entre constructeurs et autorités qu’un véhicule ne respecte pas les normes sur la route et, comme par hasard, les respecte lors des tests en laboratoire.

Avec ce rapport, Monsieur Dalton, vous avez l’occasion de mettre de l’ordre dans un système de certification européen défaillant en instaurant des tests plus indépendants et plus transparents et, surtout, en allouant des moyens de surveillance des marchés tout au long de la vie des véhicules.

Pour moi, il ne reste qu’une chose à faire: rassurer nos concitoyens et leur montrer que le Parlement européen peut dire qu’il n’y aura plus jamais de Dieselgate. La solution, elle est simple – la Commission européenne l’a dit, beaucoup d’entre nous le disent aussi depuis ce matin –, il faut créer une agence européenne de surveillance des marchés. Il nous faut un gendarme européen contre la triche. Les citoyens nous attendent au tournant et ils sont à nos côtés.


  Ivan Štefanec, za skupinu PPE – Vážený pán predsedajúci, dámy a páni, dovoľte mi najskôr poďakovať predovšetkým spravodajcovi Danovi Daltonovi a ostatným kolegom, tieňovým spravodajcom, za skutočne obrovský kus práce, za schopnosť komunikovať, byť otvorený a predovšetkým hľadať spoločné riešenia, ktoré naozaj tak potrebujeme. Som rád, že tieto riešenia sa nám vo Výbore pre vnútorný trh a ochranu spotrebiteľa naozaj podarilo nájsť. Všetkým je zrejmé, že potrebujeme novú legislatívu pre schvaľovanie nových vozidiel. Všetkým je jasné, že „diesel gate“ sa už nemôže opakovať a naši občania nemôžu byť klamaní. Zároveň potrebujeme lepšie chrániť naše životné prostredie, ale aj myslieť na rozvoj nových technológií a na zamestnanosť v Európskej únii. Na tejto výslednej podobe novej legislatívy sme sa v našom výbore dohadovali viac než rok. Výsledkom je zmena metodológie, nové kompetencie, ale aj súčinnosť európskej úrovne a národných štátov. Zavádzajú sa testy v plnej prevádzke, posilňujú sa kompetencie Komisie a zabezpečuje sa jednotný postup a jednotný výklad pravidiel v celej Únii. Udalosti minulého roka ukázali, že je to naozaj veľmi, veľmi potrebné.

Som si istý, že nepotrebujeme nové inštitúcie, ale potrebujeme rýchlu podstatnú zmenu, ktorá bude fungovať. Nepotrebujeme nové náklady, ale potrebujeme jasné a uplatniteľné pravidlá. Nepotrebujeme rozhádané členské štáty, ale potrebujeme rovnaké pravidlá pre celý náš spoločný európsky trh. Teší ma, že ani samotná Európska komisia nenavrhuje nové inštitúcie, ale navrhuje zmenu súčasného fungovania tak ako aj náš výbor. Výstup z Výboru pre vnútorný trh a ochranu spotrebiteľa je naozaj dobrým návrhom a ja verím, že ho podporí každý, komu záleží na skutočnej zmene a ochrane záujmov našich občanov.


  Christel Schaldemose, for S&D-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Folkevogns snyd med dieseludledningen er en skandale. Desværre har det vist sig, at det ikke kun var Folkevogn, der var ligeglad med vores europæiske regler. Store dele af bilindustrien har sat økonomiske hensyn over miljø og sundhed. For os Socialdemokrater er det derfor helt afgørende at sikre en ny og strammere EU-lovgivning, som kan forhindre lignende skandaler i fremtiden. Der er brug for større uafhængighed ved typegodkendelsen. Dem, der tjekker, om bilerne overholder reglerne, må ikke være afhængige af penge fra bilindustrien. Endvidere skal medlemslandene gøres langt mere ansvarlige for at sikre en bedre typegodkendelse og kontrol med bilerne, når de kører ude på vejen. Derudover skal Europa-Kommissionen have flere kompetencer, så den forpligtes til at gribe ind og ikke sidde på hænderne, hvis den får mistanke om svigt og svig. Alt dette indgår i og sikres med Dalton-betænkningen. Alle niveauer forpligtes til at gøre arbejdet bedre, hurtigere, mere omfattende og uafhængigt af bilindustrien.

Men vi Socialdemokrater ønsker at gå et skridt videre. Vi ønsker, at kontrollen med bilerne samles i et EU-agentur. Vi ved af erfaring fra andre områder, at medlemslandene ofte hverken har penge, mandskab eller politisk vilje til at kontrollere bilerne tilstrækkeligt. Derfor foreslår vi, at der oprettes et EU-agentur til at samle og sikre, at kontrol med bilerne finder sted. Det er både den billigste og bedste vej til at sikre ens og reel håndhævelse.

Vi Socialdemokrater ønsker også, at forbrugerne skal kompenseres, når der sker skade. I USA er Folkevogns dieselbiler allerede fjernet fra vejene, fejlene er blevet udbedret og forbrugerne har fået kompensation. I EU står forbrugerne stadig helt uden kompensation. Vi ønsker, at dette ændres, og vi tror på, at den ekstra straf, det udgør for virksomhederne at skulle betale kompensation, kan have en forebyggende effekt. Overordnet set er vi Socialdemokrater dog rigtig glade for det resultat, der er kommet, og vi håber på, at denne betænkning kan bidrage til at sikre, at en ny dieselskandale undgås i fremtiden.




  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the mutual recognition of product standards is a cornerstone of trade within Europe and the type approval process for new cars is a prime example. Once a vehicle has passed its safety and emission tests in one country it can then be put on the market across all other countries without having to undergo further tests. It saves manufacturers millions in costs which would otherwise be spent on duplicative bureaucracy.

Buying a new car is the single largest purchase most individuals make and it is important that consumers trust the system and therefore the test process must be thorough and robust in every country. This new report tightens the tests of vehicles on and off the road, it introduces new tests for the testers and regular re-testing of existing models. Penalties are introduced for those who try to cheat the tests.

This is a fundamental review of the approval process for cars in Europe and I would like to thank my British Conservative colleague Dan Dalton for leading this piece of work and my colleagues from all across Europe who have worked with him. In a post-Brexit world it is in no one’s interest to re-introduce unnecessary red tape and I hope both sides will continue to cooperate on regulatory matters to enable mutual recognition to continue and work together for strong standards not only in the UK and Europe, but also across the rest of the world.


  Dita Charanzová, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and my shadow rapporteurs for the work done. I think that the outcome is well balanced. It provides the EU with more efficient and stronger mechanisms for type approval of cars before they enter European markets and for their actual monitoring when they are already present on the market.

Over a year ago, when this House discussed the car emissions inquiry committee, our Group called for an EU-level surveillance system which would contribute to better enforcement of EU legislation. Today that proposal is here and it means that we will not continue business as usual. Not only has it restated the obligations for Member States to actively engage in market surveillance, but it also provides the Commission with a new set of competences to act on its own behalf or as a safeguard when the Member States fail to do so. This is a major contribution to the legislation, which aims to restore consumers’ trust in our control mechanisms and in the European car industry. It is in the interest of us all to provide Europeans with the right to reliable and transparent information about their vehicles.

Some of our colleagues have been talking about the need to establish an EU market surveillance agency, which would take over all the tasks in this field. Our Group does not believe this to be a good idea. The agency definitely does not meet the need to respond quickly to scandal. It would only create a supplementary layer of administration at high cost with little added value.

And finally, there is no competence that an agency could have which could not be given to the Commission directly. Our Group believes that the Commission is the right institution to assume oversight powers at EU level and that the new system introduced in this report should prevent Member States from interfering with those new powers. So I hope that we can adopt this report today in plenary.


  Dennis de Jong, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Eerst even wat feiten op een rij. We hebben een interne markt. Dus als een nieuw type auto in de ene lidstaat is goedgekeurd dan geldt dat voor de hele EU. So far so good. Je mag als fabrikant naar iedere testinstelling in de EU gaan en vervolgens naar iedere toezichthouder voor de goedkeuring. Voor de fabrikant is dat handig, want als je het bij de ene toezichthouder niet gedaan krijgt dan ga je gewoon naar de volgende.

En dan gaat het fout. Autofabrikanten introduceren sjoemelsoftware voor dieselauto's, maar geen lidstaat die het ontdekt. Toezichthouders falen. Zou dat iets met de concurrentie tussen toezichthouders te maken kunnen hebben? De Europese Commissie doet trouwens ook niks. Commissaris Verheugen was te veel bezig met het promoten van de auto-industrie, via zijn CARS 21 Group en commissaris Tajani negeerde bewust alle aanwijzingen over sjoemelsoftware.

Dan nu het verslag-Dalton: de concurrentie tussen toezichthouders wordt gewoon in stand gehouden. We hadden er ook voor kunnen kiezen om fabrikanten te verwijzen naar de toezichthouder in het land van de hoofdvestiging van de fabrikant. Maar dat doen we niet. Hoewel lidstaten en de Commissie allemaal hebben gefaald, zet het Parlement via dit verslag alle kaarten op de Commissie. Die mag zelf inspecties gaan verrichten. Wat een bende! Hoe zal de burger reageren als straks Europese inspecteurs je auto komen controleren? Hopelijk in de garage, maar het mag ook onderweg. Europese dieselpolitie, kan het gekker?

Inspecties en handhaving in het algemeen zijn bevoegdheden van de staat en de EU is geen staat. Dit verslag lost het probleem van het gesjoemel niet echt op. Maar het geeft extreemrechts wel weer een nieuwe troef in handen om te zeggen dat de burgers stukje bij beetje een superstaat Europa worden ingerommeld. En dat van een Britse conservatieve rapporteur. Ik ben zwaar teleurgesteld en de meerderheid van mijn fractie zal ook tegen dit verslag stemmen.

[De spreker gaat in op een “blauwe kaart”-vraag overeenkomstig artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement.]


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Képviselő Úr! Azt szeretném öntől megkérdezni, hogy azt ugyan mind a ketten hasonlóképpen látjuk, hogy vannak ellenőrizendő gépjárművek és pótkocsijaik, azt is, hogy lehet valamilyen ellenőrzőrendszer. De önnek van-e tudomása arról, hogy létezik egy olyan közös európai módszertan, ami alapján ezek a műhelyek vagy ezek az intézmények vizsgálódhatnának?


  Dennis de Jong (GUE/NGL), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Ik denk zeker dat het mogelijk is om met de lidstaten samen tot een peer review-systeem te komen waarbij je autoproducerende landen combineert met niet-autoproducerende landen en samen die controles uitoefent. Dat is volkomen logisch in het huidige systeem. Nu zeggen we dat de Commissie de inspecties mag gaan uitvoeren en dat gaat een stap te ver. We hebben die voorstellen besproken met de rapporteur. Het leek erop dat we de kant van peer review uit zouden gaan. Daar is duidelijk niet voor gekozen. En dat is waarom wij zo teleurgesteld zijn.


  Pascal Durand, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce dossier est emblématique de la valeur ajoutée que l’Union européenne peut apporter à la vie quotidienne de 500 millions de consommatrices et de consommateurs. En effet, ce dossier touche d’abord au conflit d’intérêts entre les constructeurs – donc les intérêts privés –, les États et l’intérêt général. C’est le premier point. Ensuite, il touche aux émissions de particules, aux émissions de NOx ainsi qu’à la fraude sur ces émissions et, par conséquent, à la santé directement.

Ce dossier touche également aux émissions de CO2, domaine dans lequel nous avons mené une lutte contre le dérèglement climatique, ainsi qu’aux aides d’État, puisque les États subventionnent les véhicules à faibles émissions. Enfin, ce dossier touche naturellement au rôle que joue l’Union européenne pour éviter la concurrence entre les États et la distorsion de la concurrence sur les marchés. Nous avons là tous les critères qui peuvent effectivement permettre au législateur européen d’intervenir.

Je souhaite rendre hommage au travail de M. Dalton et de l’ensemble des rapporteurs fictifs. En effet, sur la question de l’homologation des véhicules, nous avons accompli certains progrès, notamment – c’est un point très important que vous avez rappelé – en coupant le cordon ombilical entre les autorités d’homologation et les constructeurs et en ayant une transparence européenne, ce qui est également très important.

En revanche, Monsieur le Commissaire, je souhaiterais que vous soyez encore plus clair pour soutenir la modification de la surveillance des marchés. Dans le passé, nous avons eu une défaillance très forte et je le dis à tous ceux qui affirment qu’une agence européenne ne servirait à rien. Pourtant, nous avons une défaillance claire et avérée des États et de la Commission européenne. Nous avons donc besoin d’une agence indépendante qui serait le fer de lance du contrôle et de la surveillance objective des marchés.

Par ailleurs, nous devons aussi indemniser les consommatrices et les consommateurs qui subissent un préjudice sur des questions majeures de santé.


  Marco Zullo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in molti paesi europei, come l'Italia, la Francia e la Germania, il legame politico tra le case automobilistiche e i governi che rilasciano le omologazioni è noto, ed è noto come il "Dieselgate" abbia fatto emergere un fatto drammatico, ovvero il conflitto di interesse tra il controllore (lo Stato) e i controllati (le case automobilistiche).

Oggi noi abbiamo una grande opportunità di cambiare questo sistema. Abbiamo l'opportunità di offrire ai cittadini una normativa in grado di superare i conflitti di interesse nazionali. Io chiedo ai miei colleghi di essere ambiziosi in questo. Nella relazione che andremo a votare oggi sulla vigilanza dei veicoli a motore, abbiamo la possibilità di introdurre dei miglioramenti, di rendere più ambiziosa questa proposta, prima di tutto chiedendo che per ogni Stato membro venga controllato il 20 % dei nuovi modelli immessi sul mercato. In questo modo, per esempio, un autoveicolo lanciato dalla Fiat sarebbe controllato in tutta Europa, e ciò renderebbe le manipolazioni molto meno frequenti, se non addirittura impossibili.

Poi, tutti noi abbiamo parlato di un organismo terzo indipendente, in grado di controllare ciò che le autorità nazionali approvano, e ci siamo focalizzati sull'agenzia, che mediamente viene percepita come un carrozzone. Allora noi vogliamo essere propositivi: proponiamo un'autorità, non un'agenzia, un'autorità che sia in carico alla Commissione e che possa utilizzare strutture già esistenti. In modo particolare noi abbiamo individuato il laboratorio del Centro comune di ricerca di Ispra, che è già dotato dal punto di vista strumentale di molti strumenti.

E a chi dice che non ci sono i finanziamenti per supportare questo tipo di approccio facciamo notare che, senza chiedere nulla ai cittadini, ma semplicemente con un piccolo onere per le case produttrici, avremmo queste risorse. Stiamo parlando di dieci euro a veicolo.

E, infine, chiediamo che i test fatti su strada, che rappresentano una cosa molto positiva, non vengano fatti su dei prototipi, ma su dei mezzi che sono già pronti per il mercato. Quindi ribadisco che oggi abbiamo questa opportunità di essere ambiziosi e chiedo ai miei colleghi di esserlo, e spero che vogliate accogliere questo invito.


  Marcus Pretzell, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Das Automobil ist eine europäische Erfindung, aber die Europäische Union hat daran keinen Anteil. Die großen europäischen Automarken sind Ergebnis französischen Erfindungsgeistes, deutscher Ingenieurskunst und italienischen Wagemuts und italienischer Designkunst.

Die Europäische Kommission hat nichts erfunden. Sie reguliert bloß, und hätte es sie vor 150 Jahren gegeben, dann hätten wir möglicherweise heute keine großen europäischen Automobilkonzerne. Die Kommission legt einen Entwurf vor, in dem ein ganzes Netz von Behörden gesponnen wird, deren Fäden am Ende in den Händen der Kommission zusammenlaufen, und der Berichterstatter steuert jene Stellen bei, die man im Kommissionstext als Deutscher fast schon vermisst hätte. Aus den Änderungsanträgen des Berichts trieft der Hass auf die deutsche Automobilindustrie. Autohersteller, die weltweit Kunden glücklich machen und denen wir einen guten Teil des deutschen Wohlstands zu verdanken haben, erscheinen als umweltschädigende Triebtäter, als Schwerverbrecher, denen die Kommission und ihre tausend Behörden mit immer ausgeklügelteren Ermittlungsmethoden auf die Schliche kommen müsse, wenn der Kontinent nicht in der Katastrophe enden soll. Herr Dalton, was haben Sie eigentlich gegen Volkswagen? Und warum glauben Sie, dass ausgerechnet die Kommission etwas verbessern könnte? Haben Sie vergessen, dass die Typgenehmigungsrichtlinie von 2007 nichtssagende Testzyklen im Labor ausreichend fand? Haben Sie vergessen, dass die Kommission spätestens seit 2010 von den abweichenden Emissionswerten wusste und die Augen fest zugemacht hat? Und glauben Sie, dass die neue Verordnung tatsächlich die Gesundheit der Verbraucher schützen wird?

Ihre Partei hat in Großbritannien nachgewiesen, dass sie in der Lage ist, die Automobilindustrie annähernd zu zerstören. Dass Sie jetzt kurz vor dem Brexit nochmal versuchen, das auch für Kontinentaleuropa durchzusetzen, hat eine besondere Note. Aber der mitberatende Ausschuss für Umweltfragen setzt dem Ganzen noch die Krone auf. Er fordert eine neue Monsterbehörde, eine Fahrzeugmarktüberwachungsagentur der EU, die all die scheinnationalen Behörden noch kontrollieren soll und durch eine Verwaltungsgebühr auf Neufahrzeuge finanziert werden soll. Und in den Gängen des Parlaments sind Werbestände für die Fahrzeugmarktüberwachungsagentur aufgebaut mit riesigen violetten Kissen, die aussehen wie die Vagina-Kostüme der Trump—Gegner in den USA.

Meine Damen und Herren, wir haben keinen Mangel an Kontrolle. Wir haben realitätsferne Regeln gehabt, die sich nicht an realen Fahrbedingungen orientiert haben und wir haben eine Kommission gehabt, die die Augen fest zugemacht hat. Das ist die Ursache des Skandals. Das werden Sie mit diesem Bericht nicht verändern, Herr Dalton.


  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Berichtsentwurf von Daniel Dalton gibt eine ganz klare Antwort auf die zentrale Frage, nämlich auf die Frage, ob es in Europa – mit Italien, Deutschland und Frankreich, wie gerade erwähnt – am Ende einheitliche Antworten auf einheitliche Probleme gibt. Das haben wir bei der ganzen Diskussion um die Fahrzeugzulassungen schmerzlich vermisst.

Es kann eben nicht sein, dass die Typzulassungsbehörde in einem Land der Europäischen Union zum Ergebnis kommt, dass ein Auto zulässig zugelassen werden kann, während die Behörde in einem anderen Land für genau das gleiche Auto zu einer anderen Auffassung gelangt. Wenn wir solche Zustände in Europa zulassen, dann laufen wir tatsächlich in eine Katastrophe rein, weil der Binnenmarkt dann seine Akzeptanz und seine Grundlage verliert. Deswegen ist der wichtigste Schritt, den wir jetzt gehen, der Schritt, dass es uns gelingt sicherzustellen, dass eine Zulassung am Ende eine Zulassung für den ganzen Binnenmarkt ist.

Und wenn es da Missverständnisse zwischen unterschiedlichen Behörden gibt, dann und nur dann hat die Europäische Kommission die Zuständigkeit, wissenschaftlich eindeutig festzulegen, welche Elemente bei der Zulassung berücksichtigt werden müssen und welche nicht. Das ist ein Fortschritt für uns alle. Und deswegen bin ich auch total froh, dass die Grünen und Pascal Durand, die Sozialdemokraten, die Liberalen, dass wir alle an einem Strang ziehen, dass wir vor allem ergebnisorientiert versuchen, die Dinge auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen.

Diese europäische Agentur, die immer wieder in der Debatte herumschwebt, ist ein Stück weit natürlich ein Lieblingsprojekt für manche, das ist auch politisch in Ordnung. Sie würde aus meiner Sicht aber den Prozess, die Ergebnisse für die Nutzer, für die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher hinzubekommen, nicht beschleunigen, sondern verlangsamen. Und deswegen steht die EVP-Fraktion diesem Vorschlag eher skeptisch gegenüber. Aber wenn das System eines Tages einmal wirklich funktioniert, dann sind wir die letzten, die sich dieser grundsätzlich europäischen Idee vollständig verschließen wollen.

An einer ganzen Reihe anderer Stellen sind auch gute Kompromisse gelungen, und es ist ein Vorschlag, der dazu beiträgt, dass die Mitgliedstaaten ihre Aufgaben künftig besser machen können und dass wir das vor allem gemeinsam in einem europäischen Sinne erreichen.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – I listened to the speech with interest. My question is about economics, as opposed to regulation. How much regulation do you think is too much? The cost of all this will ultimately impact on the market, ultimately impact on the cost of the vehicles, ultimately impact on the desire of consumers to purchase and on how many jobs there are across Europe in the automotive sector. So my question to you, sir, is: how far is too far in regulation, and where do we have the balance?


  Andreas Schwab (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you, colleague, for your interesting question. From my point of view, there is no further burden with this regulation. For the car manufacturers the big advantage will be that they can be sure that if they have one type approval it is a type approval for the whole European Union. That is cheaper than everything we have seen in the past and therefore I think we are reducing the burden for companies with that proposal, not raising it. It is fine if this is ultimately done by the Commission, if national authorities are not able to find the right way between themselves.


  Nicola Danti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor commissario, io penso che oggi consegniamo all'Unione europea un quadro normativo più certo ed efficace, più capace di evitare nuovi scandali. Ritengo pertanto importante ringraziare il relatore e gli altri relatori ombra, in particolare la nostra relatrice ombra, la collega on. Schaldemose, per il lavoro importante che hanno fatto e che oggi qui approveremo.

Questo testo contiene alcuni punti importanti, e quindi a me preme metterli in evidenza. Il primo: il divieto assoluto della possibilità di installare software di manipolazione sugli autoveicoli, e il fatto che vi saranno d'ora in poi un sistema di omologazione e sorveglianza, che sarà costante durante tutta la vita del veicolo, nonché maggiori poteri di controllo e monitoraggio da parte della Commissione europea, che tenderanno sicuramente ad armonizzare il sistema di vigilanza europeo. Vi sarà infine un maggiore potere da parte dei consumatori. Io credo che questo sia realmente un forte disincentivo contro le azioni fraudolente.

Sono risultati, dicevo, molto importanti, ma che avremmo voluto ancora più ambiziosi per rompere una volta per tutte i legami esistenti tra le case automobilistiche, i loro servizi tecnici e le autorità di omologazione nazionali, che in molti casi sono addirittura private. Pertanto sarebbe necessario definire un sistema unico e indipendente di sorveglianza dei veicoli a livello europeo.

Cari colleghi, siamo ancora in tempo per rispondere a queste esigenze, e quindi per votare l'istituzione di una agenzia europea per la sorveglianza dei veicoli che consegni un sistema più efficiente e più trasparente, e che finalmente sia capace di ripristinare la fiducia tradita dei cittadini e dei consumatori e garantire un elevato livello di protezione della salute e dell'ambiente.


  Evžen Tošenovský (ECR). – Pane předsedající, je zřejmé, že pravidla pro schvalování motorových vozidel potřebují modernizovat. Potřebujeme posílit dozor nad trhem, důkladnější kontroly vozidel v provozu a podobně. Jako obvykle ale stojíme před otázkou, jak toho dosáhneme. Jako problematické se mi jeví některé nové kontrolní mechanismy a povinnosti. Rovněž bych osobně víc důvěřoval vnitrostátním orgánům a nedával tolik prostoru Komisi.

Ano, v některých ustanoveních bych osobně volil jiná řešení, ale rozumím tomu, že jde o kompromis a solidní základ pro jednání s Radou ve velmi složité materii. Jinak řečeno, zpravodaj, můj kolega Daniel Dalton, odvedl velmi dobrou práci a patří mu za to dík. Doufám jen, že na poslední chvíli nebude do zprávy přidána celoevropská dohledová agentura, v rámci stanoviska na Výboru pro dopravu a cestovní ruch jsme k tomu měli velmi dlouhou diskusi. Každý problém zkrátka nemůžeme řešit vytvořením nového evropského dohledového orgánu.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 162 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)


  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Gospodine predsjedniče, gospodine Tošenovsky pažljivo sam vas slušao i znam da pripadate političkoj grupaciji koja nije sklona rješavanju problema na nivou Europe, barem u nekoj mjeri nije, ali zar vam se ne čini da bismo ipak trebali imati europsku agenciju za nadzor vozila koja su kao i ribe, a znamo da zajedničku ribarsku politiku imamo. Automobili se voze i prodaju svugdje po Europi, i šire, i to naši automobili. Zar vam se ne čini da bismo, uz potrebu praćenja automobila na nacionalnoj razini, trebali imati i ozbiljnu europsku agenciju za praćenje automobila?


  Evžen Tošenovský (ECR), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Děkuji za dotaz, já patřím ke skupině, která velmi rozlišuje to, co by se mělo a co by bylo rozumné dělat na evropské úrovni, a to, co by mělo zůstat na národní úrovni. V tomto případě si myslím, že stejná pravidla, která budou platit pro jednotlivé národní kontrolory, jsou dostačující, je to cenově výhodnější, než když bude jedna velká agentura napříč celou Evropou. Myslím, že to bude přinášet jenom větší problémy.


  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Mr President, I believe yellow and red cards were being pulled in the previous debates to the Commission and Council. Let me start by congratulating the Commission on its quick and right response to the Dieselgate scandal by coming forward with the new type-approval proposal. It creates more transparency and it creates the strong European oversight that is so badly needed.

I think the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) has been right in embracing, and even enforcing, these proposals. I do have a few concerns, and I will mention just one here today, and that is that IMCO is weakening the fee structure. In the inquiry committee we found out that insufficient financing at national level was one of the reasons, or excuses, for Member States not to enforce the legislation as they should have done. The fee structure proposed by the Commission would have been the right solution for that and, unfortunately, that has been weakened.


  Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, jos komissio ja kansalliset parlamentit olisivat toimineet aktiivisesti kuten lainsäädäntö edellyttää, päästöhuijaus ei olisi ollut mahdollinen. Kun huijaus paljastui, siihen ei mielestäni puututtu riittävällä tehokkuudella. Uskottiin, kun autoteollisuuden lobbarit uhkasivat työpaikkojen menetyksellä. Nyt tiedetään, että sen, minkä autoteollisuus voitti lobbauksensa ansiosta, maksavat ihmiset, jotka sairastuvat ilmansaasteiden vaikutuksesta. Liikenteen päästöihin kuolee enemmän ihmisiä kuin liikenneonnettomuuksiin, ja silti asiasta on vaiettu niin inhimillisestä kuin taloudellisestakin näkökulmasta. Pelottavin ajatus kaikkien tutkimusten ja selvitysten jälkeen on se, että liikenteen todellisia päästöjä ei tällä hetkellä pysty arvioimaan luotettavasti kukaan.

Vaikka Euroopan komissiossa on parhaillaan kehitteillä ajonaikaisia todellisia päästöjä mittaavat testit, on vastamäki ilmastonmuutoksen torjumisen näkökulmasta edelleen jyrkkä. Tyyppihyväksyntälainsäädännön käsittelyssä ei haluttu asettaa minkäänlaisia sanktioita, mikä on erikoista, koska kun kansalainen tekee rikkeen, häntä rangaistaan. Mutta kun suurteollisuus tai jäsenmaat jättävät lait noudattamatta, heitä kohdellaan silkkihansikkain.

Jos perustamme uuden viraston, sitäkään ei pidä kohdella silkkihansikkain, vaan sen on todella valvottava ja sillä on oltava todelliset työkalut puuttua ongelmiin. Eurooppalaiset ihmiset ovat ansainneet ratkaisut, joilla heidän henkeään ja terveyttään suojellaan – ei tuhota.


  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for their work on this file. This will be the first report. This will be the first legislative action after Dieselgate, so this is going to be the big question of our citizens: have we learned from Dieselgate? That is going to be the question. I think we are making steps forward but it is not sufficient. Of course most of the debate is on the famous independent agency. Why are we pushing for that? Read the conclusions from the Inquiry Committee – seven counts of maladministration against the Commission. One of the problems was that we had people in the Commission who carried out measurements at the Ispra Joint Research Centre years ago. They had the information. The information was not communicated to the outside world. Reports that went out were anonymous on purpose. This means that what you saw was that the Commission was part of the problem.

What we are suggesting is an agency that is doing the surveillance, that is doing the testing. Their results will be communicated to the Commission in an open, transparent way, so it will improve transparency and then the Commission will be obliged to react to that. Will there be much more bureaucracy? No! This is people who are already working for Europe, but who will now become independent so they can make independent decisions and are not part of the Commission that is there to regulate, check and also to do something if something goes wrong. That is too much in one hand and therefore we need an independent structure around it.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under rule 162(8))


  Andreas Schwab (PPE), blue-card question. – I was glad to listen to Bas Eickhout’s explanations on the agency, and I would like to come back on his point and ask a question. For what reason do you believe that an independent agency, as opposed to all the agencies we already have, will really bring the advantages that you have explained here? Would it not be better to keep this Chamber here as a control on the Commission, as a political authority, to make sure that what happened in the past will definitely not happen again?


  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for the question. Very simply: first of all, third parties can now directly ask the agency to do the checking. They can answer to the Commission, but, in the last five years they did not follow up that much, did they? An agency would be there to do that specifically. They will be designed to do that.

They will draft the report and then comes the control. If they find things that are not good, they will send the report to the Commission. It is still the Commission that will decide on whether to take action at the level of the type-approval authority or the national authority. The Commission is still there, and there we have control over the fining structure and making sure there is action, that corrective action is being taken by the Commission; and that is what we control.

The testing, the surveillance, is independent. And in making it independent there is also more transparency in the communication between the agency and the Commission. This is really better on transparency and putting the pressure on the Commission when they are not acting, which we can still control. It works like with medicines and like with a lot of other controlling agencies we already have. It is about time we also had it for cars.


  Margot Parker (EFDD). – Mr President, the Volkswagen scandal of 2015 sent shockwaves across the world. Just how easy it was for Volkswagen to manipulate the emissions testing certainly raised many questions and concerns. Our consumers expect and deserve better from our businesses. But for all the faults that the Volkswagen scandal has exposed, the answer in this place is never to let the market decide or to allow national authorities to learn from mistakes. Instead, the EU takes the opportunity to engulf us in more legislation and more powers for bureaucrats and bureaucracy. For businesses, this is an eye-watering EUR 40 billion bill for the taxpayer. I am absolutely in favour of protecting consumers and holding businesses to account, but I simply cannot support legislation that is going to cost our taxpayers billions, and hand further powers away from the United Kingdom.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under rule 162(8))


  Julie Girling (ECR), blue-card question. – I would like to know where your figure of EUR 40 billion comes from and how you justify it. Secondly, I would like to know why, as a representative of the UK, you have not mentioned the health issues here at all. You value business, but you do not seem to value the cost to people’s health. How do you expect health improvements to be made without some of the steps that are in this legislation?


  Margot Parker (EFDD), blue-card answer.[microphone off for opening words] a sovereign country to be able to look after the health and state of its own citizens. I also believe that you can actually allow the market to work in a sensible way. After all, if consumers are short—changed and if they are poisoned by inadequate consequences, they are not going to buy these products. I believe the market will find its level, but I also reject your question about not caring about consumer health. We most certainly do. In the short time we have here, we answer as best we can.


  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! My się wszyscy tutaj zgadzamy co do tego, że rynek motoryzacyjny w Europie potrzebuje mocniejszego nadzoru, i bardzo się cieszę, że idziemy teraz we właściwym kierunku. Tutaj chciałam specjalnie podziękować naszemu koledze Ivanovi Štefancovi. Mam nadzieję, że uda mu się w negocjacjach z Radą obronić postulaty, które są ważne dla konsumentów, żeby rynek motoryzacyjny funkcjonował coraz lepiej. Ten nowy nadzór oznacza więcej kompetencji dla Komisji Europejskiej dla wspólnego zarządzania rynkiem motoryzacyjnym, o czym wspominał już Andreas Schwab. I dzięki temu mam nadzieję, że nareszcie uda się odbudować zaufanie konsumentów do sektora motoryzacyjnego, bo przecież ono zostało ostatnio bardzo mocno nadwyrężone. A oprócz tego ważne jest, żeby ten rynek motoryzacyjny wspierał innowacje: wykorzystanie internetu, „big data” – to wszystko daje ogromne możliwości innowacyjne w sektorze motoryzacyjnym. I my musimy dbać o to, żeby Europa była w tej dziedzinie liderem. Konsumenci chcą korzystać z rewolucji, która dokonuje się w telematyce, a my musimy dbać o to, aby mieli prawo wyboru, czy chcą korzystać z warsztatów producenckich czy innych małych warsztatów nieautoryzowanych przez sprzedawców. Cieszę się, że udało się nam wprowadzić do rozporządzenia zapisy zabezpieczające pod tym względem interesy konsumentów, ale także miliony miejsc pracy dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorców. Bardzo dziękuję za świetną współpracę.


  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Wir sind hier in einer sehr wichtigen Gesetzesvorlage, in der wir dafür sorgen müssen, dass die Sicherheit und auch die Gesundheit der Bürger und Bürgerinnen in den Vordergrund gestellt werden, und das ist eine der ganz wichtigen Fragen. Wir müssen auch aus dem Bericht des EMIS—Ausschusses die richtigen Lehren ziehen, nämlich dass wir es eben nicht alleine den Mitgliedstaaten überlassen können, was hier zu tun ist und was nicht. Und da heißt es auch eine ganz wichtige Frage zu klären, ob wir eine europäische Agentur brauchen oder nicht, und wie meine Kollegin Christel Schaldemose bin ich ganz davon überzeugt, dass wir eine brauchen.

Und ich muss ehrlich sagen, da hat wieder mal die rechte Seite, die EVP, ihr wahres Gesicht gezeigt. Im EMIS—Ausschuss, da stimmen sie dafür – das ist ein Bericht, der sehr wichtig ist, sehr, sehr wichtig, aber rechtlich nicht bindend. Im Binnenmarktausschuss geht es dann um die Gesetzgebung, das heißt darum, eine bindende Entscheidung zu treffen, da stimmen Sie dagegen. Also was soll denn das? Ja, große Parolen zu machen, aber wenn es darum geht, dass wir dies verwirklichen, sind sie nicht mehr da! Also ich bitte Sie, seien Sie ein bisschen ehrlicher in dem, was sie so tun, und sorgen Sie mit uns dafür, dass wir auch wirklich diese regulierende Maßnahmen haben, die auch wirklich für die Zukunft so wichtig sind.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Ja znam zaangażowanie Evelyne Gebhardt w sprawy konsumenckie i wiem, że jest ono autentyczne, ale chciałam się zapytać, czy dodawanie agencji, dalszej biurokracji i kolejnych instytucji rzeczywiście jest po stronie konsumenta? Czy niewystarczającym działaniem jest dawanie większej liczby praw tym instytucjom, które już są i które funkcjonują, jak Komisja Europejska, pod naszą kontrolą?


  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ja, wir brauchen diese europäische Agentur, weil sie eben genau mehr Verbraucherschutz bedeutet. Die Europäische Kommission selbst hat uns bestätigt, dass die Mitgliedstaaten gewillt sind, auch wirklich die europäische Gesetzgebung umzusetzen, und wir brauchen eine unabhängige Agentur, die wirklich ihre Arbeit macht, und wir haben auch gesehen, dass es auch nicht ausreicht dies nur in die Hände der Europäischen Kommission zu legen. Deswegen sage ich: Ja, wir brauchen sie! Das ist nicht mehr Bürokratie. Es ist mehr Sicherheit für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen.


  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caras e caros Colegas, há problemas no domínio da homologação e da fiscalização dos veículos? Sim, há. Foram reveladas deficiências importantes nos sistemas nacionais de fiscalização do mercado e de controlo da homologação em vigor? Sim, foram. O caso Volkswagen abalou a confiança dos cidadãos neste sistema? Sim, abalou.

Se estamos de acordo com estas três afirmações devemos ser consequentes e rever e aprofundar o sistema de homologação como resposta imediata às anomalias reveladas. Temos de evitar que casos de incumprimento se repitam. E vimos que não funcionou deixar apenas nas mãos dos Estados-Membros esse controlo. Esta revisão garante, e eu aplaudo, uma dupla vigilância pela Comissão Europeia que, para tanto, ganha novos poderes.

A Comissão do Mercado Interno e o seu relator, o Sr. Dalton, também estão de parabéns. Alcançamos um bom resultado melhorando a proposta da Comissão. Este é um bom exemplo de que a proteção dos consumidores tem que estar no cerne das prioridades da União. Temos de exigir que os fabricantes de automóveis que circulam no território da União submetam os seus veículos a ensaios antes da sua colocação no mercado e durante o seu ciclo de vida.

Só vamos conseguir restaurar a confiança dos cidadãos e do mercado neste setor com um quadro regulamentar robusto, transparente, previsível e sustentável, que garanta um elevado nível de segurança e de proteção da saúde, do ambiente e dos consumidores. Isso também passa por medidas corretivas rápidas, adequadas e coordenadas.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Mulțumesc, domnule președinte, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, propunerea de regulament privind omologarea de tip este extrem de importantă, se vede și din dezbaterile pe care le avem și din dezbaterile din sistemul public.

În calitate de raportor alternativ pe aviz la Comisia TRAN, am lucrat foarte mult cu raportorii din umbră, ne-am întâlnit de foarte multe ori pentru a găsi o soluție optimă și compromisuri pentru avizul dat Comisiei IMCO. Eu sunt și membru al Comisiei IMCO și toate amendamentele le-am gândit din perspectiva protecției consumatorului și a siguranței calității mediului.

În primul rând, punctul de vedere comun al nostru a fost că este nevoie de îmbunătățirea sistemului de omologare și de verificare, dar și de supraveghere și control. În al doilea rând, am susținut și susțin proceduri de omologare mai exigente și de supraveghere fiabile, armonizate și transparente. Este nevoie de îmbunătățirea cadrului instituțional pentru supravegherea pieței și a controlului omologării de tip, dar și a celui de despăgubire a consumatorilor.

Cred că raportul trebuie să fie votat, este important ca autoritățile de supraveghere a pieței să asigure aplicarea uniformă a prezentului regulament pentru a oferi certitudine producătorilor, dar și consumatorilor. Prezentul regulament nu trebuie să demotiveze producătorii. Dar trebuie să conducă la o competiție corectă și la respectarea drepturilor consumatorilor și a standardelor de mediu.

Este important ca prin acest regulament să se îmbunătățească cooperarea între statele membre, să se îmbunătățească comunicarea prin sistemul de informare a pieței și sunt de acord: statele membre și producătorii trebuie să fie responsabili, pentru că altfel nu putem rezolva nimic. Mulțumesc.


  Wim van de Camp (PPE). – De samenwerking tussen de Commissie milieubescherming, de Commissie interne markt en de Commissie vervoer is niet altijd even gemakkelijk als het gaat over de belangen van de transportsector. Maar vandaag hebben we met de Commissie interne markt een uitzondering. De samenwerking tussen de Commissie vervoer en de Commissie interne markt over dit dossier was buitengewoon goed en helder. En, Voorzitter, dat is ook nodig.

We hebben eerder vanochtend het zogenaamde emissieschandaal besproken, waarbij toch vele politici maar vooral ook consumenten teleurgesteld zijn over wat de Europese auto-industrie ons de afgelopen jaren heeft aangedaan, om dat woord maar eens een keer te gebruiken. Ik denk dat we met dit verslag van Daniel Dalton een nieuwe weg kunnen inslaan. Zoals ook de commissaris zei: het moet transparanter en het moet ook realistischer, deze hele testcyclus.

Dan de totempaal van het agentschap. Het lijkt wel alsof dit debat tot een agentschap moet worden teruggebracht. Wij van de PPE-Fractie en de Commissie vervoer zijn van mening dat een forum voor handhaving een goede start is die ook snel kan plaatsvinden, zonder een nieuwe stammenstrijd, maar transparant met de lidstaten erbij!


  Miriam Dalli (S&D). – hija l-opinjoni tiegħi li l-Parlament għandu jaħtaf din l-opportunità li jindirizza liġi li s’issa ħalliet diversi lakuni legali għad-detriment tal-ambjent, għad-detriment tal-konsumaturi Ewropej, imma wkoll għad-detriment tas-saħħa taċ-ċittadini. U din il-liġi partikolari li l-grupp politiku tiegħi ħadem fuqha bla heda hija opportunita biex ma nħallux aktar lakuni li jimminaw l-għan li rridu nilħqu. Hija opportunità biex l-iskandlu tal-Volkswagen ma jirripetix ruħu.

Imma biex dan isir, irridu sorveljanza indipendenti li tista’ tieħu l-forma ta’ aġenzija. Irridu naraw li l-konsumaturi jkunu kumpensati meta ma jingħatawx dak li ħallsu għalih. Ir-realtà hija li l-volum tal-vetturi se jkompli jiżdied; madankollu dan m’għandux isir għad-detriment tal-ambjent, għaliex id-dinja li qegħdin ngħixu fiha qed tinbidel b’pass imgħaġġel u aħna rridu naħdmu ħafna aktar biex inżommu ma’ dan l-istess pass.

Issa huwa ż-żmien li l-ħidma li għamilna realtà nsarrfuha f’riżultati.


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já chci ve svém vystoupení podpořit stanovisko Výboru pro vnitřní trh a ochranu spotřebitelů, připadá mi jako rozumné a vyvážené. Je zřejmé, že potřebujeme nová pravidla, která upraví homologaci motorových vozidel, a to taková pravidla, která v podobě nařízení budou platit pro celý trh, pro celou Evropskou unii. Je tedy dobře, že směrnici, kterou si každá země překládá do svých právních řádů různým způsobem, nahradíme jedním platným nařízením.

Připadá mi, že to posílí trh a bude to výhodou i pro samotné výrobce. Je zde velmi debatovaná otázka agentury, já jsem rád, že nakonec toto řešení nezvítězilo. Na jedné straně zde podporovatelé agentury hovoří o právech spotřebitelů, já zde chci říci, že v České republice se většina občanů-spotřebitelů dívá s nedůvěrou na zřizování dalších a dalších agentur. Pokud bychom zřídili další agenturu, tak já vám zde říkám, že pro většinu občanů v České republice by to bylo posilování bruselské byrokracie a většina občanů v naší zemi by se s takovým řešením neztotožnila.

Je tedy, podle mého názoru, mnohem lepší cesta, když nevytváříme další orgán, ale posilujeme pravomoci Komise, byť i o některých pravomocech, které Komisi nově dáváme, mám pochybnosti. Myslím si, že primárně by dohledovou a dozorovou činnost měly vykonávat jednotlivé členské státy a teprve když tuto činnost nebudou činit, pak by měla nastoupit role Komise. Jsem také rád, že vypadlo zpoplatnění takovýchto služeb a je to na členských státech.


  Bernd Lange (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir stellen ja fest, dass es eine Diskrepanz gibt: Auf der einen Seite haben wir gute Abgasgesetzgebung und auf der anderen Seite schlechte Kontrollen. Als Berichterstatter für Euro 3 und Euro 4 habe ich ja damals das Verbot von elektronischen Abschalteinrichtungen eingeführt und schon damals gesagt: Wir brauchen eine stärkere Überwachung. Wir brauchen eine stärkere Marktüberwachung und eine Veränderung der Typzulassungsrichtlinie. Das hat der Rat – der heute mal wieder nicht da ist – damals mit Macht abgelehnt. Und das hat genau zu diesem Ergebnis geführt, dass wir festzustellen hatten, dass offenbar Lücken gesucht worden sind und die von Automobilunternehmen auch genutzt worden sind. Deswegen brauchen wir eine klare europäische Überwachung der Einhaltung unserer Vorschriften, und das muss das Ergebnis dieses Gesetzgebungsprozesses sein.

Ich kann unserem Verhandlungsteam nur alle Macht dieser Erde mit auf den Weg geben, damit es sich gegenüber dem Rat durchsetzen kann und wirklich ein vernünftiges Überwachungssystem geschaffen wird.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome Mr Dalton’s good work and again congratulate him on it. This is a regulation that is so important to our citizens, not only in terms of consumer confidence and information, but also to prevent the damaging effects of emissions on public health and on climate change. In this regard we must do everything we can to prevent cheating by car manufacturers aiming to manipulate emissions and fuel consumption tests and produce false results for financial gain. We must do our utmost to ensure that consumers are protected at all times and that the quality of goods is as described at the point of sale.

A number of measures here are worthy of support. Random market surveillance to be carried out by Member States on at least 20% of new models on the market is a very good idea. Unfortunately, given the proven dishonesty of certain players in the market, this is a necessary step to prevent manipulation of testing.

I am pleased also that the Commission will be given responsibility for insisting on the recalling of vehicles, for example in order to bring non-compliant vehicles into conformity.

Above all, I welcome the penalties. A fine of EUR 30 000 per vehicle in breach of regulations might seem a lot, but in actual fact it is nothing. The solution is simple: comply with the regulatory requirements and the penalty will not apply to you.

From the point of view of reducing harmful emissions etc. this is a very good report and I commend everybody involved in it.


  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor commissario, è evidente che la relazione approvata in commissione IMCO contiene elementi di novità, che sono importanti. Tutto ciò che introduce trasparenza nei rapporti tra i produttori e i consumatori va nella direzione giusta; l'intervento per limitare i conflitti di interesse tra chi produce e chi utilizza è anch'esso una novità positiva. Aggiungerei anche che è importante che ci sia una quota minima, una soglia definita di vetture da controllare.

Manca però l'agenzia. L'agenzia non è una sovrapposizione, non è la creazione di un nuovo livello di burocrazia. Parliamo di un'agenzia indipendente e finanziata autonomamente. Qual è il compito, la funzione, dell'agenzia? Quello di rompere uno dei fenomeni negativi che le indagini di questi anni ci hanno dimostrato, che è il rapporto negativo tra i produttori e chi li dovrebbe controllare. Un'agenzia indipendente radicherebbe invece un comportamento del tutto diverso.


  Marlene Mizzi (S&D). – L-iskandlu tal-Volkswagen ħasseb lill-konsumaturi Ewropej, u tellfilhom il-fiduċja li hija dgħajfa u li ma tipproteġihomx – sistema li ffaċilitat frodi u ingann billi nstabu kemm setgħu loopholes u qarrqu b’miljuni ta’ konsumaturi.

Li huwa aktar ta’ tħassib huwa, li dan il-frodi qarrieqi ma nkixifx mill-Unjoni Ewropea, minkejja l-fatt li probabbli għandna waħda mill-aħjar leġiżlazzjonijiet għall-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur.

Huwa proprju għalhekk li huwa tant diffiċli, f’dan il-każ partikolari, nammettu magħna nfusna li l-Ewropa ma rnexxilhiex tipproteġi liċ-ċittadini u l-konsumaturi tagħha.

L-Ewropa ma rnexxilhiex tassigura li l-karozzi fl-Ewropa jkunu effiċjenti fl-enerġija nadifa fit-toroq ,bħalma jkunu fil-laboratorji.

Madankollu, illum għandna opportunità li nirranġaw dan kollu billi nadottaw regoli aktar b’saħħithom  li jibqgħu jgħoddu għall-futur u jtejbu s-sitwazzjoni kurrenti u jipprovdu kundizzjonijiet ekwi fl-industrija tal-karozzi.

Għalhekk inħeġġiġkom, biex meta tivvotaw illum, tiftakru li f’din il-kwistjoni huma involuti saħħet, is-sigurtà u l-fiduċja taċ-ċittadini fis-sistema u fil-kapaċità tagħna li noħolqu regoli li jipproteġuhom.


  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D). – Señor presidente, cuando surgió el escándalo de Volkswagen, hablamos de tres tipos de mensajes: hablamos de la responsabilidad, hablamos de la restauración o la rectificación y hablamos también de la confianza.

La depuración de responsabilidades sigue su camino por los tribunales europeos, pero lo que realmente recuperará la confianza de los consumidores en la industria del automóvil es la rectificación que introducimos hoy en la legislación europea.

Es verdad que la extrema izquierda no lo va a apoyar por insuficiente y se une, con ello, una vez más, a la extrema derecha, que tampoco lo va a apoyar porque piensa que va a suponer una carga excesiva para la industria.

Pero no se dan cuenta de que lo que realmente daña a la empresa es la sombra de la duda sobre su responsabilidad social y medioambiental. Por eso, este Reglamento mejora la capacidad de control, evita los conflictos de interés entre fabricantes y autoridades de homologación y aumenta las sanciones a los que defraudan.

A nosotros, los socialistas, nos preocupa el medio ambiente. Por eso queremos que las leyes sean claras y se cumplan. Por eso pedimos la introducción de una agencia europea con responsabilidad en la materia.

Nos preocupan los ciudadanos, su salud y su confianza y, por eso, establecemos mayores mecanismos de evitación y compensación del fraude. Y nos preocupan los trabajadores, ejemplares en el modelo de negociación colectiva y, por ello, les queremos mandar un mensaje de agradecimiento y de tranquilidad, de que estamos con ellos y de que sus preocupaciones y su modo de actuar han estado también en el trabajo del Grupo S&D.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a differenza di quel che succede negli Stati Uniti, finora le autorità europee hanno avuto un margine di manovra esiguo nell'imporre azioni specifiche a carico delle case automobilistiche. Se è vero che l'industria automobilistica va tutelata, non imponendo carichi economici o procedure eccessivamente gravose, è altrettanto necessario garantire un alto livello di rispondenza tra gli standard operativi ed i principi comunitari, a partire da controlli più efficaci, dall'utilizzo di autorità indipendenti nel processo di omologazione e dal rispetto del principio di libera concorrenza.

Le carenze nei sistemi nazionali di vigilanza del mercato, tuttavia, non si eliminano semplicemente delegando ad altre autorità l'attività di controllo, ma creando modelli di collaborazione che eliminino i possibili conflitti di interesse nazionali e soprattutto tutelino i consumatori nel momento in cui sono esposti a pratiche irregolari da parte dell'industria. In questo senso è importante anche favorire l'apertura del mercato eliminando monopoli di fatto che le case produttrici detengono su alcune componenti dell'automobile, in particolare quelle elettroniche.


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Domnule președinte, apreciez că dați cuvântul tuturor colegilor care s-au înscris la catch the eye. Este un mod în care ne putem exprima și noi poziția atunci când grupul nu ne trece pe lista de vorbitori pentru diferite subiecte pe care le solicităm. Vă mulțumesc încă o dată foarte mult.

I believe this report contains improvements, but we have to be more ambitious and equip the EU with a strong, independent watchdog able to act independently to prevent future crises. We have to think of a future-proof solution, given the challenges posed by connected cars. A clear chain of liabilities must be defined and the missing piece is a strong technical body, as budget-neutral as possible, for EU citizens, which is capable of identifying and supporting risks and failures. Second, we should be committed to a real consumer empowerment in contractual relations with any trader.

This regulation is a piece of the puzzle. I support the call for the highest level of consumer protection when it comes to remedies and producer liability under consumer contracts proposals, and a strong role to be played by the national competent authorities and the EU in launching actions against fraudulent traders who cheat EU consumers.


(Încheierea procedurii „catch the eye”)


  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome the views that were expressed today and I welcome the support for the high level of ambition in this proposal expressed by many of you. This fundamental reform is vital to ensure sufficient EU oversight and it aims at preventing any future misconduct. It will be key in restoring public confidence and I would like to make some comments.

The independence of approval authorities was raised. Yes, the Commission insists on independence of approval authorities and technical services. Some type-approval authorities and technical services appear to apply lighter interpretations of type-approval requirements than others, and this has to change, undisputedly. We need a level playing field, and fairness and clarity for consumers.

