final report on the implementation of directive 2000/53/ec ......final report on the implementation...

Final Report on the Implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of-Life Vehicles

For the period 2014–2017

Tim Elliott

Joe Hudson

Hannah Gillie

Steve Watson

Leyla Lugal

Alexandra Almasi

27th June 2019

Report for Artemis Hatzi-Hull, DG Environment of the European Commission

Prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd and IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

Approved by

………………………………………………….

Tim Elliott

Project Director

Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd 37 Queen Square Bristol BS1 4QS

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)117 9172250 Fax: +44 (0)8717 142942

Web: www.eunomia.co.uk

Disclaimer

Eunomia Research & Consulting has taken due care in the preparation of this report to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. However no guarantee is provided in respect of the information presented, and Eunomia Research & Consulting is not responsible for decisions or actions taken on the basis of the content of this report.

http://www.eunomia.co.uk/

Contents

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The End-of-Life Vehicles Directive ........................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Main Provisions ................................................................................................ 2

1.1.2 Circular Economy Package ............................................................................... 3

1.2 About this Report ..................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Sources of Information ..................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Report Structure ............................................................................................... 4

2.0 Completeness Assessment .................................................................................... 6

2.1 Monitoring Table ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Completeness Table ................................................................................................. 7

3.0 Limitations of Reporting ....................................................................................... 11

4.0 Transposition into National Law ........................................................................... 12

4.1 Waste Prevention ................................................................................................... 17

4.1.1 Summary of Transposition ............................................................................. 17

4.1.2 Member State Responses ............................................................................... 18

4.2 Collection ................................................................................................................ 21



4.3 Deregistration ......................................................................................................... 27



4.4 Treatment ............................................................................................................... 34



4.5 Reuse and Recovery ............................................................................................... 40



4.6 Coding Standards and Dismantling Information .................................................... 43



5.0 Implementation of the Directive ........................................................................... 46

5.1 Waste Prevention ................................................................................................... 46

5.2 Collection ................................................................................................................ 47

5.3 Treatment ............................................................................................................... 52

5.4 Reuse and Recovery ............................................................................................... 60

5.5 Coding Standards and Dismantling Information .................................................... 64

6.0 Summary ............................................................................................................. 67

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 70

A.1.0 Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 71

ELV Directive Implementation Report (2014-2017) 1

1.0 Introduction

Every three years, Member States are required to report to the European Commission on the implementation of EU waste legislation. Based on this information, the Commission evaluates overall implementation progress and identifies areas for further policy action.

This report is a summary and analysis of the replies provided by Member States to the implementation questionnaire covering Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles (hereby referred to as the ‘ELV Directive’).1 It is part of a series of reports that are published on the ELV Directive every three years. This report covers the period 22nd April 2014 to 21st April 2017. Previous reports are available on the Commission’s website.2

1.1 The End-of-Life Vehicles Directive

End-of-life vehicles (ELVs) generate seven to eight million tonnes of waste annually in the EU.3 The ELV Directive was introduced to ensure that the dismantling and recycling of ELVs are carried out with minimal impact on the environment. Specifically, it aims to:

• Limit the quantity of waste arising from vehicles;

• Increase rates of reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs and their components, through appropriate treatment, vehicle design and production;

• Incorporate of recycled materials into vehicle design; and

• Limit the toxicity of ELVs through restrictions on the use of hazardous substances in new vehicles.

It also sets the following targets for reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs and their components:

• By 1st January 2006 o Reuse and recovery: minimum of 85% o Reuse and recycling: minimum of 80%

• By 1st January 2015 o Reuse and recovery: minimum of 95% o Reuse and recycling: minimum of 85%

1 European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of-Life Vehicles 2 European Commission (2018) Reporting on Implementation of Waste Legislation, accessed 5 January 2018, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/index.htm 3 European Commission (2018) End of life vehicles, accessed 10 January 2019, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/index.htm


The Directive entered into force on 21st October 2000. Since then, it has undergone a number of amendments and revisions. Annex II of the Directive – which lists vehicle materials and components exempt from the prohibitions on certain chemicals set out in Article 4(2)(a) – is now in its ninth revision4. These updates reflect new technical developments making certain substances in specific applications no longer necessary.

Three amending acts have also been introduced:

• Directive 2008/33/EC: which mainly concerned the implementing powers of the Commission, empowering it to amend annexes to the Directive and other non-essential elements of the Directive as necessary;5 and

• Directive 2008/112/EC: which concerned the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and updating the terminology in the ELV Directive in line with other Community legislation.6

1.1.1 Main Provisions

The main provisions of the ELV Directive are outlined below. Questions in the implementation questionnaire pertaining to these Articles were selected for in-depth analysis in this report.

• Waste prevention Article 4(1): encouragement of prevention in terms of limiting hazardous substances, designing vehicles to facilitate reuse and integrating an increasing quantity of recycled materials;

• Collection Articles 5(1) and 5(4): producer responsibility for the organisation of a take-back system and covering the costs of collection;

• Deregistration Articles 5(3) and 5(5): deregistration of vehicles and issuing of certificates of destruction. Member states shall mutually recognise and accept the certificates of destruction issued in other Member States;

• Treatment Articles 6(2) and 6(3): permitting for treatment operations and proper treatment conditions to be fulfilled. A derogation from the permit may apply to recovery operations according to Annex 1(3) if there is an inspection by the competent authorities before registration. Treatment operations must fulfil at least the following obligations:

o end-of-life vehicles shall be stripped before further treatment, including components and materials;

o hazardous materials and components shall be removed and segregated; and

4 See, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv/events_en.htm 5 European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/33/EC amending Directive 2000/53/EC End-Of-Life Vehicles 6 European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/112/EC on Classification, Labelling, and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures


o stripping operations and storage shall be carried out in such a way as to ensure reuse, recovery and recycling.

• Reuse and recovery Articles 7(1) and 7(2): encouragement of reuse and recovery and fulfilment of targets:

o The reuse and recovery targets (on average per vehicle per year by weight) are set at 85% by 1st January 2006 and 95% by 1st January 2015;

o The reuse and recycling targets (on average per vehicle per year by weight) are set at 80% by 1st January 2006 and 85% by 1st January 2015; and

o For vehicles produced before 1st January 1980, Member States may lay down targets as low as, but not lower than, 75% for reuse and recovery and 70% for reuse and recycling. Member States making use of this subparagraph should inform the Commission.

• Coding standards/dismantling information Articles 8(1), 8(3) and 8(4): producers are obliged to use component and material coding standards as well as to provide dismantling information to facilitate reuse and treatment.

1.1.2 Circular Economy Package

The European Commission adopted the Circular Economy Package on 2nd December 2015, which included revised legislative proposals on waste. These set clear targets for the reduction of waste, increase recycling and reduction of the amount of waste landfilled. The Waste Legislative Package introduces a Directive that amends Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment. This amending Directive is referred to as Directive (EU) 2018/849.7

Directive (EU) 2018/849 aims to ensure consistency and harmonisation across the three pieces of waste legislation. The amendments carried out in Directive (EU) 2018/849 are mostly relate to the streamlining of reporting obligations for Member States, alignment with the Lisbon treaty concerning the procedure for the adoption of legal acts following the provisions of the ELV Directive, and calls for an evaluation of the ELV Directive.

In particular, concerning the reporting, the Directive states that implementation reports prepared by Member States every three years have not proved to be an effective tool for verifying compliance. Directive (EU) 2018/849 repeals this obligation, highlighting instead the use of statistical data which Member States report annually to Eurostat. As such, this is likely to be the final implementation report published on the ELV Directive.

7 European Commission (2018) Directive (EU) 2018/849 amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment


1.2 About this Report

1.2.1 Sources of Information

Article 9 of the ELV Directive obliges Member States to send a report to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive at three-year intervals on the basis of a questionnaire which was established by Commission Decision 2001/753/EC,8 in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC.9 The questionnaire consists of two parts: the first part concerns details on the incorporation of the Directive into national law, the second part information on the actual implementation of the Directive. The main source of information for this report was Member State responses to this questionnaire.

Some Member States failed to submit a questionnaire (as discussed further in Section 2.0) or did not respond satisfactorily or in full to particular questions. An email was sent to these Member States in January 2019 requesting further information and a follow-up email to non-respondents in February 2019.

Where satisfactory information could not be obtained it was necessary to consider other sources, where available. Examples include questionnaires from previous reporting periods (e.g. 2011–2014), reports issued from Eurostat, Member State government websites and legislation, as well as and previous Commission reports on ELVs. Whenever a source other than the Member State replies to the 2014–2017 implementation questionnaire is used, this has been clearly referenced.

In order to identify any progress or changes in the way the Directive has been implemented, this report compares Member States responses to the 2014–2017 implementation questionnaire with the responses provided in 2011–2014. If these were not available, then earlier questionnaires (e.g. 2008–2011) were used for comparison.

Member States were required to send their responses to the 2014–2017 implementation questionnaire to the Commission by 21st January 2018. However, any information submitted by Member States up to 16th October 2018 was taken into consideration.

1.2.2 Report Structure

This report is structured as follows:

• Section 2.0: describes the approach taken to analysing the completeness of Member State responses to the implementation questionnaire.

8 Commission Decision 2001/753/EC of 17 October 2001 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (OJ L 282/77 of 26.10.2001) 9 Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (OJ No L 377/48)


• Section 4.0: analyses Member State responses to Section 1 of the implementation questionnaire on the transposition of the Directive into national law.

• Section 5.0: analyses Member State responses to Section 2 of the implementation questionnaire on the transposition of the implementation of the Directive.

• Section 6.0: summaries the findings from this report and provides recommendations going forward.


2.0 Completeness Assessment

2.1 Monitoring Table

In order to facilitate our assessment of Member State transposition and implementation of the ELV Directive, a monitoring table was created in MS-Excel to allow for the side-by-side comparison of implementation questionnaire responses. Given that Member State responses varied in format – with not all in MS-Excel format but some as MS-Word or PDF files – this allowed for the direct comparison of responses in a single table, as well easy access to all the information provided by Member States. This made comparison possible not only between different Member States, but also between the same Member State’s responses for different reporting periods, as the 2008-2011 and 2011-2014 questionnaire responses were also added. In this way, any changes that had taken place between reporting periods were made obvious.

For the most part, the Member State responses provided by the European Commission were in English, but in the few cases where they were not these were first translated before being entered into the monitoring table.

The monitoring table organised Member States into columns and questions into rows. A ‘traffic light’ colour coded status column was added for each 2014–2017 questionnaire entry in order to check for data sufficiency and provision. Where responses were present and complete this column was marked ‘OK’ and coloured green; where responses were missing the column was marked as such and coloured red; where responses were present but unsatisfactory these were noted and the cell coloured amber.

Figure 2-1 presents a screenshot of the monitoring table.

Figure 2-1: Structure of the Monitoring Table


25 Member States submitted responses for the 2014–2017 reporting period. The three countries which did not were Latvia, Malta and Hungary.

For those Member States which did submit responses, where the status column indicated an insufficient or missing response to a specific question, they were contacted by email for additional information. Email requests focused on questions relating to the main provisions of the ELV Directive (see Section 1.1.1) to minimise demands on their time and increase the likelihood of receiving a response.

Eight Member States were contacted for additional information. Table 2-1 shows which Member States responded to this information request. Where Member States did respond with the requested information, the monitoring table was updated accordingly.

Table 2-1 Member States Contacted for Further Information

Member State Responded to data request?

Belgium Yes

Denmark Yes

Germany Yes

Greece No

Ireland Yes

Luxembourg No

Netherlands No

Slovakia No

2.2 Completeness Table

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the final level of completeness of Member State’s responses to the 2014–2017 implementation questionnaire, taking into account any additional information provided following email requests for clarification or supplementary information. It also includes a summary of the number of questions Member States answered ‘satisfactorily’.

‘Satisfactorily’ is defined in terms of the provision of a level of detail allowing for an assessment to be made as to whether the relevant Article has been transposed. Or, for questions requesting the provision of quantitative or qualitative information, whether the response allowed for an assessment of the relevant state of affairs in the Member State. In simple and practical terms, an unsatisfactory response was one that was either only partially complete or else judged to be unclear.


The implementation questionnaire for 2014–2017 contains 85 questions in total. However, it is structured so that Member States are required to answer a minimum of 53 questions on their transposition and implementation of the Directive, plus a further potential 12 follow-up questions, making a maximum of 65 answerable questions. In other words, due to the branching logic employed in its structure, Member States are never required to answer all of its 85 questions.10

Due to the structure of the questionnaire, depending on the situation within individual Member States regarding transposition and implementation of the Directive, different Member States will potentially have different numbers of questions to answer. In order to present a clear and fair quantitative assessment of the numbers of questions answered by Member States and the extent to which they answered the questions satisfactorily, it has therefore been necessary to treat all follow-up questions which did not require a response as being answered by default. In this way, the maximum potential number of answerable questions for every Member State has been taken to be 85 questions.

Table 2-2: Completeness Assessment Table

Member State Number of questions answered

Number of questions answered satisfactorily

Austria 85 78

Belgium

Brussels 82 82

Flanders 82 82

Wallonia 82 82

Bulgaria 83 82

Croatia 82 82

Cyprus 84 84

Czech Republic 83 82

Denmark 83 76

Estonia 84 69

10 There are also an additional five questions on contact details at the start of the questionnaire, which have not been counted here.


Member State Number of questions answered

Number of questions answered satisfactorily

Finland 84 75

France 85 83

Germany 84 74

Greece 83 77

Hungary

Ireland 83 83

Italy 83 83

Latvia

Lithuania 85 83

Luxembourg 84 84

Malta

Netherlands 84 84

Poland 85 82

Portugal 85 82

Romania 85 83

Slovakia 79 79

Slovenia 83 83

Spain 85 84

Sweden 85 79

United Kingdom 84 82


Colour Key for Number of Questions Answered

85 Questionnaire complete

80-84 Questionnaire partly complete

<79 Questionnaire incomplete

Failed to submit a 2014–2017 implementation questionnaire

Colour Key for Number of Questions Answered Satisfactorily

85 Questionnaire completed satisfactorily

80-84 Questionnaire mostly satisfactory

<79 Questionnaire completed unsatisfactorily

Failed to submit a 2014–2017 implementation questionnaire


3.0 Limitations of Reporting

Some of the main limitations of this exercise are discussed below:

• Non-response: a key limitation to this exercise was the fact that Hungary, Latvia and Malta did not submit questionnaires to the Commission for the 2014-2017 reporting period. It was therefore difficult to make an up-to-date assessment of implementation. As all three Member States submitted questionnaires in 2011-2014, these were used along with Eurostat data where relevant to provide a picture of implementation.

• Different formats: Member States provided their responses to the questionnaire in various formats including Microsoft Word, Excel and PDF. This is considered more of an inconvenience to those assessing implementation than anything else. However, in an information request made to one Member State via email, it transpired that the reason they had not answered the questions was that they did not appear in the version they were using. It could be that providing a single version of the questionnaire with locked cells for Member States to complete would negate this issue.

• Level of detail in responses: a number of questions in Part 1 of the implementation questionnaire ask Member States to provide details if they have taken the necessary measures pursuant to a particular Article. A large number of Member States responded to such questions by referencing the name of the transposing legislation, without any further details – for example, an Article number or contextual commentary. This can make it difficult to assess the extent of implementation, particularly where no Article number is provided as it makes it difficult to cross-check the information in the questionnaire with what is in the legislation.

• Referring back to previous reporting periods: Member States might refer to their responses to previous Implementation Questionnaires (2005-2008, 2008-2011 or 2011-2014) without repeating the concrete information requested. For example, Portugal responded to all questions in Section 1 of the questionnaire by referring to its responses for 2005-2008 for a number of questions. Whilst Member States are permitted to refer back to earlier periods rather than repeat themselves, in cases such as these, one might question whether more nuanced changes are being missed by simply referring back to previous reporting periods.

• Self-reporting: it is important to bear in mind that this exercise is based upon self-reporting. That is, the information provided by Member States in the Implementation Questionnaire has not been verified. It is therefore not possible to say with certainty whether Members States are doing in practice what they report to be doing in the Implementation Questionnaires. Equally, Member States may have introduced measures or otherwise that are relevant to the management of ELVs but haven’t been reported.


4.0 Transposition into National Law

Member States are required to transpose the ELV Directive into national legislation. This section summarises Member State responses to the transposition of the six key provisions.

A high-level summary of transposition against each of these provisions is presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. The following sections provide a more detailed analysis of transposition. Each section is structured as follows:

• Outline of relevant questions and provisions: the wording of the question and relevant provision is provided in full.

• Summary of transposition: includes an assessment of overall implementation, key trends, key changes and any challenges and uncertainties relating to transposition.

• Member State responses: includes a precis of Member State responses to the relevant question. For practical reasons, the report does not always differentiate between direct quotes taken from their responses and re-phrased or shortened paragraphs. For the sections on Reuse and Recovery (Section 4.5) and Coding Standards and Dismantling Information (Section 4.6), responses were easily grouped and have therefore been discussed together for the sake of brevity.


Table 4-1: Summary of Transposition (prevention, collection and deregistration)

Member State

Prevention Collection Deregistration

Question 1.5 Question 1.7 Question 1.10 Question 1.9 Question 1.11

Article 4(1) Article 5(1) Article 5(4) Article 5(3) Article 5(5)

Have measures been put in place to:

4.1(a) limit the use of hazardous substances in vehicles?

4.2(b) design vehicles in such a way that facilitates dismantling reuse and recovery?

4.3(c) integrate an increasing quantity of recycled material in vehicles?

Have measures been taken to ensure that:

- economic operators have set up collection systems for ELVs and waste used parts?

- there is adequate availability of collection facilities within their territory?

Have measures been taken to ensure that:

- Producers are responsible for a significant part of the cost of take-back schemes?

- Collection and delivery to an authorised treatment facility is free of charge for vehicles owners?

Has a vehicle deregistration system been put in place?

Have measures been put in place to ensure that certificates of destruction from other MS are recognised and accepted?

Austria Unclear Yes Yes Yes Unclear

Belgium - Wallonia Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes

Belgium - Flanders Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes

Belgium - Brussels Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes

Bulgaria Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear

Croatia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Czech Republic Partly Yes Yes Yes Yes

Denmark Partly Yes Yes Partly Yes

Estonia Partly Yes Yes Yes Unclear

Finland Partly Yes Yes Yes Yes

France Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Greece No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Italy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Latvia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lithuania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Luxembourg Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Malta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Portugal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Romania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes

Slovenia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sweden Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes

UK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Table 4-2: Summary of Transposition (treatment, reuse and recovery, coding standards/dismantling information)

Member State

Treatment Reuse and recovery Coding standards/dismantling information

Question 1.13 Question 1.14 Question 1.17 Question 1.18 Question 1.19 Question 1.20 Question 1.21

Article 6(2) Article 6(3) Article 7(1) Article 7(2) Article 8(1) Article 8(3) Article 8(4)

Have measures been taken to ensure that establishments carrying out treatment operations have a permit or are registered with the competent authorities?

Have measures been taken to ensure that establishments carrying out treatment fulfil criteria related to stripping and removal of hazardous substances?

Have Member States taken necessary measures to encourage reuse, recovery and recycling?

Have Member States taken necessary measures to ensure that economic operators meet their recycling and recovery targets?

Have measures been taken to ensure that producers as well as material and equipment manufacturers use component and material coding standards?

Have measures been taken to ensure that producers provide dismantling information for each type of new vehicle put on the market within six months after it is put on the market?

Have measures been taken to ensure that manufacturers of components make available dismantling, storage and testing information on reuseable components to authorised treatment facilities?

Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Belgium - Wallonia

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Belgium - Flanders Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Belgium - Brussels Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bulgaria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Croatia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes

Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes Yes

Denmark Yes Yes Partly Yes Unclear Yes Yes

Estonia Yes Yes Partly Partly Yes Yes Yes

Finland Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes


France Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes

Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Greece Yes Yes Partly No Unclear Yes Unclear

Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes

Ireland Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Italy Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Latvia Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes

Lithuania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Luxembourg Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Malta Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Poland Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Portugal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Romania Unclear Yes Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes

Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes

Slovenia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sweden Yes Unclear Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes

UK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


4.1 Waste Prevention

Under the ELV Directive, vehicle and equipment manufacturers are required to limit the use of hazardous substances, ensure vehicles are designed for reuse and recovery and to integrate greater quantities of recycled materials in vehicles.

4.1.1 Summary of Transposition

4.1.1.1 Overall Implementation

Article 4(1) was transposed by 21 Member States. It was considered to be partially transposed in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia and Finland, and transposition in Austria and Sweden was unclear. Greece did not transpose the Article as no vehicle manufacturing occurs within the country. Additionally, whilst Latvia reported transposing Article 4(1) into national law, it is highlighted that vehicles are not currently manufactured in the country.

4.1.1.2 Key Trends

A large number of Member States, including Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovakia, transposed the Article through more general waste legislation rather than specific ELV legislation. In the case of Slovakia, for instance, such legislation includes a specific section on ELVs. Austria is worthy of mention, which stated that collection and recovery systems are required to use 0.5% of their turnover for waste prevention projects.

Question 1.5: Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 4(1) been taken? (Yes/No). Please provide details/reasons for your answer.

Article 4(1) In order to promote the prevention of waste Member States shall encourage, in particular:

(a) vehicle manufacturers, in liaison with material and equipment manufacturers, to limit the use of hazardous substances in vehicles and to reduce them as far as possible from the conception of the vehicle onwards, so as in particular to prevent their release into the environment, make recycling easier, and avoid the need to dispose of hazardous waste;

(b) the design and production of new vehicles which take into full account and facilitate the dismantling, reuse and recovery, in particular the recycling, of end-of life vehicles, their components and materials;

(c) vehicle manufacturers, in liaison with material and equipment manufacturers, to integrate an increasing quantity of recycled material in vehicles and other products, in order to develop the markets for recycled materials.


4.1.1.3 Key Changes

Only minor changes were identified since the previous reporting period. Croatia, Romania and Slovakia referred to revised legislation in which there was either no change regarding Article 4(1) or only minor adjustments to the wording of the transposition.

4.1.1.4 Challenges and Uncertainties

Although the majority of Member States transposed Article 4(1), in many cases using the near exact same wording, this does not necessarily correspond to actual implementation on the ground. It is unlikely, for instance, that implementation of point c) can be claimed by many Member States for all materials, especially plastics. This is further discussed in Section 4.4.1, where Member States are required to provide data on the types and quantities of recycled materials in vehicles.

Some Member States transposed the different elements of Article 4(1) through different pieces of legislation. Whilst limiting the use of hazardous substances in vehicles (Article 4(1)(a)) was usually transposed in ELV-specific legislation, vehicle design to facilitate reuse and recovery (Article 4(1)(b)) or the integration of recycled material into new vehicles (Article 4(1)(b)) was often transposed in more generic waste legislation, with general requirements for these provisions across all markets. Such instances were judged to be ‘partly transposed’, on the basis that the transposing text makes no specific mention of ELVs.

4.1.2 Member State Responses

Member State responses are summarised below:

Austria’s End-of-Life Vehicles Ordinance outlines requirements regarding hazardous substances, however it is unclear whether paragraphs two and three of Article 5(1) have been transposed. Design requirements are not referred to, although Austria reports that collection and recovery systems are required to use 0.5% of their turnover for waste prevention projects. Unclear transposition was also highlighted in the previous reporting period.

Belgium’s response simply stated that Article 4(1) has been transposed into both regional and federal legislation.

Bulgaria reported having directly transposed Article 4(1) into Article 4 of the national Regulation on End of Life Motor Vehicles.

Croatia reported having directly transposed the Article into the national Ordinance on the Management of End of Life Vehicles. Updated versions for 2015 and 2016 are referenced.

Cyprus reported having transposed Article 4(1) into the 2011 amending law of the national Vehicle’s End of Life legislation.

The Czech Republic reported having transposed measures pursuant to Article 4(1) through national Act No. 185/2001 on Waste. The Act obliges producers of all types of products to reduce unrecoverable and hazardous waste. The response also mentions


Implementing Decree No 341/2002 on roadworthiness approval and on technical conditions for the operation of vehicles on roads. There is no specific law covering ELV waste prevention.

Denmark referred to the Scrap Vehicle Order and the National Environmental Protection Act. Denmark indicated specific Articles regarding shredder plants and obligations on producers to make information available about how they have designed vehicles and optimised them for reuse, recovery and recycling. There is no specific clause on, or direct reference to, ELVs and waste prevention in relation to the three points in Article 4.1 of the ELV directive. For instance, the Scrap Vehicle Order does not cover limiting the use of hazardous substances.

Estonia reported having transposed the measures into the national Waste Act which contains general requirements for prevention of waste generation, obligations for producers to prevent waste generation and to collect of waste generated and prohibitions and restrictions on placing onto the market such components, parts or motor vehicles which contain hazardous substances. Requirements are for all product types, but ELVs are not specifically mentioned.

Finland reported having transposed Article 4(1) into the national Waste Act which outlines waste prevention requirements for manufacturers, but not for ELV producers specifically. The 2015 Government Decree on end-of-life vehicles and restrictions on the use of hazardous substances in vehicles transposes restrictions on the use of lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium.

France reported transposing Article 4(1) into the national Environmental Code. Additional reference is made to vehicle licensing regulations which include specific requirements for the percentage of recycled materials to be included in the make-up of vehicles.

Germany reported having directly transposed Article 4(1) into the national ELV Ordinance.

Greece stated that no manufacturing of vehicles occurs within the scope of the ELV Directive; all vehicles are imported. Therefore, no measures pursuant to Article 4(1) have been transposed.

Hungary did not provide a response to the 2014-2017 questionnaire. In the previous reporting period, Hungary stated that measures pursuant to Article 4 (1) have been transposed within the principle of extended producer responsibility in the national Act on Waste.

In Ireland, Article 4(1) is transposed in the design requirements section of the Waste Management (End-Of-Life Vehicles) Regulations 2006. In the 2014-2017 questionnaire, Ireland adds that in practice there are no Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) operating out of Ireland.

Latvia did not provide a response for the 2014-2017 period. In response to the 2011-2014 questionnaire, Latvia reported that the requirements of Article 4(1) have been incorporated in the national Law on end-of-life vehicle management, whilst also


highlighting that vehicles are not currently made in Latvia; all cars sold on the market have been imported.

Lithuania reported having transposed the provisions of Article 4(1) into the End-of-life Vehicle Management Rules.

Luxembourg has transposed Article 4(1) into national legislation on ELVs.

Malta did not provide a response for the 2014-2017 period. However, in the 2011-2014 period, Malta reported transposing the Article into the national Waste Management (End of Life Vehicles) Regulations.

In the Netherlands, Article 4(1) has been transposed into the national Decision on management ELVs, 2002.

Poland reported having transposed Article 4(1) into the national Waste Act and Environmental Protection Act and the ELV recycling Act.

Portugal refers to information submitted in the 2005-2012 reporting periods.

Romania outlines that since 2015, the provision has been transposed by national Law No 212/2015 and has been updated by Order No 1986/2016. There are no significant differences between the previous and updated transposition, only minor variations in wording.

In Slovakia, measures pursuant to Article 4(1) are transposed into national Act No 79/2015 Coll. on Waste. Prevention measures such as increasing recycled content and ensuring products are designed for reusability, recovery and recyclability are outlined for producers generally. This is followed by a specific section on ELVs which further outlines requirements regarding hazardous materials. This provides a detailed update compared to the previous reporting period.

Slovenia transposes Article 4(1) into the national Decree on end-of-life-vehicles.

Spain transposes Article 4(1) into the national Royal Decree 1383/2002 and stated that much progress has been made in recent years and recycled materials are more frequently being used in vehicles produced in Spain.

Sweden refers to the Swedish Environmental Code which sets general regulations regarding chemical use by manufacturers, importers and users of chemical products. Companies are required to provide information about the chemicals they use, and may be required to register the products or to hold a permit. The code also applies to Articles that contain chemical products, stating that these must be replaced where possible. It is unclear whether there is any direct reference to heavy metals in ELVs. Ordinance (2007: 185) on producer responsibility for cars outlines measures which meet 1(b). However, it remains unclear as to whether 1(c) measures are taken.

The UK refers to the transposition of the Article into national ELV Regulations 2003 and the ELV (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2005.


4.2 Collection

Manufacturers, importers and distributors must provide systems to collect ELVs and, where technically feasible, the used parts from repaired passenger cars. Producers are required to meet a significant part, if not all, of the costs involved in the delivery of ELVs to waste treatment centres.


4.2.1.1 Overall implementation

Transposition of Articles 5(1) and 5(4) was reported in all Member States.

Question 1.7 Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 5(1) been taken? (Yes/No). Please provide details/reasons for your answer.

Question 1.10 Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 5(4) been taken? (Yes/No). If the answer to 1.10 is ‘Yes’, please provide details, including detailed information corresponding to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5(4). If ‘no’ please state reasons why.

Article 5(1) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure:

- that economic operators set up systems for the collection of all end-of life vehicles and, as far as technically feasible, of waste used parts removed when passenger cars are repaired,

- the adequate availability of collection facilities within their territory.

Article 5(4) ensure that the delivery of the vehicle to an authorised treatment facility in accordance with paragraph 3 occurs without any cost for the last holder and/or owner as a result of the vehicle's having no or a negative market value.

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers meet all, or a significant part of, the costs of the implementation of this measure and/or take-back end-of life vehicles under the same conditions as referred to in the first subparagraph.

Member States may provide that the delivery of end-of life vehicles is not fully free of charge if the end-of life vehicle does not contain the essential components of a vehicle, in particular the engine and the coachwork, or contains waste which has been added to the end-of life vehicle.

The Commission shall regularly monitor the implementation of the first subparagraph to ensure that it does not result in market distortions, and if necessary shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council an amendment thereto.


4.2.1.2 Key Trends

With regards to the type of collection system to be put in place, Member States typically transposed this provision in a way that allows flexibility for economic operators, with the possibility for individual or collective schemes.

Some Member States simply stated that the network of ELV collection facilities was adequate, whilst others provided the number of Authorised Treatment Facilities (ATFs) in operation. It was also common for Member States to define adequacy in relation to the distance between final owners and collection facilities, or by locating facilities in every region/county for instance. In some cases, different distances were also specified for cities or areas above a certain population. Romania for example stated that vehicle producers/distributors are required to have a collection point in each county; a collection point in each city with a population in excess of 100,000 inhabitants; and six collection points in Bucharest (one in each sector).

With regards to costs, the majority of Member States made it clear that take-back is free except for instances where essential components are missing, or if additional waste has been added, in line with the requirements of the Directive. Some countries such as Ireland, outlined that in such cases, charges may apply at the discretion of the ATF. Denmark further detailed limits on such charges.

4.2.1.3 Key Changes

Croatia, Slovakia and Romania referred to updated legislation (see Section 4.2.2 for details). This was particularly welcome from Slovakia, where responses to this question in previous reporting periods have made it difficult to understand the extent of transposition.


There are three key aspects here. Firstly, that the system should collect all end-of-life vehicles. Secondly, that the system should provide an adequate coverage of treatment facilities, and thirdly, that the end-of-life vehicles should be collected at no cost for the final owner. These are discussed in turn below.

Ensuring that the system collects all end-of-life vehicles is a challenge due to the issue of illegal collection facilities, which has been highlighted in previous reports for the Commission. However, most end-of-life vehicles will be collected through one route or another.

The adequacy of the treatment network could be defined differently in different Member States, depending on the local geography. Adequacy could also be interpreted in different ways. Some Member States may think that a denser network is required to meet the test of adequacy, whereas others believe a lower density network is suitable. Many Member States have set thresholds related to the distance between the final owner and a treatment facility of around 40 to 50 km. These can exclude more rural areas where the transport distances are significant. Providing an adequate network in


these more rural areas is clearly a bigger challenge than in more densely populated areas.

Regarding free vehicle takeback, the value of the scrap metal and/or other components removed for recycling or reuse will nearly almost certainly cover the costs of collecting the vehicle from final owners. Therefore, there is no significant challenge in meeting this obligation.



Austria has transposed Article 4(1) into the national ELV Ordinance. The Ordinance also transposes Article 5(4) outlining that if essential components are missing, or if waste has been added, take-back may not be free.

In Belgium, the provisions are transposed through regional agreements. In the Brussels region, it is reported that a sufficient degree of coverage is achieved through the network of official distributors or if each producer or importer has designated at least one collection point in the territory of the Brussels Capital Region. Both Flanders and Wallonia also refer to a network of official distributors. According to their report, 90% of final keepers/owners can dispose of their end-of-life vehicle within a 40-kilometre radius of their home. Provisions for Article 5(4) are transposed through regional agreements.

Bulgaria transposes Articles 5(1) and 5 (4) into the national Regulation on ELVs and the Waste Management Act (ZUO). Article 7 of the Regulation stated that economic operators are responsible for setting up and operating systems for the collection of all ELVs. The 2014-2017 response also adds detail regarding the responsibility of costs. Bulgaria stated that the Regulation on the procedure for the payment of and the amount of product tax lays down the arrangements for the costs of collection to be borne by producers.

In contrast to the previous reporting period, Croatia refers to transposition of the Directive through a different Article within the 2015 and 2016 updated Ordinance on the Management of End-Of-Life Vehicles. Croatia stated that Article 10 of the Ordinance transposes measures regarding ELV take-back without costs. The exception for cases of incomplete vehicles is also used.

Cyprus transposes Article 5(1) through the national Vehicle’s End of Life Law, 2003. The regulation obliges economic operators to ensure that there are sufficient temporary storage sites and processing facilities. Economic operators are obliged to provide sufficient data to the competent authority for each temporary storage site and processing facilities. The same law transposes Article 5(4).

The Czech Republic transposes Article 5(1) in national Act 185/2001 on Waste. The act requires persons authorised to collect/treat ELVs to establish a collection system and to comply with other relevant obligations. It contains provisions around manufacturers providing processors and consumers with information to facilitate recovery, and obliges operators to accept ELVs without charge, except for cases of incomplete vehicles or those that contain additional waste.


Denmark’s Vehicle Scrap Order transposes Article 5(1), stating that manufacturers and importers can implement a "collective" scheme to collect vehicles. The collective ELV scheme must ensure that established reception centres exist up to 25 km from the centre of cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants, and that all owners and operators of a used vehicle can deliver it to a reception centre within a distance of 50 km. The legislation also outlines that any manufacturer or importer not participating in a collective scheme and importing more than 20 cars annually are obliged to ensure that the last owner/holder of an ELV can transfer the vehicle to a collection site no more than 50 km from the point of sale.

The Vehicle Scrap Order also transposes Article 5(4). With regards to charging for missing components, it is stated that the amount charged must not exceed DKK 300 (€40) for a missing motor, DKK 100 (€13) for a missing gearbox and DKK 100 (€13) for a missing catalyst.

Estonia’s Regulation of Government No. 79, 17.06.2010 transposes Article 5(1) stating that the collection and take-back of ELVs must be organised so that there is a collection site in each of Estonia’s 15 counties. The 2004 Waste Act transposes Article 5(4) and makes use of the exceptions.

Finland’s 2014-2017 response explained that the producers of vehicles are responsible for organising the take-back and management of ELVs. The consumer can take ELVs free of charge to designated collection points. Currently there are about 275 collection points in the country, which is considered to be a sufficient number. Car maintenance providers send removed car parts to proper waste management at their own expense. Finland’s Waste Act (646/2011) outlines that the producer shall arrange collection points and facilitate delivery free-of-charge. It is outlined that the number of collection points varies by product group and region.

France transposes Articles 5(1) and 5(4) through the national Environment Code. Producers come together collectively in networks which are approved for a maximum of four years by the Minister of the Environment. A separate decree relating to such networks ensures that consumers are able to return their used vehicle to an ATF within 50 km.

Germany transposes Articles 5(1) and 5(4) through the national End-of-Life Vehicles Act. The Act outlines that the distance between the residence of the last holder and an authorised collection/dismantling facility must be no greater than 50 km.

In Greece, economic operators have established a national EPR scheme for the alternative management of end-of-life vehicles, called them Alternative Management of Vehicles Hellas (AMVH). All authorised representatives of vehicle manufacturers participate in AMVH and all ATFs for ELVs have contracts with the scheme. Greece stated that these facilities have adequate capacity for the collection and treatment of ELVs arising in the country, further stating that the delivery of ELVs to ATFs occurs at no cost to the final holder or owner.

Hungary did not submit a response to the 2014-2017 questionnaire. In their 2011-2014 response, Hungary did not provide details on the transposition of Article 5(1) but did


outline that the acceptance of ELVs is free of charge except where missing components or with waste from other sources.

Ireland transposes the Articles in the national Waste Management (End-of-Life Vehicles) Regulations. Each producer is required to establish a national collection system for specified vehicles of that producer’s brand/for which the producer has responsibility. Each producer’s national collection system is required to have at least one authorised treatment facility per 100,000 persons, with all urban areas of 15,000 persons or more being within 45 km of such a facility. It is added, that free take-back is also a requirement for ATFs that do not form a part of any producer’s national collection system. At the discretion of the ATF, charges may apply for incomplete vehicles or those which have additional waste.

In Italy, Legislative Decree No 209/2003 requires vehicle producers to collect end-of-life vehicles free of charge and to organise, directly or indirectly, and on an individual or collective basis, a network of collection centres appropriately distributed throughout the country.

Latvia transposes Articles 5(1) and 5(4) into the national Law on Natural Resources Tax and Cabinet Regulation No 361, 2012. Manufacturers may conclude an agreement with the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund Administration (LVAFA) on the establishment and application of an end-of-life vehicle management system. Latvia stated that the country is adequately covered by end-of-life vehicle collection facilities. Under the law on ELV Management, treatment facilities are obliged to ensure that transfer of ELVs accrues no cost to the owner.

Lithuania transposes the Articles into national law which stated that vehicle manufacturers and/or producers must ensure the presence of at least one end-of-life vehicle admission facility in each county and that take-back is free other than where a vehicle is incomplete or contains waste that does not come from the vehicle.

Luxembourg explains that producers and importers notified the national Environment Agency of the location of collection facilities and treatment facilities within the time period specified in the environmental agreement. Article 5(4) is transposed into the amended Grand-Ducal Regulation, 2003.

Malta did not submit a response to the 2014-2017 questionnaire. In the previous reporting period, they stated that the Articles 5(1) and 5(4) have been incorporated in Regulation 5(1) (a) and (b) of the national Waste Management (End of Life Vehicles) Regulations (LN99/04).

In the Netherlands, producers are required to have a nationwide network for the collection of vehicles under the Decision on the Management of ELVs. It also stated that there shouldn’t be a cost on consumers for delivering ELVs to ATFs.

In Poland, both Articles are transposed through the national ELV Act 2005 which requires vehicle producers to setup a network for the collection of ELVs.



Romania provided details of transposition by Law No 212/2015, updated by Order No 1986/2016. This stated that vehicle producers/distributors are required to ensure a collection point in each county; a collection point in each city with a population in excess of 100,000 inhabitants; six collection points in Bucharest (one in each sector) and should cover the costs of collection themselves.

Slovakia describes how measures have been taken through the updated national Act No. 79/2015 Coll. on Waste. It stated that vehicle producers are obliged to provide at least one collection facility in each district. In the previous two reporting periods the obligations on producers were unclear. This additional information is therefore welcome.

Slovenia’s Decree on end-of-life-vehicles states that manufacturers should ensure such distribution of collection points so that these are located within a maximum of 50 km from the last owner's home or business address. Article 5(4) is also transposed into national law.

Spain stated that the Articles 5(1) and 5(4) have been transposed in national Royal Decree 1383/2002. Spain also outlined that producers have preferred to establish individual systems rather than collective. For the collection of end-of-life vehicles, a nationwide logistical network of vehicle reception centres has been set up, which includes municipal reception centres, dealers and treatment centres. There is also a National Plan for ELVs which outlines the need to expand the network of collection centres and ATFs in order to cover the whole of Spain. Such action suggests that the current coverage is inadequate.

Sweden transposes Article 5(1) into the national Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Vehicles. Sweden also has a scheme for producers with a 97% market share which links to the members’ organisation BIL Sweden. The organisation assists producers in collection and recycling responsibility. Producers pay a fee to BIL Sweden which covers the costs of ELVs collection and management. Ordinance 2007:185 states that producers should receive ELVs 'without compensation'. It is made clear that the producer may request 'reasonable compensation' if the car lacks certain features.

The UK requires producers to set up collection systems with capacity for the vehicles that they put on the market. Producer contracted Authorised Treatment Facilities number around 238, with 1,600 uncontracted ATFs. Furthermore, the national ELV Producer Responsibility Regulations 2005 require producers to set up networks of conveniently located ATFs where consumers can deliver their ELVs free of charge. Free take-back may not be available if the ELV is incomplete.


4.3 Deregistration

The Directive outlines that manufacturers, importers and distributors must provide systems to collect ELVs and requires owners of ELVs to receive a certificate of destruction (CoD) in order to deregister the vehicle. Processes for deregistration are key to ensuring ELVs are transferred to authorised treatment facilities and to limit illegal import of waste vehicles.

Question 1.9: Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 5(3) been taken? (Yes/No). Please provide details/reasons for your answer.

Question 1.9.3: Has the Member State made use of the clause under Article 5(3) allowing producers, dealers and collectors, on behalf of an authorised treatment facility, to issue certificates of destruction under the conditions specified therein? (Yes/No). If yes provide details.

Question 1.9.4: Has the Member State made use of Article 5(3), last paragraph? (Yes/No). If yes provide details. If yes, has the Commission been informed thereof? (Yes/No). If no state reasons why.

Article 5(3) states that Member States shall set up a system according to which the presentation of a certificate of destruction is a condition for deregistration of the end-of life vehicle. This certificate shall be issued to the holder and/or owner when the end-of life vehicle is transferred to a treatment facility. Treatment facilities, which have obtained a permit in accordance with Article 6, shall be permitted to issue a certificate of destruction. Member States may permit producers, dealers and collectors on behalf of an authorised treatment facility to issue certificates of destruction provided that they guarantee that the end-of life vehicle is transferred to an authorised treatment facility and provided that they are registered with public authorities.

Issuing the certificate of destruction by treatment facilities or dealers or collectors on behalf of an authorised treatment facility does not entitle them to claim any financial reimbursement, except in cases where this has been explicitly arranged by Member States.

Member States which do not have a deregistration system at the date of entry into force of this Directive shall set up a system according to which a certificate of destruction is notified to the relevant competent authority when the end-of life vehicle is transferred to a treatment facility and shall otherwise comply with the terms of this paragraph. Member States making use of this subparagraph shall inform the Commission of the reasons thereof.




In total, 23 Member States have transposed Articles 5(3) and 5(5). For two Member States (Belgium and France) the Articles are recognised as being partly transposed whilst for Austria, Bulgaria and Slovakia transposition was judged to be unclear.

4.3.1.2 Key Trends

All Member States have reportedly set up national deregistration systems in which the issuing of a CoD is a condition of deregistration. 13 Member States have made use of the clause under Article 5(3) allowing producers, dealers and collectors to issue CoDs. These were: Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary11, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. With regards to Article 5(5), responses commonly referred to established minimum requirements for CoDs and the specific elements included in the certificate.

Various procedures for issuing CoDs exist. Three Member States highlighted specific instances, pursuant to the Directive, in which CoDs can or cannot be issued. Other conditions included submitting copies to, or notifying, certain institutions. Ireland and Greece indicated that systems for issuing and recording CoDs were accessible online.

4.3.1.3 Key Changes

Bulgaria answered ‘yes’ to making use of the clause under Article 5(3) in 2008-2011 and 2011-2014, yet answered ‘no’ in 2014-2017. Similarly, Latvia also indicated in 2008-2011 that it had made use of the clause yet answered ‘no’ in the 2011-2014 questionnaire. Croatia, Denmark, Romania, Slovakia and Latvia (2011-2014) make reference to revised legislation, although none contained any material changes concerning transposition.

11 Based on Hungary’s response in 2011-2014 (they did not respond in 2014-2017).

Question 1.11: Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 5(5) been taken? (Yes/No) Please provide details/reasons for your answer.

Article 5(5) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their competent authorities mutually recognise and accept the certificates of destruction issued in other Member States in accordance with paragraph 3.

To this end, minimum requirements for the certificate of destruction shall be established. That measure, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 11(3).



It is important to note that whilst all Member States reported to have deregistration systems, there has been an increase in vehicles of unknown whereabouts over recent years. This was documented in the Commission’s 2017 report on the implementation of the ELV Directive, which focused on vehicles of unknown whereabouts. 12 These are vehicles which are deregistered but have not been issued with a CoD, or the CoD is not available to the authorities. In 2008, it was reported that there were an estimated 4.1 million vehicles of unknown whereabouts in the EU.13 It is clear therefore, that such systems are not operating as effectively as they could be.

Two key challenges in particular are worth noting. Firstly, ATFs are not obliged to notify the relevant authorities if a CoD has been issued, enhancing the likelihood that there are gaps in the data. This is compounded by the fact that most Member States do not have an incentive or penalty system to ensure that the owner submits this information. Secondly, the Member State in which the CoD is issued is not obliged to inform the Member State in which the vehicle was issued. It is not clear whether there is extensive use of the European Car and Driving Licence Information System (EUCARIS) functionality which offers a means for electronic cross border CoD notification. Only France referred to EUCARIS, but also stated that there is no automatic exchange of data between Member States.

The transposition of Article 5(5) was a key source of uncertainty. In some instances, Member States did not mention anything in relation to the acceptance of CoDs from other countries (for example, Austria, Bulgaria and Estonia). Others outlined the elements to be included in a CoD for it to be considered valid, but did not indicate if this applied also to CoDs prepared in other Member States.



Austria’s ELV Ordinance states that, on delivery of an ELV, the recycling centre or authorised treatment facility should issue a CoD. A copy of this certificate should be retained by the issuing authority for at least seven years. All returned end-of-life vehicles are subjected to treatment in a shredder plant at the latest by the end of the second calendar year following the return. Moreover, the Motor Vehicle Act states that the final deregistration of a vehicle may only occur once a certificate of destruction for the vehicle has been submitted. Producers, dealers or collectors can issue CoDs on behalf of

12 European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, and Oeko-Institut e.V(2018) Assessment of the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EU on end-of-life vehicles (the ELV Directive) with emphasis on the end of life vehicles of unknown whereabouts: under the Framework Contract : assistance to the Commission on technical, socio-economic and cost benefit assessments related to the implementation and further development of EU waste legislation., 13 MEHLHART, G., MERZ, C., AKKERMANS, L., and JORDAL-JØRGENSEN, J. (2011) European second-hand car market analysis, February 2011, https://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1114/2011-005-en.pdf


authorised treatment facilities. There is an obligation for registering this process. However, the legislation does not refer directly to accepting CoDs from other Member States.

Regarding Article 5(5), Austria has established minimum requirements for CoDs. All certificates of destruction meeting these minimum criteria are accepted for final deregistration. CoDs from other Member States are not directly referred to.

In Belgium, setting up a system for registering and deregistering a vehicle in which the submission of a CoD is a condition, is a matter for the federal authorities. Similarly to the previous reporting period, Belgium stated that the system is set up but is not yet working in practice as the implementing Royal Decrees for the Law are not yet in force. Therefore, the last paragraph of 5(3) is followed. Belgium has transposed Article 5(5) into national law and refers specifically to CoDs issued by other Member States.

Bulgaria reported transposing Article 5(3) into national regulation on ELVs. Compared to the previous reporting period, Bulgaria provided further details including: operators who issue certificates should submit a copy to the authorities at the Home Affairs Ministry within 14 days of accepting the ELV, and operators of collection and storage sites should issue a certificate only on behalf of the operator of the stripping centre on the basis of an agreement to deliver the ELV to the centre. Bulgaria answered ‘No’ to question 1.9.3 despite having answered ‘Yes’ in both previous reporting periods, and has also made use of Article 5(3) last paragraph. With regards to Article 5(5), Bulgaria’s Regulation on ELVs outlines what information has to be included but does not make specific reference to CoDs issued by other Member States.

Croatia reported having transposed Article 5(3) into an updated Article within the national Ordinance on the management of end-of-life vehicles, updated in 2015 and 2016. Article 5(5) is transposed in the Ordinance.

Cyprus reported transposing Articles 5(3) and 5(5) into the national Vehicle’s end of Life Law 2003 and the Format of Certificate of Destruction Decree of 2012. This obliges the authorised treatment facilities to issue a CoD for each ELV they receive and deliver or post it to the competent authority and to the last person who was in possession of the vehicle. The Law provides for the acceptance of CoDs issued by other Member States, in accordance to their national laws.

The Czech Republic reported having taken measures pursuant to both Articles through national Act No 56/2001 on the conditions for operating vehicles on roads. The Act sets out the conditions under which municipalities should record the termination of a road vehicle.

Denmark reported transposing Article 5(3) in the Vehicle Scrap Order. The clause under Article 5(3) is used, and the legislation states that anyone who, on a commercial basis, carries out separate processing of, or negotiates, a passenger car or a van, should upon receipt thereof issue a scrapping certificate. Denmark indicated that it has made use of Article 5(3) final paragraph but did not supply details. Measures pursuant to Article 5(5) are reported to have been taken through a statutory order updated in 2016. The order


makes reference to receiving ELVs for treatment with CoDs issued in accordance with the national rules of the Member State concerned.

Estonia reported transposing Article 5(3) in national regulation and the Traffic Act Clause. The regulation makes use of the sub-clause allowing producers to issue CoDs if they show that they an agreement with a waste handler who has waste permit and hazardous waste handling licence. Other economic operators like collectors, dealers or brokers cannot issue CoD if they do not have waste permit and hazardous waste handling licence. Estonia did not refer specifically to recognising CoDs from other Member States and thus implementation of Article 5(5) is unclear.

Finland reported provisions taken through the national 2011 Waste Act and Decree on ELVs and restrictions on the use of hazardous substances. The collector or treatment facility are obliged to notify the Finnish Transport Safety Agency of the destruction. Finland makes use of the sub-clause but not the final paragraph. Requirements of Article 5(5) are transposed in the Decree on ELVs and restrictions on the use of hazardous substances in vehicles.

France reported transposing Article 5(3). Not issuing CoDs at the time of the transfer or not fulfilling the declarations provided for in the regulation can result in a fine. France reports that national legislation does not preclude cancellation of a registration requested using a CoD issued in another Member State, and that in practice there is no automatic exchange of data with other Member States on the destruction of vehicles and the cancellation of their registration. However, the national vehicle registration system is connected with other Member States via the EUCARIS exchange system.

Germany provided details on the transposition of Articles 5(3) and 5(5) through the Vehicle Registration Regulation.

Greece reported that AMVH and all ATFs cooperate on the basis of legally binding contracts, obliging each ATF to report to AMVH for each of ELV received and managed, so that a relevant CoD can be issued. Greece has made use of the sub-clause, stating that AMVH has created an electronic system which all ATFs can access and through which the CoD can be issued. Greece reported that for ELVs with foreign registration numbers, the corresponding CoDs are sent to the relevant national authorities, and that foreign ELVs are accepted provided that confirmation has been received through official channels, that those ELVs were managed according to the provisions of the ELV Directive.

In the previous reporting period, Hungary reported to have had a digital/internet base deregistration system in place since 2011, and that CoDs from other Member States are accepted. Hungary did not provide a response to the 2014-2017 questionnaire.

Ireland reported that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has developed an on-line facility for issuing and recording CoDs. The uptake of this facility is being promoted among ATFs by the new compliance scheme, ELVES. The response also outlined that Ireland had a system for the recording of “scrap markers” against vehicles which had been notified to the National Vehicle & Driver File as being scrapped. This system, which pre-dated the introduction of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life


vehicles, prevented the renewal of motor taxation on such vehicles; effectively prohibiting any further use of such vehicles on public roads.

Ireland transposes Article 5(5) through national regulation which also prescribes the minimum amount of information to be included in a certificate of destruction.

Italy transposes Articles 5(3) and 5(5) through national Legislative Decree No 209/2003 and makes use of the sub-clause.

Latvia reported transposing both Articles 5(3) and 5(5) in its 2011-2014 response.

Lithuania outlines transposition of both Articles into national law. The law states that treatment/collection facilities must complete three copies of a CoD; one for the owner, a second for the issuer and a third for the Regional Environmental Protection Department.

Luxembourg transposes Article 5(3) and 5(5) into national law, stating that only facilities that are duly authorised under the amended Law of 2012 on waste management are authorised to issue certificates of destruction. It is explained that the National Society of Technical Control SNCT keeps a list of duly authorised facilities in Luxembourg and neighbouring regions. The Environment Agency is immediately notified when a certificate issued by a new foreign facility is received. The Environment Agency then checks whether the facility is duly authorised to issue certificates of destruction.

In the previous reporting period, Malta reported transposing Articles 5(3) and 5(5) in the national Waste Management (ELV) Regulations. Malta did not provide a response to the 2014-2017 questionnaire.

The Netherlands stated that measures pursuant to registration and deregistration are set out by the national Regulation of Number Plates.

Poland has transposed both Articles into the National Road Traffic Act, making use of the sub-clause allowing CoDs to be issued not only by dismantling centre operators but also by vehicle collection point operators.

Portugal refers to the information provided in the national implementation reports for the previous reporting periods. Previous implementation reports confirmed that Portugal has a deregistration system in place and that a CoD was a requirement of deregistration.

Romania reported that since 2015, the Articles have been transposed in law and updated by Order No 1986/2016. Romania has made use of the Article 5(3) sub-clause: CoDs can be issued on behalf of the treatment facility with which the economic operator has a contract.

Slovakia reported transposing Article 5(3) in the national Act on Waste, updated in 2015, also outlining that the obligation to issue CoDs can be fulfilled by a person collecting end-of-life vehicles instead of a treatment facility. Slovakia stated that the final paragraph of Article 5(3) was used and that the Commission has been notified. However, the details concerning this are unclear and previous answers indicate that Slovakia already had a deregistration process in place. Thus, the answer perhaps points to a misunderstanding of the question. Slovakia reported that Article 5(5) has also been


transposed in the amended Act on Waste which states that the competent authority will deregister a vehicle if it has received information from the Member State in which the vehicle was registered. To approve deregistration for ELV processing in another Member State, Slovakia requires a written document giving reasons together with a translation.

Slovenia transposes Article 5(3) and 5(5) into the national Decree on ELVs. The certificate of destruction may be issued to the last owner by the manager of the dismantling authority, or the collector at a collection point if authorised to do so by the manager referred to, thus making use of the sub-clause.

Spain transposes Article 5(3) into national law and stated that certificates may only be authorised by treatment centres. CoDs that have been validly issued by other Member States will have the same effects as if they had been issued by authorised centres in Spain. The owners, or their representatives, must complete the formalities specified in the Spanish General Vehicle Regulation at the corresponding Provincial Traffic Office.

Sweden refers to Ordinance 2007:186 on Car Scrapping which outlines requirements for a 'scrapping certificate' and CoD which shows that measures have been taken for the healthy and environmentally acceptable management of a waste car. The authorised car scraper issues a receipt and the clause under Article 5(3) was used. Article 5(5) is transposed in the 2001 Ordinance on road traffic registers.

The UK’s ELV Regulation transposes requirements regarding CoDs. The UK reported that CoDs may only be issued by ATFs.


4.4 Treatment

The ELV Directive ensures that vehicles are properly treated through permitting, inspections and treatment obligations. These conditions are put in place to reduce any negative environmental impacts and promote reuse and recycling of vehicle components.

Question 1.13. Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 6(2) been taken? (Yes/No) Please provide details/reasons for your answer.

Question 1.13.3 If the answer to 1.13 is ‘Yes’, has any derogation under Article 6(2), second paragraph, been applied? (Yes/No) If the answer to 1.13.3 is ‘Yes’, please provide details.

Question 1.13.5 If the answer to 1.13.3 is ‘Yes’, have the results been sent to the Commission? (Yes/No) If the answer is ‘No’, please state the reasons why.


Article 6(2) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any establishment or undertaking carrying out treatment operations obtains a permit from or be registered with the competent authorities, in compliance with Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 75/442/EEC.

The derogation from the permit requirement referred to in Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 75/442/EEC may apply to recovery operations concerning waste of end-of life vehicles after they have been treated according to Annex 1(3) to this Directive if there is an inspection by the competent authorities before the registration. This inspection shall verify:

(a) type and quantities of waste to be treated; (b) general technical requirements to be complied with; (c) safety precautions to be taken,

in order to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC. This inspection shall take place once a year. Member States using the derogation shall send the results to the Commission.

Article 6(3) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any establishment or undertaking carrying out treatment operations fulfils at least the following obligations in accordance with Annex I:

(d) end-of life vehicles shall be stripped before further treatment or other equivalent arrangements are made in order to reduce any adverse impact on the environment. Components or materials labelled or otherwise made identifiable in accordance with Article 4(2) shall be stripped before further treatment;

(e) hazardous materials and components shall be removed and segregated in a selective way so as not to contaminate subsequent shredder waste from end-of life vehicles;

(f) stripping operations and storage shall be carried out in such a way as to ensure the suitability of vehicle components for reuse and recovery, and in particular for recycling.

Treatment operations for depollution of end-of life vehicles as referred to in Annex I (3) shall be carried out as soon as possible.




All Member States reported having transposed measures pursuant to Article 6(2). All Member States provided a reference to the transposing national legislation with the exception of Greece.

25 Member States reported having transposed Article 6(3). From Poland, Portugal and Sweden’s responses, it is unclear whether Article 6(3) has been fully transposed. Most responses do not detail the measures, but instead refer to the relevant pieces of national legislation in which the Article has been transposed.

4.4.1.2 Key Trends

Some Member States have transposed measures into overarching waste management legislation, such as Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany and Slovakia, whereas other Member States have specific pieces of legislation for ELVs, such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia. Finland has a specific decree for ELVs, but permits are issued under their broader Environmental Protection Act. Belgium and the UK have different pieces of legislation per region or nation, respectively.

The majority of countries report to not allow for derogations. Only Denmark, Italy, Romania and the UK’s responses suggest they allow for derogation. However, none of the four have reported their results to the Commission. Italy, however, did provide figures of their inspections of derogation activities.

Some Member States specified the maximum amount of time an ELV can be stored after collection before depollution or dismantling. For example, in response to measures regarding Article 6(3), Spain reported treatment operations at authorised centres must be completed within 30 days. In Romania’s equivalent response, they report that treatment facility operators must remove, collect and store certain specified hazardous materials within three months of the issuance of the vehicle’s certificate of destruction. Also, Denmark report that ELVs must be depolluted within one month.

4.4.1.3 Key Changes

Most of the responses have not changed since the previous reporting period. Romania and Finland were the only Member States to report minor changes in legislation. Romania updated the permits required to handle and dismantle ELVs, whilst Finland’s relates to the introduction of a specific Government Decree for ELVs (123/2015), which updates the restrictions of the use of hazardous substances in vehicles. Romania also reported county public environmental protection authorities may grant derogations, unlike previous reporting periods.


It is not clear whether some Member States’ measures are being properly implemented and fulfilled by companies dismantling and treating end-of-life vehicles. Despite what is reportedly required under law, historically, there has been significant amounts of


informal, and sometimes illegal, activities within this sector across the EU. Illegal treatment is reported to occur in non-authorised treatment facilities, resulting in environmental harm if hazardous substances leak or damage to health if people are handling such materials in an incorrect manner. The Commission has acknowledged this as an issue that needs addressing in their 2017 report on the ELV Directive.14



Austria reported having taken the necessary measures pursuant to Article 6(2). Since their 2008-2011 response, there have been no changes made to their law, which in principle requires all facilities collecting and treating ELVs to have permits. Hence, Austria reports to not allow for derogation. Austria’s responses in 2008-2011, 2011-2014 and 2014-2017 regarding Article 6(3) are consistent, referring to Section 10 and Annex 1 of their ELV Ordinance.

Belgium has reported measures pursuant to both Articles. In Wallonia, it is reported that installations can receive permits if they meet the specified obligations and, in the event they meet those obligations, they will receive an identification number. They report to not allow for derogations.

In Bulgaria, Articles 6(2) and 6(3) are transposed in Articles 17(1) and 21(2) of the national Regulation of End-of-life Motor Vehicles, respectively. They report to not allow for derogation of permit requirements. The essence of their answers has remained unchanged for this and the past two reporting periods.

Croatia transposed Article 6(2) in Article 22 of the national Ordinance on waste, which is different to that mentioned in the previous reporting period (Article 9(2)). The previous period also stated their Sustainable Waste Management Act, which is not mentioned in this period’s response regarding Article 6(2). Article 6(3) is also handled under Article 22 of the Ordinance, along with Article 11 Paragraph 6 of the Sustainable Waste Management Act. Croatia reported to not allow for derogation of permits.

Cyprus has transposed Articles 6(2) and 6(3) and reported to not allow for any exemptions for permits. Their 2011-2014 responses are unchanged, citing Articles 7(4) and 7(3) of The Vehicle’s End of Life Law of 2003, Number L.157(I)/2003, respectively. They report to not allow for derogations.

The Czech Republic reported to have taken the necessary measures under Articles 6(2) and 6(3), consistently detailing the same national regulations in the 2008-2011, 2011-2014, and 2014-2017 periods. They have reported provisions for the management of waste scrap from vehicles and selected scrap vehicles, including record-keeping methods

14 Oeko-Institut e.V., Institute for Applied Ecology, Assessment of the implementation of the ELV Directive with emphasis on ELVs unknown whereabouts, (December 2017), pg. 6, section 1.3.3.


for the waste, its collection and its processing. The Czech Republic stated they do not allow for derogations.

Denmark has reported taking measures pursuant to Articles 6(2) and 6(3), which have been in place for the past two reporting periods. They report to not allow for derogations, but it is not formalised. Instead, as newly clarified in this reporting period, the Danish Environment Protection Agency allowed municipalities the power to give exemptions to companies that handle 10 cars or less a year. However, the 10 car limit is only guidance for municipalities to determine when a derogation assessment should be conducted– a company handling less than 10 vehicles is not automatically exempt.

Estonia has transposed Articles 6(2) and 6(3), with their 2008-2011 and 2011-2014 responses remaining unchanged. They report to not allow for any derogations for permits, as ELVs are treated as hazardous waste – even depolluted ELVs still require waste permits.

Finland’s measures relating to Articles 6(2) and 6(3) were updated in 2014 and 2015. Environmental permits are reported to still be supervised and issued by state and municipal environmental authorities. They report to not allow for derogations.

France has transposed measures for both Articles, which have not changed since the last reporting period. They report to not allow for derogations. Separate approval is required to receive ELVs and to treat them (e.g. dismantling, cutting, and storing). Obligations are set out for treatment centres and grinders.

Germany has transposed measures for both Articles, which have not changed in the last two reporting period. They report to not allow for derogations.

Greece licences all authorised treatment facilities. Checks, inspections and verifications are carried out by the Alternative Management of Vehicles Hellas (AMVH) and competent authorities (notably the Hellenic Environmental Inspectorate and the Hellenic Recycling Agency). Thus, measures are taken for both Articles. They report to not allow for derogations.

In previous years, Hungary has reported having measures for both Articles, with no derogation. However, they have not provided a response for this reporting period.

Ireland reported having three types of measures by which it adheres to Article 6(2): waste licences, waste facility permits (as appropriate) and the newly added Industrial Emissions licences. They report to not allow for derogations. Reported measures pursuant to Article 6(3) have not changed since the previous reporting period. For example, there are still obligations reported on authorised treatment facilities ensuring that the depollution of ELVs occur within 10 days of its deposit at a facility.

Italy reported to issue permits and monitor compliance, pursuant to Article 6(2). In the event of non-compliance at a permitted facility, a warning is issued. If non-compliance continues, Italy reported that a 12-month suspension can be invoked, followed by revocation of the permit. Italy reported allowing derogations, which involves an inspection of the facility prior to commencement of activities and further inspections (at least once a year) during operations to ensure compliance. For example, in 2016, 132


inspections were carried out and 23 incidences of non-compliance were detected. Italy also reported measures pursuant to Article 6(3).

Latvia did not respond for the 2014-2017 period. In the 2011-2014 period, Latvia reported the requirement for ELV treatment establishments to acquire a permit for ‘Category B polluting activities’ before starting polluting activities. They also require these establishments to remove identified/labelled components, as well as hazardous materials (which must remain segregated to avoid contamination). They reported to not allow for derogations.

Lithuania reported transposing Articles 6(2) and 6(3) into paragraphs 9 and 27-34 of the Rules, respectively, but does not allow for derogation. Their response is unchanged from the previous reporting period.

According to Luxemburg’s response, only those authorised under Article 30 of their amended waste management law (Law of 21 March 2012) can treat ELVs. Amendments to the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 17 March 2003 lists the conditions of treatment, with more detail include under ministerial decrees. Thus both Articles appear to be transposed. They report to not allow for derogations.

Malta did not respond for the 2014-2017 period. In 2011-14 period, Malta reported the national regulation into which Articles 6(2) and 6(3) were incorporated, without providing further detail of the measures. They reported to not allow for derogations.

The Netherlands reported having a Competent Authority which issues environmental permits. The permits are required for treatment of ELVs and contain the necessary treatment obligations, as defined in national law. The minimum dedicated measures for storing, processing, destroying and overturning ELVs are as set out in the ELV Directive.

Poland reported to require ELV dismantling operators to obtain approval and follow the treatment requirements set out under national law. They report to not allow for derogations. There have not been any changes recorded in their responses over the last two reporting periods.


Romania changed their permitting legislation in July 2015 to a more permitted system with a greater focus on human health and environmental protection. Operators handling ELVs were previously only required to obtain environmental permits. Now, all ELV-related activities require either an environmental or integrated environmental permit, with disassembling activities requiring an additional “technical operating permit”. Furthermore, more detail has been highlighted in their response regarding minimum obligations for receiving a permit and particular requirements for ELV storage. Thus, Romania has measures for both Articles.

Despite Romania’s response of “no” to the question on derogation, within their explanatory answer, they have indicated the possibility of derogation of permits (unlike previous reporting periods). It states a county public environmental protection authority may grant derogations for the sole reason of allowing operators to recover waste from pre-treated ELVs. Inspections must be carried before the operator’s registration and


then annually during operation. County agencies must, through the National Environmental Protection Agency, notify the Commission of their findings.

Under national ELV law, Slovenia reported treatment and dismantling operators must obtain environmental permits to treat waste. These permits are reported to have requirements promoting recovery and recycling that are set out in law. Slovenia has indicated it does not allow for derogations.

Slovakia reported to have a multitude of measures in place regarding ELV handling (treatment, storage, dismantling, etc.) for both Articles, promoting extended producer responsibility and environmental protection. It reportedly requires treatment facilities to receive authorisation from the Ministry of the Environment, as well as the relevant regional authority. For operation of any waste recovery site, permits are reported to be required and issued by state waste management authorities. They report to not allow for derogations.

Spain has reported measures for both Articles and does not allow for no derogation. However, their response did not include a detailed explanation of the measures for Article 6(3). With regards to permitting pursuant to Article 6(2), the power reportedly lies with Autonomous Communities. According to their response, the permit obligations have been harmonised to ensure operators can be established throughout Spain without market distortions due to geographical variations.

Sweden reported having taken measures pursuant to both Articles (without allowing for derogations). “21 § and annex 1, 90.120 EHAHP-ordinance” in relation to Article 6(2) was the only explanatory detail provided.

The UK specify measures as set out in the national ELV Regulations 2003 (and parallel legislation for Scotland and Northern Ireland). Under the same national regulations, derogation is allowed. As stated in the UK’s response relating to derogations: “Waste must be recovered without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.” However, the UK has not sent results of the derogations to the Commission.


4.5 Reuse and Recovery

Article 7(1) requires Member States to encourage reuse and recycling activities, whilst Article 7(2) sets outs increasing targets for reuse, recycling and recovery with deadlines in 2006 and 2015.


Question 1.18. Have the necessary measures pursuant to Article 7(2) been taken? (Yes/No) Please provide details/reasons for your answer. In particular, provide details on the reuse, recycling and recovery rates set for the years 2006 and 2015.

Question 1.18.3. Has the provision contained in Article 7(2)(a), second paragraph, been used? If the answer is ‘Yes’, please provide details.

Question 1.18.4. If the answer to question 1.18.3 is ‘Yes’, have the Commission and the other Member States been informed according to this provision? (Yes/No) Please provide details/reasons for your answer.

Article 7(1) Member States shall take the necessary measures to encourage the reuse of components which are suitable for reuse, the recovery of components which cannot be reused and the giving of preference to recycling when environmentally viable, without prejudice to requirements regarding the safety of vehicles and environmental requirements such as air emissions and noise control.

Article 7(2) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following targets are attained by economic operators:

(a) no later than 1 January 2006, for all end-of life vehicles, the reuse and recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 85 % by an average weight per vehicle and year. Within the same time limit the reuse and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 80 % by an average weight per vehicle and year; for vehicles produced before 1 January 1980, Member States may lay down lower targets, but not lower than 75 % for reuse and recovery and not lower than 70 % for reuse and recycling. Member States making use of this subparagraph shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the reasons therefor;

(b) no later than 1 January 2015, for all end-of life vehicles, the reuse and recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 95 % by an average weight per vehicle and year. Within the same time limit, the reuse and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 85 % by an average weight per vehicle and year.




25 Member States have fully transposed Article 7(1). It was judged that three (Denmark, Estonia and Greece) have only partially transposed it. Whilst all countries report to have fully transposed Article 7(2), not all have achieved the targets for reuse, recycling and recovery (as discussed in Section 5.4). In 2015, 15 Member States met both targets of 85% and 95% for recycling and recovery. As such, we have judged only these 15 Member States to have fully transposed Article 7(2).

4.5.1.2 Key Trends

Although not all Member States reported information on targets via the implementation questionnaires, all Member States did provide this information to Eurostat for 2015. Further discussion. Achievement of targets is discussed in more detail in Section 5.4.

A few Member States have reported unique measures under Article 7(1). Italy reported an incentivising tool that requires Regional Authorities to adopt measures that ensure public bodies (and companies that are predominantly publically owned) source at least 30% of their annually required goods/products (listed in the relevant decree) from recycled materials. The same legislation requires replacement tyre purchases for public vehicles fleets to comprise of at least 20% re-treaded tyres. France was the only Member State to report requiring traceability of dissembled parts for their reuse. In Slovenia, before submitting a dismantled vehicle for shredding, managers of dismantling facilities are required to strip 10% of the total annual weight of end-of-life vehicles accepted of their components, materials and fluids and send them for reuse or recycling.

4.5.1.3 Key Changes

Only minor changes were identified since the previous reporting period. Finland, Romania and Slovakia revised the relevant national legislation in 2015. For example, Romania has removed the 2006 recycling and recovery targets, only quoting the 2015 targets in the new legislation. All revisions appear to be aligned with the provisions of the Directive.


Increasing the level of reuse of components can be challenging as most components are specific to the make and model of the vehicle. Moreover, as the complexity of vehicles increases there is less opportunity for car owners to make own repairs using purchased second hand parts. Finding the right part can also be a challenge, however, online sales platforms are common and allow both sellers and buyers to connect easily.

Another potential challenge to increasing reuse relates to the inclusion of recovery, which includes energy from waste (EfW), e.g. the incineration of materials such as plastic, in the higher target. Removing, storing, marketing and selling second hand parts comes at a cost. This is generally higher than recovering the same quantity of material, in weight terms. Consequently, many systems have chosen to invest in shredders and post-


shredder technology. Where there are suitable markets for feedstock into EfW facilities, there is potentially less of an incentive to focus on recycling or reuse. This is exemplified by how few Member States have detailed tools in their response to specifically promote reuse and recycling.

As discussed, in Section 4.4, there are reports of a significant number of vehicles of unknown whereabouts and those being exported as used rather than waste.15 This can create challenges in accurately accessing whether recycling and recovery targets are met. The use of the metal content assumption will also provide some degree of uncertainty in the amounts of recycling.


Member State responses are summarised below. They have been grouped together in recognition of the similarity of the answers given.

Hungary, Latvia, and Malta did not respond in the 2014 – 2017 period. Of the remaining 25 Member States, 22 report having measures pursuant to Articles 7(1) in place. Denmark, Estonia and Greece have partial measures for Article 7(1). Denmark’s legislation does refer to reuse but does not explicitly align with Article 7(1). Estonia did not provide details of their legislation or targets. Greece reported recycling and reuse activities taking place in their response but did not reference any legislation or specific policy measures.

Of the Member States that fully transposed Article 7(1), nine only cited their national legislation, with little to no information on actual measures taken. These countries were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK.

Seven Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Sweden) did not provide any details on their reuse, recycling and recovery rates.16 However this information has been submitted to Eurostat and is discussed in Section 5.4.

Article 7(2) relating to provisions for vehicles produced before 1980 was not answered by Slovakia in any of the past three reporting periods. 16 Member States report not using the provision: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Malta (2011-2014), Poland (as of this reporting period), Slovenia, and Sweden. Hence the Member States to use this provision are Croatia (as of this reporting period), Greece, Czech Republic, Hungary (2011-2014), Ireland, Italy, Latvia (2011-2014), Romania, Spain, and the UK.

15 Oeko-Institut e.V., Institute for Applied Ecology, Assessment of the implementation of the ELV Directive with emphasis on ELVs unknown whereabouts, (December 2017) 16 However, most Member States provided this information to Eurostat, and this is discussed in Section 5.4.


4.6 Coding Standards and Dismantling Information

Coding standards require producers to mark (or ‘code’) certain rubber and plastic parts of vehicles to promote dismantling, reuse and recycling, and keep technical documentation of the coding. Producers must also supply dismantling information for each vehicle type within six months of it being placed on the market, such as through manuals or via databases (e.g. IDIS – the International Dismantling System).



Articles 8(1), 8(3), and 8(4) have been fully transposed into national legislation by 25, 28, and 26 Member States, respectively. For Article 8(1) transposition was unclear for Denmark, Greece and Czech Republic. The legislation referenced by Czech Republic is unavailable online and therefore transposition cannot be checked. Denmark’s legislation does not specifically mention coding or labelling standards. Greece’s response does not include a reference to national legislation, it only states there are no Greek vehicle manufacturers. Hungary also partially transposed Article 8(3) (as they did not specify




Article 8(1) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers, in concert with material and equipment manufacturers, use component and material coding standards, in particular to facilitate the identification of those components and materials which are suitable for reuse and recovery.

Article 8(3) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers provide dismantling information for each type of new vehicle put on the market within six months after the vehicle is put on the market. This information shall identify, as far as it is needed by treatment facilities in order to comply with the provisions of this Directive, the different vehicle components and materials, and the location of all hazardous substances in the vehicles, in particular with a view to the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 7.

Article 8(4) Without prejudice to commercial and industrial confidentiality, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that manufacturers of components used in vehicles make available to authorised treatment facilities, as far as it is requested by these facilities, appropriate information concerning dismantling, storage and testing of components which can be reused.


that the provision of dismantling information must occur within six months of each vehicle type being placed on the market), whilst transposition was unclear for Greece due to lack of reference to national legislation.

4.6.1.2 Key Trends

In alignment with Article 8(1), eight Member States - Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain – specified producers and component manufacturers within their response as having responsibility to either provide or assist in the provision of dismantling information. Brussels, Luxembourg, and Slovakia did not specify that producers would need to liaise with component manufacturers. However, Austria and Poland were the only two countries to mention imports; Austria specifically reports to require importers to adhere to labelling requirements and provide dismantling information to recycling facilities. Furthermore, Bulgaria - pursuant to Article 8(3) - reported that any “persons placing motor vehicles on the market” must provide access to dismantling information of a vehicle within six months of it being placed on the market.

11 Member states did not specify the responsible parties in their response: Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK.

4.6.1.3 Key Changes

The transposition of Article 8 is largely unchanged from the previous reporting period. Romania amended its national legislation in 2015. Article 8(1) is reported to be essentially unchanged. Article 8(3) now includes that dismantling information must be provided “free of charge” and “with industry and commercial secrecy […] combating unfair competition”. Article 8(4) previously covered producers in cooperation with economic operators, whereas the updated legislation is reported to require producers and economic operators to publish dismantling information.


For the Member States that did not specify or provide detail of their national legislation, it was initially unclear whether full transposition had occurred. For Austria and Luxembourg, responses in previous periods provided clarity on the relevant legislation. For Greece, the responses are unclear in this period and early periods’ responses did not provide any further clarity.

Romania’s change in legislation to require dismantling information be supplied free of charge may suggest that previously producers had been charging a fee for this information. Whether this is a wide-spread issue affecting access to and availability of dismantling information is unclear and a potential challenge.

Denmark specifies their database as being in Danish only. For imports and exports, this may present a language barrier issue. Similar language barriers may be causing challenges in deciphering dismantling information throughout the continent.



Member State responses are summarised below. They have been grouped together in recognition of the similarity of the answers given.

In the previous reporting period, Latvia and Malta reported the relevant piece of national legislation for Articles 8(1), 8(3) and 8(4). Hungary previously reported to have measures in their 2008-2011 and 2011-2014 responses but Article 8(3) is judged to be partially transposed (as they did not specify that the provision of information must occur within six months) and they did not specify the relevant legislation in their explanation.

All remaining Member States report having the necessary measures for all three Articles – 8(1), 8(3), and 8(4). However, despite responding “yes”, Czech Republic, Denmark, and Greece’s transposition of Article 8(1) is unclear and Hungary has only partially transposed Article 8(3). The legislation referenced by Czech Republic is unavailable online and therefore transposition cannot be checked. Denmark’s legislation does not specifically mention coding or labelling standards. Greece’s response does not include a reference to national legislation, it only states there are no Greek vehicle manufacturers.

13 countries only report the national legislation, with most confirming the laid down text to be in alignment with the Directive: Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK.

Austria reported to be in accordance with the Directive’s Articles but did not provide reference to national legislation. France, in addition to transposing the Articles, reported having provisions for checks during the Community reception of vehicles. Slovakia reports having a requirement for all coding to be done to Slovak Technical Standards. Bulgaria reported a list of coding standards for vehicle producers and component manufacturers. Luxembourg has not reported on all the relevant pieces of national legislation, as they have missing responses from this reporting period. However, earlier responses provide clarity on their relevant legislation. Greece is also missing references to national legislation, but indicates the lack of any national manufacturers as the reason why.


5.0 Implementation of the Directive

This section presents the information provided by Member States in section two of the questionnaire. These questions concerned the evidence and particulars of how a number of the Directive’s provisions have been implemented by Member States. The following sub-sections summarise Member State responses regarding the six key provisions identified previously.

5.1 Waste Prevention

11 Member States reported taking new waste prevention measures in accordance with Articles 4 (1) (a) and (b), while 16 reported that they had not done so and one (Greece) provided a response which was unclear. However, it should be noted that reporting on this question does not appear to be consistent, and some Member States may be answering ‘yes’ when they have taken such measures in the past, rather than specifically having taken new measures in the most recent reporting period.

Of those Member States reporting that they had taken measures, notable examples include Ireland, which requires producers to promote waste prevention through a range of measures applying to certain specified vehicles, including: restricting the use of hazardous substances, taking into account dismantling, reuse, recovery and recycling at end-of-life when designing new vehicles, and increasing the proportion of recycled material used in the production of specified vehicles. Romania also mentioned a number of measures, including carrying out preliminary assessments to ensure that vehicles meet certain targets, and a new activation standard via a standardised on-board diagnostics (OBD) interface developed by vehicle producers.

Question 2.1: Have any new measures in accordance with Articles 4(1)(a) and (b) been taken? (Yes/No)

Article 4 (1) (a) and (b) In order to promote the prevention of waste Member States shall encourage, in particular:

(a) vehicle manufacturers, in liaison with material and equipment manufacturers, to limit the use of hazardous substances in vehicles and to reduce them as far as possible from the conception of the vehicle onwards, so as in particular to prevent their release into the environment, make recycling easier, and avoid the need to dispose of hazardous waste;

(b) the design and production of new vehicles which take into full account and facilitate the dismantling, reuse and recovery, in particular the recycling, of end-of life vehicles, their components and materials


14 Member States were able to provide detailed information on the quantities of recycled material used in vehicle manufacture, while a further six were able to provide a partial response. Seven Member States were not able to provide any details, while one (Greece) provided an unclear response.

Of those providing details, six stated that no vehicle manufacturers operate within their borders (Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta). In addition, Finland noted that it has no significant vehicle manufacturing industry, with only small-scale companies working under the licenses of foreign parent companies. No information is available on the recycled content of the vehicles that are produced, and the material flows from recycled ELVs are aggregated with general material flows (e.g. recycled ferrous and non-ferrous metals). Similarly, Slovenia noted that the only vehicle producer operating within its borders is French, and no associated data is available.

Points of interest include Poland’s statement that while recycled plastics are used, recovered plastics require a specific cleaning process before they can be used in vehicle production. Romania commented that the most frequently used recycled plastic material for vehicle parts is propylene, and that recycled plastic accounts for more than 10% of the total mass of plastic used in vehicles manufactured in the country.

5.2 Collection

Table 5-1 presents the data submitted by Member States to all three implementation questionnaires, with the series dating back to 2008. The numbers of vehicles collected and transferred fluctuates throughout time, with both increases and decreases evident across the Member States. The highest numbers of vehicles collected are in France, Italy

Question 2.2: In accordance with Article 4(1)(c), please provide the available information on types and quantities of recycled materials in vehicles and in other products as well as on the market situation for recycled materials. (reuse and recovery)

Article 4 (1) (c):

In order to promote the prevention of waste Member States shall encourage, in particular:

(c) vehicle manufacturers, in liaison with material and equipment manufacturers, to integrate an increasing quantity of recycled material in vehicles and other products, in order to develop the markets for recycled materials.

Question 2.3: Please indicate the number of vehicles collected and transferred to authorised treatment facilities in each calendar year of the reference period.


and the UK. Although, it is worth noting that the data is not presented in relation to the population.

Greece notes that the significant reduction between 2015 and 2016 is attributed to the withdrawal of a financial incentive given to the owners of older vehicles by manufacturers/importers to replace their vehicles with newer models. Similarly, Luxembourg reported reductions in ELV numbers due to the cessation of the vehicle scrapping payment scheme in 2010, whilst Germany also indicated diminishing effects from the 2009 car scrapping incentive scheme.

The findings also align with the recent Commission report regarding vehicles of unknown whereabouts. Finland for instance, reported that some citizens and operators do not take ELVs to the producers' official take-back system and thus the total amount of ELVs is considerably higher than the actual number of CoDs. Furthermore, Finland highlighted that the increase in appropriate treatment of ELVs in 2017 may have resulted from the rise of metal prices and improvements to the online deregistration system. The eRomu-development project has further established direct connection between operators own systems and the traffic register, and there has been the scrapping bonus campaign in use in 2015 and 2018. A scrapping bonus can be used for the acquisition of a new, low-emission car.

Pursuant to Decision 2005/293/EC 17, Member States are obliged to monitor and submit data on ELVs every year. Appendix A.1.0 contains data from Eurostat on the total number of ELVs. A comparison with this dataset further indicates discrepancies in ELV generation and collection figures. For the majority of Member States the data are identical or with minor differences in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand. As explained above, there is a significant disparity in the case of Finland.

Additionally, Germany reported that the relatively low number of ELVs produced, compared to approximately 2.8 million cars permanently deregistered annually, is due to the export of used vehicles. Indeed, reports conducted in 2017 reduced the ‘statistical gap’ of vehicles of unknown whereabouts.18,19 The closure of these gaps was primarily achieved through a recalculation of the actual number of permanently deregistered motor vehicles, and by means of qualified estimations regarding the statistical data on used vehicle export (to EU and non-EU countries).

17 Commission Decision 2005/293/EC of 1 April 2005 laying down detailed rules on the monitoring of the reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling targets set out in Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (OJ L 94/30 of 13.4.2005) 18 Sander, K., Wagner, L., Sanden, D.J., and Wilts, H. (2017) Entwicklung von Lösungsvorschlägen, einschließlich rechtlicher Instrumente, zur Verbesserung der Datenlage beim Verbleib von Altfahrzeugen, p.333 19 Kohlmeyer et al (2017) Clarification of the whereabouts of end-of-life vehicles, Recycling and Raw Materials, Vol.10


As discussed in sections 4.2 and 4.3, it is evident that not all ELVs are transferred to collection points, and of those transferred, not all of them receive a CoD. Not only do such gaps exist, but illegal collection and treatment facilities also pose a challenge.


Table 5-1: Number of Vehicles Collected and Transferred to Authorised Treatment Facilities, 2008–2017

Member State

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Austria 63,975 87,364 82,144 80,004 64,809 73,993 59,904 47,926 48,077

Belgium 141,547 140,993 170,562 165,016 160,615 134,506

Bulgaria 38,600 54,451 47,755 57,532 63,820 81,932 85,946 92,706

Croatia 45,853 35,212 32,135 19,388 17,617 19,627

Cyprus 13,733 17,303 12,145 16,399 17,145 13,212 11,160 8,293

Czech Republic

131,987 139,440 145,928

Denmark 101,173 96,830 101,173 96,830 117,846 102,906 93,129

Estonia 13,843 7,528 10,000 11,413 12,835 14,712 14,720 12,884 11,864

Finland 40,173 43,089 54,566 64,851 62,869 66,711 59,427 72,710

France 1,109,876 1,570,593 1,283,283 1,515,432 1,209,477 1,115,280 1,084,766 1,016,326 1,046,043

Germany 420,221 1,784,297 503,208 468,711 479,256 503,647 515,867 476,222

Greece 62,696 146,540 68,665 117,189 82,863 87,050 46,573

Hungary 26,120 15,907 13,043 15,525 16,083 17,127

Ireland 127,612 152,455 135,281 102,073 86,950 74,910

Italy 1,203,184 1,610,137 952,461 902,611 876,052 953,690 1,036,562 1,086,425

Latvia 11,033 10,947 9,039 9,034 10,228 9,003 29,982 26,546 21,306

Lithuania 19,534 19,656 23,351 26,619 22,885 26,482 29,982 26,546 21,306


Member State

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Luxembourg 2,865 6,908 6,303 2,341 2,834 2,300 2,225 1,617 1,854

Malta 482 2,45120

Netherlands 209,427 263,572 232,448 232,720 226,103 213639

Poland 189,871 210,218 295,152 344,809 358,340 448,182 448,797 368301

Portugal 107,746 107,946 103,255 77,929 92,008 94,179 86,713 84,158 88,559

Romania 51,577 55,875 128,839 57,950 42,138 41,886

Slovakia 39,769 67,795 35,174 39,171 33,469 36,858 28,050 26,641 37,357

Slovenia 6,780 7,043 6,807 6,598 5,447 6,261 6,620 7,459

Spain 748,071 952,367 839,637 671,927 687,824 734,776 724,820 689,760 611,446

Sweden 150,559 133,589 170,658 184,679 186,525 190,085 186,967 188,810 186,838 193,013

United Kingdom

1,210,294 1,327,517 1,254,772 1,226,694 1,140,176 1,018,392

Source: Member State Implementation Reports (2008-2011, 2011-2014, 2014-2017)

20 Number of CoDs issued at ATFs in 2014. Source: https://era.org.mt/en/Documents/WSS%20ELV.pdf

https://era.org.mt/en/Documents/WSS%20ELV.pdf


5.3 Treatment

Article 6(2) obliges Member States to implement measures to ensure that any establishment undertaking treatment obtains a permit or is registered with the competent authority.

Table 5-2 shows the reported numbers for each of the two previous reporting periods. The reported numbers include collection, dismantling, shredding and storage facilities. A number of countries provided breakdowns by facility type, including Germany and Portugal. Data was missing for Belgium, Malta, Hungary and Latvia. In most countries the number of ATFs increased, with strong increases reported in Ireland, Lithuania, Poland and Portugal. A reduction in ATFs was reported in Cyprus, Germany, France, Italy and Sweden.

Germany indicated that the numbers of ATFs reported are subject to discrepancies based on the number of firms which actually treated ELVs during the year in question. Ireland also noted that not all ATFs reported are necessarily active in any given year.

Greece reported that the AMVH also maps the locations of the ATFs.

Table 5-2: The Number of Treatment Facilities Authorised or Registered in Accordance with Article 6

Member State 2008-2011 2011-2014 2014-2017

Austria 177 177 207

Belgium 107 123

Bulgaria 270 580 582

Croatia 14 16

Cyprus 12 16 13

Czech Republic 595 569 587

Denmark 217 217 219

Estonia 48 64 76

Finland 220 113 275

France 1,630 1,759 1,754

Question 2.4: Please indicate the number of treatment facilities authorised or registered in accordance with Article 6.


Member State 2008-2011 2011-2014 2014-2017

Germany 1,409 1,349 1,273

Greece 115 133

Hungary 218 171

Ireland 165 173 226

Italy 1,358 1,699 1,631

Latvia 214 385

Lithuania 214 385 560

Luxembourg 2 2 2

Malta 1 5 821

Netherlands 448 517

Poland 644 871 1,033

Portugal 144 188 315

Romania 249 468 574

Slovakia 37 41 45

Slovenia 4 18 22

Spain 1,007 1,170 1,232

Sweden 344 341 291

United Kingdom 1,616 1,804 1,903

Source: Member State Implementation Reports (2008-2011, 2011-2014, 2014-2017)

21 Malta did not respond in 2014-2017. This information comes from the Environment & Resources Authority in Malta: https://era.org.mt/en/Pages/Waste-Management-Applications.aspx

https://era.org.mt/en/Pages/Waste-Management-Applications.aspx


10 Member States were able to give definite information on the number of ELVs with no or a negative market value delivered to ATFs, while five were able to give a partial response. Meanwhile, 13 Member States were not able to answer the question, owing to the fact that no such data is recorded.

Of the Member States which did provide definite information, in seven cases (Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) this was because there were no such vehicles with no or a negative market value; in other words, in all cases in these countries ELVs still held a positive market value. Of the remaining three Member States providing details on numbers of delivered ELVs with no or a negative market value, Lithuania and Malta reported quantitative figures, while Greece reported that all ELVs delivered to authorised treatment facilities are considered to have no market value. This, however, seems unlikely to be true, given that it ELVs will probably have some value as scrap metal, even if they don’t have a value on the second-hand vehicle market.

The data provided by Member States for the 2014-2017 and 2011-2014 reporting periods is summarised in Table 5-3. When annual data were reported, the table shows the last reference year of the respective period. Where Member States provided additional information, such as specific standards of certification, this is captured in the ‘comments’ column. For the 2014-2017 Questionnaire, 18 Member States reported having treatment establishments which have introduced certified environmental management systems.

Belgium reported that all approved centres for depollution, dismantling and destruction of end-of-life vehicles have an environmental care system. This is due to Flemish legislation which stipulates that approved centres for depollution, dismantling and destruction of end-of-life vehicles must submit an annual report to OVAM giving the results of an examination of the company activities by an independent inspection institution accredited on the basis of ISO 17020. A negative evaluation can lead to approval being withdrawn.

Ireland stated that they are not aware of any authorised treatment facilities which have introduced certified environmental management systems (i.e. ISO 14001), however many have developed uncertified in-house EMS. Similarly, Estonia reported that no undertakings have an EMAS certification and no data is available on the number of

Question 2.5: Please indicate the number of end-of-life vehicles delivered at authorised treatment facilities and having no or a negative market value. Please provide details on the average negative value of these end-of-life vehicles

Question 2.6: Please indicate the number of treatment establishments or undertakings which have introduced certified environmental management systems.


undertakings with the ISO standard. Previously however, Estonia reported that one undertaking has ISO 14001 certification.

Finland’s response is unclear as in 2008-2011 it was reported that there were 33. Similarly, Poland stated that none of the vehicle dismantling centres operating in the country had a certified environmental management system in place, despite reporting 10 certified dismantling centres in 2011-2014.

Hungary did not provide a response to the 2014-2017 Questionnaire. The previous reporting period estimated that the number of EMAS certified facilities is 17. Malta also did not submit a response, although reported in 2011-2014 that the one ATF in the country did not have a certified environmental management system.

The Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovakia and the UK reported that this information was not available or that the number was not monitored.

Comparing Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, it is evident that a small proportion of ATFs have certified environmental management systems.


Table 5-3: Number of Treatment Establishments with Certified Environmental Management Systems

Member State

2011-2014 2014-2017

Comment

Total No of Treatment Facilities

No of Treatment Facilities with an

EMS

% of Total

Total No of Treatment Facilities

No of Treatment Facilities with an

EMS

% of Total

Austria 177 64 36% 207 60 29%

Belgium

123 5 4% All approved centres have an environmental care system. None reported in 2014-2017

Bulgaria

580 582 4 1% Number of firms with ISO 9001 certification

2 0% 2 0% Number of firms with ISO 14001 certification

Croatia 14 2 14% 16 2 13% ISO 14001

Cyprus 16 0 0% 13 0 0%

Czech Republic

569 587 0% The introduction of environmental management systems is not monitored in the Czech Republic

Denmark

217 218 100% 219 204 93% The 2011-2014 figure actually relates to 2010, which is likely the misalignment with the figure for the number of facilities with an EMS, which relates to 2014.


Estonia 64 76 No information provided on

facilities with an EMS

Finland

113 0 0% 275 0 0% Finland stated that no facilities have EMS. Interestingly, Finland’s 2008-2011 response reported that there were 33 such facilities.

France

1759 153 9% 1754 150 9% Number of centres which are environmentally certified.

880 50% Number of centres which have at least one certification in this area (the exact meaning of which was not clear from France's response)

Germany

1349 1273 3 0% Registered under the NACE Code and with the ELV agency as approved recovery firms pursuant to national legislation.

Greece 26 133 23 17%

Hungary 171 No information provided on


Ireland 173 226 No information provided on


Italy

1699 1631 264 16% 2016: 5 companies granted EMAS certification and 259 companies granted ISO certification.


Latvia 385 No information provided on


Lithuania 385 560 1 0%

Luxembourg 2 2 1 50%

Malta 5 8 0 0%

Netherlands 273 (2011) 517 245 47% Companies certified to the KZD

standard (Quality Care Dismantling).

Poland 871 10 1% 1033 0 0%

Portugal 188 39 21% 315 46 15%

Romania

468 0% 574 75 13% Breakdown as follows: 58 economic operators held ISO 9001, 14001 and OHSAS certificates; 11 economic operators held ISO 9001 and 14001 certificates; 4 economic operators held ISO 9001 certificates; 2 economic operators held ISO 14001 and OHSAS certificates.

Slovakia No information provided on


Slovenia 18 0 0% 22 0 0%

Spain

1170 58 5% 1232 246 20% Estimate based on response that 20% of ATFs are accredited under ISO 14001. Spain reports that 100% of shredding plants


are accredited under ISO 14001.

Sweden 341 291 80-100 27%-

34%

United Kingdom

1804 1903 0% The UK was unable to provide data.

Source: Member State Implementation Reports (2011-2014, 2014-2017)


5.4 Reuse and Recovery

11 Member States reported having introduced new measures in accordance with Article 7(1), while the remaining 17 Member States reported not having done so. Measures reported as having been introduced included the measures around ELV component reuse in Hungary, awareness raising and communications activities in Portugal, and financial assistance for new research and development projects around ELV waste prevention, recycling and component reuse in Spain, with priority given to projects focussing on the recycling of automobile plastics, windshield glass and tyres.

Data on the achieved reuse/recycling and reuse/recovery rates are shown in Table 5-4. Data has been taken from Eurostat as a number of Member States referred to the data already submitted within the context of the reporting requirement under the

Question 2.7: Have any new measures in accordance with Article 7(1) been taken? (Yes/No)

Article 7 (1) Member States shall take the necessary measures to encourage the reuse of components which are suitable for reuse, the recovery of components which cannot be reused and the giving of preference to recycling when environmentally viable, without prejudice to requirements regarding the safety of vehicles and environmental requirements such as air emissions and noise control.

Question 2.8: Please provide information on the rates of reuse, recycling and recovery attained in each calendar year of the reference period, in pursuance of the objectives laid down in Article 7(2).

Article 7(2)

(a) No later than 1 January 2006, for all end-of-life vehicles, the re-use and recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 85% by an average weight per vehicle and year. Within the same time limit the re-use and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 80% by an average weight per vehicle and year;

For vehicles produced before 1 January 1980, Member States may lay down lower targets, but not lower than 70% for re-use and recovery and not lower than 70% for re-use and recycling. Member States making use of this subparagraph shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the reasons therefor; (b) No later than 1 January 2015, for all end-of-life vehicles, the re-use and recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 95% by an average weight per vehicle and year. Within the same time limit, the re-use and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 85% by an average weight per vehicle and year.


Commission Decision on details for monitoring compliance with the Directive.22 It shows that as of 2015, when data was available for all 28 Member States, seven had not met the 85% target for reuse and recycling. These were: Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Sweden. The data indicates that Greece, Ireland and Sweden went on to meet the target in 2016, and most of those that didn’t meet were only out by a small margin.

Fewer Member States managed to achieve the 95% target for reuse and recovery in 2015, also in most cases this was only by a small margin. Those that did not for 2015 are as follows: Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Greece and Slovakia went on to meet the target in 2016, whilst some countries that had initially met the target fell short (Spain, Sweden, UK).

Interestingly, a significant number of larger Member States with more established ELV management infrastructure and processes appear to be missing their recovery targets. This could be indicative of a greater focus on recycling rather than recovery (e.g. France, Spain, Sweden and the UK, which all meet their recycling targets but not recovery targets). Alternatively, it could be the result of more robust reporting methods.

The high rates reported by Greece can be attributed to the fact that dismantling facilities chose to store some ELVs that hadn’t yet had fluids removed, most likely due to the low market values of metals, which are gradually been shredded after the year of their decontamination.

Table 5-4: Reuse and Recycling & Reuse and Recovery Rates (%) Achieved by Member State 2015-2016

Member State Reuse and Recycling Reuse and Recovery

2015 2016 2015 2016

Austria 86.90 87.20 96.90 96.90

Belgium 91.30 92.10 96.70 96.40

Bulgaria 94.40 94.60 95.10 95.60

Croatia 92.80 93.90 99.50 99.50

Cyprus 89.10 90.30 90.70 93.20

Czech Republic 90.20 90.30 95.70 95.40

22 EUROSTAT (2019) Eurostat - Data Explorer, accessed 25 March 2019, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waselvt&lang=en



2015 2016 2015 2016

Denmark 89.50 90.10 97.60 97.10

Estonia 85.61 85.80 87.33 -

Finland 82.80 82.80 97.30 97.30

France 87.50 86.90 94.30 94.80

Germany 87.70 89.30 95.80 -

Greece 64.50 100.0* 68.90 108.00

Hungary 94.60 95.40 95.20 95.80

Ireland 83.30 86.00 91.80 92.80

Italy 84.60 82.50 84.70 82.60

Latvia 86.60 94.30 87.00 94.50

Lithuania 94.60 94.90 95.00 95.40

Luxembourg 87.00 86.00 97.00 96.00

Malta 77.70 - 77.70 -

Netherlands 87.7 - 97.00 -

Poland 94.70 - 97.00 -

Portugal 84.00 83.50 92.70 92.10

Romania 85.10 - 90.80 -

Slovakia 88.40 96.10 89.40 97.40

Slovenia 90.23 - 96.11 -

Spain 85.00 85.40 95.00 93.40

Sweden 84.60 86.70 96.80 94.60


Achieved rate falls below the target of 85%


2015 2016 2015 2016

United Kingdom

87.30 86.40 96.90 92.20

Source: Eurostat (2019) and National Implementation Reports (2017)

(*) Eurostat estimate

Data from implementation reports were used where Eurostat data was not available.


5.5 Coding Standards and Dismantling Information

21 Member States provided details on information concerning dismantling, storage and testing made available by producers and manufacturers of components. Four Member States did not provide details, while one (Latvia) gave a partial response (referring back to its response to question 1.20) and two gave unclear responses (Bulgaria and Lithuania).

By far the most popular way of having producers provide the required information on dismantling, storage and testing was via the International Dismantling Information System (IDIS).23 20 Member States reported making use of IDIS (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). While some Member States also use other national measures, the only Member State out of those which did provide details not to mention IDIS was Denmark.

Of the four countries which did not provide details, Estonia and Italy stated that they do not have the information available, while Malta and Slovakia did not respond to the question.

23 IDIS | The International Dismantling Information System, accessed 19 March 2019, https://www.idis2.com/

Question 2.9: Please provide details on the information concerning dismantling, storage and testing made available by producers and manufacturers of components pursuant to Articles 8(3) and 8(4).

Article 8 (3) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers provide dismantling information for each type of new vehicle put on the market within six months after the vehicle is put on the market. This information shall identify, as far as it is needed by treatment facilities in order to comply with the provisions of this Directive, the different vehicle components and materials, and the location of all hazardous substances in the vehicles, in particular with a view to the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 7.

Article 8 (4) without prejudice to commercial and industrial confidentiality, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that manufacturers of components used in vehicles make available to authorised treatment facilities, as far as it is requested by these facilities, appropriate information concerning dismantling, storage and testing of components which can be reused.


22 Member States provided information on the extent to which there have been changes in the structure of motor vehicle dealing and of the collection, dismantling, shredding, recovery and recycling industries. Three Member States did not provide any information (Croatia, Malta and Slovakia) while two provided partial responses (Czech Republic and Latvia) and one provided an unclear response (Denmark).

Of the Member States that provided information, thirteen reported either that there have been no such changes or else no such changes have been reported (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). It should be noted that in the Member State responses it is not always possible to tell whether they are reporting information on a lack of changes, or a lack of information on changes.

Finland meanwhile noted that while implementing the ELV Directive has not had a notable influence on the structure of the industry or on competition, when used cars are imported to other Member States this normally results in a double paying of producer responsibility fees.

Of those Member States that did report either changes to the structure of motor vehicle dealing or distortions in competition, Greece drew attention to the unwillingness of independent importers and dealers of second-hand vehicles to join the national EPR scheme, and noted that this is an increasing problem due to the rising number of vehicles these importers are placing on the market. Hungary meanwhile commented that the economic recession is still being felt in the ELV market, and that as the number of authorised treatment facilities decreases year on year for economic reasons, this serves to give a competitive advantage to illegal dismantlers.

Poland, commenting on the trade of second-hand vehicles between Member States, noted that Member States often apply the producer responsibility principle only to vehicles which have been imported into their country new (and have been recorded as

Question 2.10: Please provide information, pursuant to Article 9(1) on, if any, possible changes in the structure of motor vehicle dealing and of the collection, dismantling, shredding, recovery and recycling industries. Please indicate in particular if any competition distortion between or within Member States has been identified.

Article 9 (1) At three-year intervals Member States shall send a report to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive. The report shall be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC (1) with a view to establishing databases on end-of life vehicles and their treatment. The report shall contain relevant information on possible changes in the structure of motor vehicle dealing and of the collection, dismantling, shredding, recovery and recycling industries, leading to any distortion of competition between or within Member States.


such). As a result, producer responsibility is sometimes enforced in the country in which vehicles are first placed on the market, as opposed to where they are actually dismantled.


6.0 Summary

Based on our assessment, nine Member States have fully transposed the key provisions of the ELV Directive. These are: Croatia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. For the remaining Member States, the transposition of the key provisions was considered to be partial. This information is presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. In a number of cases, this was due to responses containing insufficient information for a true assessment of transposition to be made.

This is not to say that these Member States haven’t fully transposed the Directive. For a number of countries it is likely to be a function of the lack of detail provided in Member State responses. At the same time, the transposition of individual measures does not necessarily mean that appropriate activities and actions are being taken ‘on the ground’. These two caveats draw attention to the limitations of this exercise, which is to a large extent limited by the information offered by Member States.

That said, the implementation reporting process does collect some valuable information that is not currently available elsewhere. For example, the number of treatment facilities with environmental management systems. The introduction of the Circular Economy Package, specifically Directive (EU) 2018/849, and the abolition of the implementation reporting process, will mean that this method data collection is lost. The Commission may wish to consider alternative ways of capturing it.

The Directive introduced new reuse/recycling and reuse/recovery targets in 2015. Table 6-1 shows that a number of Member States missed these targets, although it should be noted that in many cases this was only by a small margin. If, when the 2016 data becomes available for all Member States, it reveals that a significant number of countries are still falling short, the Commission may wish to consider undertaking a compliance promotion exercise that aims to support Member State with meeting the targets.

One way to assess implementation is through an ‘early-warning system’ mechanism (EWS) that identifies Member States that are at risk of missing targets. Such a system is in place for the Waste Framework Directive, where early warning reports are issued to Member States falling behind. These include possible actions to improve waste management and ensure compliance with EU waste legislation, taking into account best practice from other countries and also local circumstances. This could provide a more targeted approach for assessing implementation and dealing with any gaps. Should there be any changes to the ELV Directive in its upcoming evaluation and possible review, specifically the application of new targets, then an EWS-style mechanism could be beneficial.


Achieved rate falls below the target of 85%

Table 6-1: Summary of Member States Missing Targets


2015 2016 2015 2016

Cyprus 89.10 90.30 90.70 93.20

Estonia 85.61 85.80 87.33 -

Finland 82.80 82.80 97.30 97.30

France 87.50 86.90 94.30 94.80

Germany 87.70 89.30 95.80 -

Greece 64.50 100.0* 68.90 108.00

Ireland 83.30 86.00 91.80 92.80

Italy 84.60 82.50 84.70 82.60

Latvia 86.60 94.30 87.00 94.50

Malta 77.70 - 77.70 -

Netherlands 87.7 - 97.00 -

Portugal 84.00 83.50 92.70 92.10

Romania 85.10 - 90.80 -

Slovakia 88.40 96.10 89.40 97.40

Slovenia 90.23 - 96.11 -

Spain 85.00 85.40 95.00 93.40

Sweden 84.60 86.70 96.80 94.60

United Kingdom 87.30 86.40 96.90 92.20

Source: Eurostat (2019) and National Implementation Reports (2017)

(*) Eurostat estimate

Data from implementation reports were used where Eurostat data was not available.


An evaluation by the European Commission of how well the EU’s rules on ELVs are working and the extent to which they are delivering the expected benefits for the environment, the public and industry was begun in 2018, with adoption of measures based on the results planned for the fourth quarter of 2019. Topics being explored include illegal activity and vehicles of unknown whereabouts, and depending upon the results of the evaluation the Commission may propose introducing new measures aimed at tackling these issues.

Potential measures that could be introduced are of the kind discussed in the report on vehicles of unknown whereabouts delivered by Oeko-Institut e.V. for the European Commission in 201824. In that report, the following actions were recommended to improve the monitoring and tracking of vehicles:

• Improving registration and de-registration procedures;

• Introducing incentives / penalties to encourage compliance with the legal obligations around the issuing of CoDs;

• Increased activity in combatting the treatment of ELVs in non-authorised facilities, including inspecting non-authorised workshops, garages and spare parts dealers to check for illegal operations; and

• Improving the data on vehicles stocks and import / export to better facilitate enforcement monitoring.

24 Assessment of the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EU on end-of-life vehicles (the ELV Directive) with emphasis on the end-of-life vehicles of unknown whereabouts (2018), Oeko-Institut e.V., for the European Commission, DG Environment, 2018


APPENDICES


A.1.0 Appendix 1

A.1.1 Eurostat data on the total number of ELVs, 2008-2016

Member State

Total number of ELVs generated

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

European Union (¹)

6,301,000 9,039,000 7,383,000 6,789,000 6,286,000 6,234,000 6,150,000 5,985,000 6,009,000

Belgium 141,521 140,993 170,562 165,016 160,615 134,506 126,835 107,425 106,458

Bulgaria 38,600 55,330 69,287 62,937 57,532 61,673 80,862 85,946 92,706

Czechia 147,259 155,425 145,447 132,452 125,587 121,838 131,987 139,440 145,928

Denmark 101,042 96,830 100,480 93,487 106,504 125,650 104,413 98,929 89,039

Germany 417,534 1,778,593 500,193 466,160 476,601 500,322 512,163 473,386 412,801

Estonia 13,843 7,528 7,268 11,413 12,835 14,712 14,720 12,884 11,184

Ireland 127,612 152,455 158,237 134,960 102,073 92,467 86,950 74,910 98,213

Greece 55,201 115,670 95,162 112,454 84,456 86,205 82,863 87,050 46,573

Spain 748,071 952,367 839,637 671,927 687,824 734,776 724,820 689,760 611,446


Member State


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

France 1,109,876 1,570,593 1,583,283 1,515,432 1,209,477 1,115,280 1,084,766 1,016,326 1,046,083

Croatia : : : : 35,213 32135(²) 19,388 16,900 20,386

Italy 1,203,184 1,610,137 1,246,546 952,461 902,611 876,052 853,584 958,245 978,960

Cyprus 14,273 17,303 13,219 17,145 17,547 13,212 11,160 8,293 5,151

Latvia 10,968 10,590 10,640 9,387 10,228 9,003 9,268 8,924 8,049

Lithuania 19,534 19,656 23,351 26,619 22,885 26,482 29,982 26,546 21,306

Luxembourg 2,865 6,908 6,303 2,341 2,834 2,290 2,225 1,617 1,854

Hungary 37,196 26,020 15,907 13,043 15,357 14,897 15,283 16,788 15,141

Malta : : 330 2,526 2,530 1,198 2,646 4,509 :

Netherlands 152,175 191,980 232,448 195,052 187,143 183,451 188,487 : :

Austria 63,975 87,364 82,144 80,004 64,809 73,993 59,904 47,926 48,077

Poland 189,871 210,218 259,576 295,152 344,809 402,416 454,737 478,202 :

Portugal 107,746 107,946 107,419 77,929 92,008 92,112 86,713 84,158 88,559


Member State


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Romania 51,577 55,875 190,790 128,839 57,950 37,989 42,138 41,886 :

Slovenia 6,780 7,043 6,807 6,598 5,447 : 6,260 : :

Slovakia 39,769 67,795 35,174 39,171 33,469 36,858 29,175 26,176 36,931

Finland 103,000 96,270 119,000 136,000 119,000 99,300 94,540 99,630 114,460

Sweden 150,197 133,589 170,658 184,105 185,616 189,748 186,967 188,810 186,875

United Kingdom

1,210,294 1,327,517 1,157,438 1,220,873 1,163,123 1,149,459 1,106,846 995,527 1,103,050

"(¹) current composition, Eurostat estimates for 2008, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016.

(²) Eurostat estimate."

Source: Eurostat (online data code: env_waselvt)