What changed

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 September 2025,

– after having consultedconsulting the Committee of the Regions,

– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A100000/2025),(A10-0139/2026),

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

Recital 4

Or. en

Amendment 2

Recital 7

Or. en

Justification

Update of reference numbers.

Amendment 3

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 4

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 5

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1211

Or. en

Justification

Odometer fraud is most commonly present in M1 and N1 vehicles. Therefore, the measure should primarily address these vehicle categories. The proposed wording by the Commission risks creating unwanted bureaucratic burdens as even small maintenance tasks such as the replacement of windshield wipers could be covered. This would increase the labour hours connected to the tasks and thus increase the costs for vehicle owners.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13 a (new)

Recital 12

Or. en

Justification

New recital that builds up on the introductory remarks of Annex I, making clear that vehicles only have to comply to the requirements of their type-approval.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1513 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

OEMs face difficulties in some Member States in reaching the current owners of vehicles due to incomplete or inaccurate contact information. In addition, vehicle owners often fail to act on recall notifications, which is particularly problematic in the case of mandatory safety recalls. While in some Member States failure to comply with a recall may affect vehicle registration, this is not universally the case. To enhance road safety, periodic roadworthiness tests should be used as an additional mechanism to ensure that a greater proportion of vehicles undergo mandatory recall campaigns.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1614

Or. en

Justification

The inspection standards in the Member States vary significantly. The proposed shortening would represent a substantial additional burden for owners of vehicles older than 10 years, many of whom come from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds. Moreover, the Commission itself notes in its impact assessment that technical defects are only rarely the cause of accidents. Member States can already shorten their inspection intervals today, for example to respond to higher accident rates. However, even in such cases, the causal link between more frequent inspections and a reduction in accident causes remains doubtful. The proposed measure is therefore not proportionate and should be deleted.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Recital 14 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

N1 vehicles are typically used by SMEs. Requiring these SMEs to take their vans out of service every year imposes a significant administrative and financial burden. Moreover, type-approval legislation already guarantees that emission control systems fulfil minimum durability criteria. In addition, the on-board diagnostics systems inform about any malfunction. The Commission itself acknowledges that there is little information available on the share of vehicles with defective or tampered emission control systems. The proportionality of the proposed measure is, therefore, not given.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2115

Or. en

Justification

Addition to ensure that the existing flexibility that allows rectification and testing either in the Member State that initiated the suspension or in the Member State of registration remains. A new roadworthiness certificate should be issued without undue delay once the deficiencies have been corrected.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Recital 15 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Further specification of the recital as otherwise it could be misunderstood. Not all unauthorized modifications have a negative impact on road safety or the emissions of a vehicle.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25

Recital 15 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 15

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2716

Or. en

Justification

The inclusion of N1 vehicles in the scope of Regulation 2014/47/EU is a welcomed step. However, given the different national circumstances such as control capacities, the Member States should determine the scope of the target that they have to fulfil. Where a Member State makes uses of more frequent testing (e.g. annually), that Member State should have the possibility to exclude N1 vehicles from roadside inspections.

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2817

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Recital 18 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3018 ab (new)

Or. en

Justification

Frequent and thorough roadside checks are the best possibility to catch offenders. Therefore, Member States should ensure that competent authorities are equipped to do the task given to them.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3221

Or. en

Justification

Clarification that visual inspections should become mandatory during RSI while extensive cargo security checks should only be made if the visual inspection reveals an issue.

Amendment 20

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Amendment 24

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29 a (new)

Amendment 26

Proposal for a directive

Recital 30

Amendment 27

Proposal for a directive

Recital 30 a (new)

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Recital 32

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – indent 67

Or. en

Amendment 30

Justification

Requiring regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³ is essential for road safety and environmental protection. These vehicles reach higher speeds and are more powerful than smaller mopeds, which increases the risk of accidents if brakes, lights, tyres, or other safety-critical components are not properly maintained. Regular inspections will help protect riders, other road users, and the environment alike.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6a6 a

Or. en

Amendment 31

Justification

The definition should be clarified, since the present wording may wrongly imply that a vehicle is only a 'connected' one when a specific device is installed.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 3 – point 12

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 3 – point 12a

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Article 4 – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 34

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4 – paragraph 5

Amendment 35

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4 – paragraph 6

Or. en

Amendment 36

Justification

Free of charge access to information necessary for the performance of roadworthiness test is important in order to not increase further the costs of roadworthiness test. However, as this provision confers a financial and bureaucratic burden on vehicle manufacturers, the Commission should check the necessity of information items regularly and whether they are used or not. If information is not used, it should also not be provided by vehicle manufacturers.

Amendment 24

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Amendment 37

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Article 4a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 38

Justification

Odometer fraud is most commonly present in M1 and N1 vehicles. Therefore, the measure should primarily address these vehicle categories. The proposed wording by the Commission risks creating unwanted bureaucratic burdens as even small maintenance tasks such as the replacement of windshield wipers could be covered. This would increase the labour hours connected to the tasks and thus increase the costs for vehicle owners.

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 4

Amendment 39

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 4 a (new)

Amendment 40

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4 b (new)

Amendment 41

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 42

Justification

1) Due to their batteries, modern zero-emission vehicles tend to be heavier than their fossil counterparts in the categories M1 and N1. Therefore, they would risk to fall into the stricter testing regime of M2 or N2.2). The inspection standards in the Member States vary significantly. The proposed shortening would represent a substantial additional burden for owners of vehicles older than 10 years, many of whom come from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds. Moreover, the Commission itself notes in its impact assessment that technical defects are only rarely the cause of accidents. Member States can already shorten their inspection intervals today, for example to respond to higher accident rates. However, even in such cases, the causal link between more frequent inspections and a reduction in accident causes remains doubtful. The proposed measure is therefore not proportionate and should be deleted.3) N1 vehicles are typically used by small and medium-sized enterprises. Requiring these SMEs to take their vans out of service every year imposes a significant administrative and financial burden. Moreover, type-approval legislation already guarantees that emission control systems fulfil minimum durability criteria. In addition, the on-board diagnostics systems installed in most vehicles today provide early warnings of any malfunction. As the Commission itself acknowledges that there is little information available on the share of vehicles with defective or tampered emission control systems, the measure is not proportionate.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 5 – paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 43

Justification

Requiring regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³ is essential for road safety and environmental protection. These vehicles reach higher speeds and are more powerful than smaller mopeds, which increases the risk of accidents if brakes, lights, tyres, or other safety-critical components are not properly maintained. Regular inspections will help protect riders, other road users, and the environment alike.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b5

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 6 – paragraph 3

Article 5– paragraph 1– subparagraph 1– point c

Or. en

Amendment 44

Justification

Requiring regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³ is essential for road safety and environmental protection. These vehicles reach higher speeds and are more powerful than smaller mopeds, which increases the risk of accidents if brakes, lights, tyres, or other safety-critical components are not properly maintained. Regular inspections will help protect riders, other road users, and the environment alike.

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Amendment 45

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a a (new)

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 6 – paragraphs 2 a, 2 b, 2 c, 2 d, 2 e (new)

Amendment 46

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 47

Justification

Test methods and equipment must keep pace with technological developments to ensure inspections remain accurate, reliable, and relevant. Up-to-date procedures help detect genuine safety defects while avoiding false positives, preserve the road safety benefits of periodic inspections, and maintain proportionality and credibility by preventing unnecessary burdens on vehicle owners. Regular updates also support harmonization with international best practices and foster continuous improvement, enabling the controlled adoption of validated new technologies such as advanced diagnostics and cybersecurity assessments.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 6 – paragraph 4 b (new):

Amendment 48

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)

Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 49

Justification

OEMs face difficulties in some Member States in reaching the current owners of vehicles due to incomplete or inaccurate contact information. In addition, vehicle owners often fail to act on recall notifications, which is particularly problematic in the case of mandatory safety recalls. While in some Member States failure to comply with a recall may affect vehicle registration, this is not universally the case. To enhance road safety, periodic roadworthiness tests should be used as an additional mechanism to ensure that a greater proportion of vehicles undergo mandatory recall campaigns.

