Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 42kWORD 18k
26 July 2019
E-002457-19
Question for written answer E-002457-19
to the Commission
Rule 138
Judith Bunting (Renew)

 Subject:  RoHS 2 in respect of toxic mercury in lamps

Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS 2) effectively banned the use of lamps containing mercury, but a derogation allowing their continued use was granted on the incorrect basis that no alternative existed. The Commission commissioned a study by the Oeko Institute which in 2016 concluded that the derogation should be cancelled. That has not happened pending the publication of another overdue Oeko study on socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, in its response to Written Question E-001501/2018 by former MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, the Commission stated that: ‘certain lamps are also covered by Commission regulations on lighting products under the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC that are currently undergoing a review’.

Since RoHS 2 is aimed at reducing toxic pollution (including mercury from lamps) and the Ecodesign Directive is for energy efficiency, the two directives do not need to be aligned or reviewed. Can the Commission please confirm that this environmentally damaging process will not prevent the full entry into force of RoHS 2, as approved by Parliament and the Council?

Last updated: 5 August 2019Legal notice