Some Members mentioned that they supported the Commission’s proposal on a fee structure. Under the current system, the technical services that carry out certification testing for manufacturers are, in fact, directly paid by these manufacturers. This undermines the notion of ‘independent’ and that is why we proposed a pooled fee structure on a national basis, which would cover the costs for testing and inspections carried out by the designated technical services, as well as covering the costs for the type-approval certification, market surveillance activities and conformity of production review assessments.

There were some comments that I could not understand. Honestly, I could not understand the question to Mr Dalton along the lines of ‘What is it that you have against Volkswagen?’ and words concerning hatred against the German industry. I think this is total nonsense. This is not about hating the automotive industry, it is all about respecting our citizens’ right not to be cheated and it is all about respecting our citizens’ right to clean, unpolluted air.

The issue of the Agency seems to be the main topic of this debate. I was listening carefully and with interest to the arguments in favour of, and also against, a European Agency and I will watch carefully the results of the vote later today.

One Member also suggested that this will destroy, or words to that effect, the UK car industry. This is not supported by any facts. In fact, the UK car industry has a higher turnover than any other Member State, helped obviously by its access to the EU market. Here, I think I would agree with the comment made by another Member that no-one is against positive economic performance, but no one wants this to be at the expense of citizens’ health.

In Europe, 28 national authorities are responsible for checking car manufacturers’ compliance and most checks occur before the product is put on the market. That is what our type-approval proposal is all about: more checks on the market, better coordination of recalls at EU level, and EU harmonised sanctions. Following the adoption of the real driving emissions act, Europe will be the only region in the world that will measure real driving emissions. Everyone agreed, and I think there were a lot of comments about the fact that we need more market surveillance.

Today’s plenary debate shows the political importance of this proposal as a key response to what has happened regarding exhaust emissions. The European Parliament is sending a strong and clear message to Member States, and to the other players in the sector, that they will no longer get away with not taking safety, environmental protection and the wellbeing of our citizens seriously. I fully agree with this approach and the Commission counts on your further support in the upcoming negotiations with the Council. The Commission’s proposal to strengthen type approval and market surveillance are part of a series of other measures, including the real driving emissions testing, which will mean that the Volkswagen scandal can, and will, never happen again.

More than a year has passed since the Commission tabled this proposal but to the outside world we still have little progress to show, so I would encourage you to start trilogue meetings with the Council as soon as possible. For our part, we are determined to do all it takes to ensure quick progress. We never again want to see a scandal such as the one which has tarnished the reputation of the industry for almost 18 months and this proposal is a key tool to ensure that it will never be repeated. I am certain, and the Commission is certain, that we can get it right by working together. We owe this to our citizens. Thank you very much for contributing and I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs.


  Daniel Dalton, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all colleagues for their comments. The general view, I think, is that the proposal by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) is a good one. It is a compromise. Everyone has had to move from their original positions, everyone has had to give things up, and I think we need to recognise that. I just wanted to make it clear what type approval is, because I think that there is some confusion, especially on my right, as to what exactly the system is. We have a national system of type approval with mutual recognition across Europe and, as Mr Schwab said, one type approval for the whole of the EU. That is good for consumers, it is good for jobs, it is good for industry, but it is in everyone’s interests to know that the system works in other EU countries because this affects everyone. People in Germany, for example, need to be confident that the system in Italy, say, works, as cars approved in Italy will be driven in Germany. So we need an umpire. We need a role for the Commission, as the report recognises. Now most speakers wanted more independence, transparency, obligations on Member States, compensation, a stronger system: all of that is in this IMCO report.

On the agency – this is the last time I talk about the agency, I promise! – that is not actually the key thing in this report. The details are much more important. I think that the Commissioner is sitting on the fence a little bit, clearly not convinced about the agency; but Bas Eickhout’s answer was, I think, actually the most instructive: the cost and bureaucracy of setting up the agency just to send the results to the same people in the Commission who will deal with the info under the system that we are proposing. It will always come back to the Commission to act, but it is clear that as a Parliament we are split down the middle on this issue. We have to sort it out in a vote and I will support the outcome whichever way it goes. No system will stop people who want to cheat the system, but I think that we have got a stronger system now. The key is to make sure that we get them once they have cheated the system. I think that we can do that. It has been 18 months since the Volkswagen scandal. It has been 15 months since the Commission came forward with its proposal. It is time now for us to get on with it, so I effectively commend this report to the vote later today and I look forward to starting negotiations with the Commission and Council as soon as possible.


  Preşedinte. – Dezbaterea a fost închisă. Votul va avea loc mâine, 4 aprilie 2017.

(Ședința a fost suspendată la ora 11.35, în așteptarea ședinței solemne.)

Declaraţii scrise (articolul 162)


  Mireille D’Ornano (ENF), par écrit. –D’après la commission EMIS, la plupart des constructeurs abuseraient de la règle qui leur permet de diminuer l'efficacité des systèmes de dépollution, dans le cas où ces derniers risquent d'endommager le moteur, grâce à l’article 5 du règlement communautaire N° 715/2007. Le rapport déplore l’absence d’organisme supranational d'homologation européen. Toutefois, en tant que député français, je ne peux ignorer qu’un constructeur de mon pays, à savoir Renault, affirme ne pas avoir enfreint les règles européennes ou nationales. Les constructeurs français sont soumis à une forte concurrence au sein de l’Union européenne, mais surtout en provenance de pays asiatiques ou des États-Unis. Or le rapport dont nous parlons loue le respect, par les constructeurs américains, de normes antipollution qu’il affirme comparables aux normes européennes. Pourtant la situation des États-Unis n’est en rien comparable puisque l’usage du diesel est ultra-minoritaire parmi les véhicules légers. Les ventes de véhicules français sont également pénalisées par le taux de change de l’euro. Aussi, nous rejetons ce texte qui est contraire aux intérêts de la France, en prônant le renforcement de la Commission européenne et reprochant à celle-ci de n’avoir pas utilisé tous les moyens dont elle disposait contre les États membres.


  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE), pisno. – Po aferi Dieselgate je postalo jasno, da so emisije umazanih izpustov večine dizelskih vozil na cestah veliko večje, kot jih dovoljujejo standardi EU, običajno kar petkrat višje od omejitev.

Če bi obstoječe institucije delovale, sem mnenja, da do afere Dieselgate sploh ne bi prišlo, obenem pa je jasno, da to sploh ni osamljen primer, kar je potrdil tudi preiskovalni odbor EMIS. Ta je zaključil, da nadzorni organi na nacionalnih nivojih ne opravljajo ustrezno svojega dela, s tem pa se interesi avtomobilske industrije postavljajo pred interese državljanov in pred javno zdravje.

Odbor EMIS je ugotovil še, da obstajajo močni dokazi, da je uporaba odklopnih naprav zelo razširjena. Očitno ima avtomobilska industrija po posameznih državah zelo močno vlogo pri tem, da se nadzor ne izvaja.

Nedopustno je, da Evropski parlament ni podprl amandmajev, ki bi omogočili uvedbo neodvisne agencije na ravni EU za nadzor nad trgom vozil. Nadzorni organ bi z neodvisnim in transparentnim nadzorom dopolnjeval sedanji sistem nadzora trga motornih vozil in tako zagotavljal, da bi prodana vozila ustrezala varnostnim in okoljskim standardom.

S tem bi povrnili zaupanje potrošnikov in se izognili tudi prihodnjim podobnim škandalom. Prepričan sem, da bo Evropski parlament v prihodnosti to odločitev še obžaloval.



Juridisks paziņojums