Amendment 30

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

RegulationDirective 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – Title

Amendment 50

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Amendment 51

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Amendment 52

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4

Amendment 53

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 54

Justification

In order to facilitate controls of certificates in the different Member States, the certificates should not only be made available in the language(s) of the issuing Member State, but also in the language most commonly used in this field.

Amendment 31

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 6

Amendment 55

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 7

Amendment 56

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Amendment 57

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 – point e

Amendment 58

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 9 – paragraph 1

Amendment 59

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 9 – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 60

Justification

Replication of wording of paragraph 2 in order to allow vehicle owners to do their follow-up on deficiencies not only in the Member State that suspended their vehicle, but also in the Member State of registration. It should be underlined that this in no way alters the vehicle’s prohibition from use on public roads.

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 9 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 61

Justification

Reformulation of the paragraph as otherwise it could be misunderstood. Not all unauthorized modifications have a negative impact on road safety or the emissions of a vehicle.

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 16 – point 1 – subparagraph 2

Amendment 62

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – indent 2 a (new)

Amendment 63

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 18

(Directive 2014/45/EU)

Amendment 64

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Amendment 65

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Amendment 66

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – Title

Amendment 67

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 68

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a directive

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 69

Justification

Owners might not be aware that their vehicle is emitting more than allowed. In order to give the owner a chance to remedy the situation, Member States should inform the owner of a failed remote sensing test.

Amendment 35

Proposal for a directive

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 70

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 36

Proposal for a directive

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 71

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 37

Proposal for a directive

Article 4a – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 72

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 3a (new)4

Or. en

Amendment 73

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 39

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 74

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be a optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 40

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 4 b (new)

Amendment 75

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Article 5 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 76

Justification

The inclusion of N1 vehicles in the scope of Regulation 2014/47/EU is a welcomed step. However, given the different national circumstances such as control capacities, the Member States should determine the scope of the target that they have to fulfil. Where a Member State makes uses of more frequent testing (e.g. annually), that Member State should have the possibility to exclude N1 vehicles from roadside inspections.

Amendment 41

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 7 – paragraph 1

Amendment 77

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 9

Amendment 78

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a a (new)

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 10 – paragraph 1– subparagraph 2 – point b

(32014L0047)

Amendment 79

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 10 – paragraph 2

(32014L0047)

Amendment 80

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 81

Justification

The sole reference to Annex III suggests that a full cargo security check should become mandatory with every roadside inspection. However, only the visual inspection should become mandatory. If this reveals problems, the inspector can decide to make a more extensive check in accordance with Annex III.

Amendment 42

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Or. en

(32014L0047)

(Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness)

Amendment 82

Justification

The proposed change strengthens the follow-up on major or dangerous deficiencies by the Member States and ensures that vehicles that have such deficiencies are dealt with.

Amendment 43

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Amendment 83

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 a (new)

Article 18 – paragraph 2

Or. en

(32014L0047)

(Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness)

Amendment 84

Justification

The proposed change strengthens the follow-up mechanism for major or dangerous deficiencies by obliging the inspecting Member State to contact the vehicles' Member State of registration and requesting follow-up action.

Amendment 44

Proposal for a directive

AnnexArticle I2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point i a (new)15

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 18a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Amendment 85

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e

Amendment 86

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point b

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 21 – indent 6 (new)

Amendment 87

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point ia (new)

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 0 – point 0.2a

Or. en

Amendment 88

Amendment 45

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 4.14.4.3

Amendment 89

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxiv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 4.14.4.6

Or. en

Amendment 90

Justification

The charging cable is not a safety or emission-relevant item that needs to be checked in inspections. For many charging operations it is not necessary to have a charger on board.

Amendment 46

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxvixxviii

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 5.2.35.3.2.1.1

Or. en

Amendment 91

Justification

It remains unclear how the "environmental performance" is to be tested or verified. Relevant parameters for the assessment of tyres are tyre size, load capacity, approval mark and speed category as laid down in the type-approval. A failure to comply with these requirements leads to a non-compliance.

Amendment 47

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – point 8 – point 8.1.1

Or. en

Amendment 92

Justification

The starting point for a noise test should be the subjective evaluation by the inspector. If the inspector finds it necessary, a measurement can be conducted. Additionally, Art. 6 (3) stipulates that Member States are in charge of setting the testing conditions for category L.

Amendment 48

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxiii

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 8.2.2.3

Amendment 93

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – point 3 – point xxxiv a (new)

Annex I – point 9 – point 9.12a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 94

Amendment 49

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.2

Amendment 95

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.3

Or. en

Amendment 96

Justification

While some cars come equipped with deflectors, it will almost be impossible for an inspector to assess whether that spoiler fulfils a safety-related function or not.

Amendment 50

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.9

Amendment 97

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.19a (new)

Amendment 98

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.20

Or. en

Amendment 99

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as vehicle would fail because of the defective light.

Amendment 51

Proposal for a directive

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.38

Amendment 100

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.40

Or. en

Amendment 101

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as the integrity and correctness of the tyre pressure is checked under different points. If the system is defective, the tyre would be flat or if the vehicle is equipped with a tyre pressure warning, the system would indicate low pressure.

Amendment 52

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – point 10.43

Or. en

Amendment 102

Justification

According to Art. 6 (3) of this revision of Directive 2014/45/EU, the Member States are tasked to determine the areas, items and appropriate methods of testing. Listing items relating solely to motorcycles under the testing points infringes upon this provision.

Amendment 53

Proposal for a directive

Annex III – pointparagraph 1 – point b1 – point 3c – point xxiiixxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.47

Amendment 103

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.54

Amendment 104

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.56

Amendment 105

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.61

Amendment 106

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxiii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 4.14.4.2

Amendment 107

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxiii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 4.14.4.6

Or. en

Amendment 108

Justification

The charging cable is not a safety or emission-relevant item that needs to be checked in inspections. For many charging operations it is not necessary to have a charger on board.

Amendment 54

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – pointparagraph 1 – point b1 – point 3b – point xxxxxiv a (new)

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 5.3.2.1 a (new)

Amendment 109

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxx

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 8.1.1

Or. en

Amendment 110

Justification

The starting point for a noise test should be the subjective evaluation by the inspector. If the inspector finds it necessary, a measurement can be conducted. Additionally, Art. 6 (3) stipulates that Member States are in charge of setting the testing conditions for category L.

Amendment 55

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – pointparagraph 1 – point b1 – point 3b – point xxxiixxx

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 8.2.2.3

Amendment 111

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point 3 – point xxxiv a (new)

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 9 – point 9.12a (new)

Amendment 112

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.2

Amendment 113

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.3

Or. en

Amendment 114

Justification

While some cars come equipped with deflectors, it will almost be impossible for an inspector to assess whether that spoiler fulfils a safety-related function or not.

Amendment 56

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – pointparagraph 1 – point b1 – point 3b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.9

Amendment 115

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.19a (new)

Amendment 116

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.20

Or. en

Amendment 117

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as vehicle would fail because of the defective light.

Amendment 57

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – pointparagraph 1 – point b1 – point 3b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.38

Amendment 118

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.40

Or. en

Amendment 119

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as the integrity and correctness of the tyre pressure is checked under different points. If the system is defective, the tyre would be flat or if the vehicle is equipped with a tyre pressure warning, the system would indicate low pressure.

Amendment 58

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – pointparagraph 1 – point b1 – point 3b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.43

Or. en

Amendment 120

Justification

Proposal for a directive

According to Art. 6 (3) of this revision of Directive 2014/45/EU, the Member States are tasked to determine the areas, items and appropriate methods of testing. Listing items relating solely to motorcycles under the testing points infringes upon this provision.

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.47

Amendment 121

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.54

Amendment 122

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.56

Amendment 123

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.61

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the draft report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE