What changed

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0063),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 192 paragraph 1192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90016/2023),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 22 March 2023,

– having regard to the opinionafter ofconsulting the Committee of the Regions of [...],Regions,

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A90000/2023),(A9-0311/2023),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

Proposal for a directive

Recital 34 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Directive 2008/98/EC is the general waste directive, which, for clarity purposes, would be pertinent to have introduced the EPR and the waste directive in a recital preceding its effect in the context of the WEEE directive revision.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Recital 9 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Emphasising that the Judgement of the Court came from the Grand Chamber is intended to subtly but clearly convey the importance of preventing future instances of unjustified retroactivity in future revisions of existing legislation as well as introduction of new legislation, particularly where costs and implications are involved.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 910 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

The principle of legal certainty should be strictly adhered to, and the circumstances revolving the Court ruling and the targeted amendment to the WEEE directive, should be highlighted, to prevent future repetitions of such situations.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 910 b (new)

Or. en

Justification

The WEEE directive, besides the targeted revision of implementing the Court ruling, is already anticipated to be revised in the upcoming years (around halfway through the next Parliamentary term). However, it would be beneficial to set out a provision with more precise timing and making a reference to this targeted WEEE directive revision - all the more so in the context of ensuring predictability and clarity.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10 a (new)

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Or. en

Directive 2012/19/EU

Justification

Article 2 a (new)

The consumer and the citizen ought to be protected from additional costs resulting from changes in the WEEE directive.

Amendment 6

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Or. en

(02012L0019)

Justification

This amendment provides some minor restructuring of the text of the first paragraph, second sub-paragraph in Article 13 of the WEEE directive for clarity. Moreover, it specifies that the provisions of costs for historical WEEE specifically is for WEEE as in Article 2 paragraph (1) point (a) other than photovoltaic panels. Clarifying this intends to provide more certainty that the Court ruling has been fully implemented in this revision of the WEEE directive.Article 2 paragraph (1) point (a) covers EEE from 13 August 2012 to 14 August 2018 (transitional period), to EEE falling within the categories set out in Annex I (where Annex II contains an indicative list of EEE which falls within the categories set out in Annex I). The first paragraph, second and third sub-paragraphs of Article 13 had not been addressed in the Commission’s proposal of the targeted revision of the WEEE directive, however, to ensure consistency and coherence, this clarification would be helpful.

Amendment 7

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Or. en

(02012L0019)

Justification

This amendment seeks to follow up to ensure coherence with the changes made to the second sub-paragraph.

Amendment 8

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The period of transposition for Member States to bring about the implementation of the targeted directive revision in national law and all the administrative processes needs to be realistic. One year, as in the Commission proposal, is too early. Two years, as a tentative timeline, is likely to be more practical for Member States to ensure the complete and full transposition of the targeted amendment to the WEEE directive, addressing any potential retroactivity.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

The WEEE directive has been functioning for two decades, and it is generally functioning well, with the exception of the retroactivity matter at hand. Nevertheless, as a general update is anticipated in the coming years, besides this targeted revision of implementing the Court ruling, a provision with more precise timing would be beneficial. In this, the timeline would be in relation to this targeted WEEE directive revision, whilst ensuring Member States have sufficient time for transposition as in Article 2 paragraph 1, is compatible. In the update, needs to be emphasised that ensuring predictability and clarity is vital so that future scenarios of unjustified retroactivity are avoided, as well as the key notion of avoiding the transfer of burdens and costs onto citizens and consumers.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

At the time of writing the Draft Report, no further changes have been deemed necessary by the Rapporteur to the Commission proposal.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE