The Renewable Energy Directive, Directive 2009/28/EC, provides for an overall EU-wide renewable
energy target of at least 20% to be achieved by 2020, as well as for national targets for each
of the Member States. Those targets are binding, in the sense that they create concrete obligations
on the Member States which they have to comply with. [...]
The Directive foresees a trajectory for the years up to 2020 as well, which is intended more as guidance for the Member States. It is not binding and Member States thus do not have to justify any deviations from the intermediary targets set out in the trajectory, as long as they reach their binding target for 2020. However, if the trajectory targets are missed by far, and given additional circumstances, such as change in legislation,
stop-and-go policies, negative changes, the European Commission may find this Member State at high risk not to reach the binding target, and could already consider opening of infringement procedures.
The text of the Directive does not foresee a specific enforcement or penalty mechanism in case a Member State fails to reach its target.1
Rather, the “normal” procedures would be applicable, and the European Commission could open an infringement procedure, based on Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).2
Infringement procedures can be started based on a complaint sent to the Commission. In such a case, the European Commission may first investigate whether there is merit to the complaint or not, in order to decide whether to act upon it or not. But the Commission can also start proceedings
out of own initiative, based on their own information and investigation. In the course of those investigations, the pre-contentious stage of the proceedings, the Commission may give the Member State already the chance to explain its position and the opportunity to reach a solution together with the Commission, so that no further steps are necessary. The second step in an infringement procedure would then be a „letter of formal notice“, formally notifying the Member State of the alleged infringement and asking the Member State to submit its observations on the infringement. The Member State addressed gets some time to submit the responses, usually about two months. Based on this response or absence of a response from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to send a "reasoned opinion" to the Member State. This reasoned opinion constitutes sort of a final written warning summoning the Member State to comply within a specified period, normally within two months. However, Member States in practice often ask for and get prolongation of the deadline for compliance. Until the reasoned opinion and the Member State’s reaction to this, the proceedings are still called “administrative” as no Court and only the Commission is involved. Further, the proceedings and the documents are generally kept confidential. The complainant does not become a party to the proceedings and third parties cannot normally join. The Commission can deny access to documents such as the reasoned opinion for the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.3
If the Member State fails to comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice. This would start the judicial stage of the proceedings. When the Court of Justice determines that a provision of European law has been
violated, it will order the Member State to end the infringement and ensure compliance. If the Member State fails to comply after a judgment establishing the infringement, Article 260 TFEU gives the Commission the power to take enforcement action again and ask the Court for a
second judgment and to therein impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.4
Such penalty payments can amount to considerable sums, and consist of a uniform flat-rate amount, multiplied by two coefficients, one reflecting the seriousness of the infringement and the other the duration, the result of which is again multiplied by a special factor reflecting the ability to
pay of the Member State concerned and the number of votes it has in the Council.5
In particular, the duration of the infringement can be the reason for quite large amounts of fines, as the overall proceedings of first establishing the infringement and then getting a second judgment imposing penalties may take several years.
1 There have been attempts to introduce a direct penalty mechanism in the context of the European 20-20-20 targets, but those ideas have not been taken up by the Commission in their legislative proposals yet. It is criticized that the infringement procedures take way too long, as it may take about 7 years to get a judgment imposing penalties by the European Court of Justice. For example, see: Dr. Dörte Fouquet, Towards a Better Compliance Structure for the European Emission Reduction Policies until 2020, A legal Evaluation, a Direct Penalty Proposal and a Call for an Independent
European Emission Abatement Agency, Friends of the Earth 2008.
2 Article 258 TFEU reads: “If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
3 Art. 4(2) Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to the European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
4 Art. 260 (2) TFEU provides: “If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, it may bring the case before the Court after giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations. It shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. If the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.“
5 See: Commission Communication [SEC(2010)1371], Implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU; as well as Commission Communication [SEC(2012)6106] Updating of data used to calculate lump sum and penalty payments in infringement proceedings.
Each Member State is responsible for the implementation of European Union (EU) law within its own legal system. The European Commission (the Commission) is responsible for ensuring that EU law is correctly applied. In a situation where the Commission considers that a Member State failed to comply with EU law, it has certain powers to try to bring the infringement to an end. Thus, it can start an infringement procedure aiming at making the Member State comply voluntarily with the requirements of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Treaty). Besides that, it has the power to refer the case to the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). However, around 95% of infringement cases are resolved before they reach the Court.
Article 260 of the Treaty provides that:
“(1) If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.
(2) If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, it may bring the case before the Court after giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations. It shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
If the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.
(3) When the Commission brings a case before the Court pursuant to Article 258 on the grounds that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, it may, when it deems appropriate, specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
If the Court finds that there is an infringement it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Member State concerned not exceeding the amount specified by the Commission. The payment obligation shall take effect on the date set by the Court in its judgment.”
Thus, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission may now request already the first time the case is referred to the ECJ the imposition of financial penalties in events where Member States have failed to implement Directives within the deadline agreed by the EU's Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.[1]
In any case, if the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the first judgment of the ECJ in which the original infringement was established, it may bring the case before the ECJ again, in order for the ECJ impose a fine on the Member State in question and thereby force compliance with its ruling. The Commission then may request the Court to impose a lump sum penalty and/or a daily penalty payment on the Member State concerned. The Commission shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned.
When calculating the amount of the fine, the Commission seeks guidance in the following principles:
Fixing the amount of the penalty payment
Normally, the fine is composed of two components: A daily penalty payment, which is imposed for every day of the continuance of the infringement after the judgment imposing the fine, and a lump sum payment which takes into account the infringement itself.
The daily penalty payment
The amount of the daily penalty is calculated by multiplying the standard flat-rate amount first by coefficients for seriousness and duration, and then by the “n” factor for the county, which takes account of the Member State´s capacity to pay.[3]
With regards to the coefficient of seriousness, the Commission takes into account the importance of the rules of EU law breached and the impact of the infringement on general and particular interests. For instance, infringements affecting fundamental rights or the four fundamental freedoms should be considered as serious and should result in an appropriate financial penalty. Furthermore, the effects of infringements on general or particular interests should be measured on case-by-case basis, taking into account, for example the impact of the infringement on the way the EU functions; economic or other harm suffered; any possible financial advantage that the Member State gains etc.
For the factor “duration”, the period taken into account is the duration of the infringement from the date of the first ECJ judgment up to the date the Commission decides to refer the matter to the ECJ, thus the time the Member State was already granted to correct the wrongs, but within which the infringement was not brought to an end voluntarily.
The sanction should be proportionate and dissuasive in order to ensure that the Member State decides to rectify its position and bring the infringement to an end and does not repeat the same offence. Thus, the amount must be higher than the benefit that the Member State gains from the infringement.[4]
The daily penalty payment will then apply for every day after its imposition on which the Member State in question fails to comply.
The lump sum payment
When calculating the lump sum payment, the Commission will suggest to the ECJ a method which comprises of the setting of a minimum fixed lump sum, and a method of calculation based on daily amount multiplied by the number of days of infringement persists. The daily amount for determining the lump sum should be calculated by multiplying of a standard flat-rate amount by a coefficient for seriousness and multiplying of the result by the “n” factor (same as for the penalty payment, starting with a lower basic rate).[5] Regarding the coefficient of seriousness, same rules apply for fixing a lump sum. Duration is not taken into account in this case, as it is already covered in the daily penalty payment component.
It needs to be stressed that the Commission plays a decisive role in the proceeding in terms that it may suggest the imposition of a lump sum or penalty payment or – normally – both for a specific amount and the penalty or lump sum to be imposed by the ECJ must not exceed the amount specified by the Commission. Thus the ECJ cannot impose higher fines out of own initiative. Based on the practice of the ECJ, penalty and lump sum can apply cumulatively for the same infringement. In addition, the Commission does not exclude the possibility, in very specific cases, of recourse to the lump sum alone.
Examples
To give some ideas on the practical application of the rules on fines, one may refer for examples to the following:
In November 2013, the Commission referred Greece back to the ECJ for poor treatment of urban waste water. The ECJ had previously ruled in October 2007 that Greece was failing in its obligation to treat and dispose of urban waste water. The lack of treatment in 23 agglomerations across the country means that the health of residents is being put at risk. The Commission is therefore asking the ECJ to impose fines, suggesting a lump sum of EUR 11 514 081 and a daily penalty payment of EUR 47 462 until the obligations are fulfilled.[6]
In another case, the Commission referred Italy to the ECJ for its failure to include rules on animal testing into its domestic legislation and asked to impose penalty payments of EUR 150 787 per day.[7]
[1] Communication from the Commission — Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty 2011/C 12/01: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:012:0001:0005:EN:PDF
[2] Communication from the Commission – Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:012:0001:0005:EN:PDF
[3] The “n” factor combines the capacity to pay of each Member State – represented by its GDP – with the number of votes it has in the Council. Communication from the Commission SEC(2005)1658 - Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/sec_2005_1658_en.pdf and its later updates, the most recent one being Communication from the Commission C(2013)8101: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/c_2013_8101_en.pdf
[4] Communication from the Commission SEC(2005)1658: Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/sec_2005_1658_en.pdf and its later updates, the most recent one being Communication from the Commission C(2013)8101: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/c_2013_8101_en.pdf
[5] Communication from the Commission SEC(2005)1658: Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/sec_2005_1658_en.pdf and its later updates, the most recent one being Communication from the Commission C(2013)8101: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/c_2013_8101_en.pdf
[6] Press release of the European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1102_en.htm
[7] Press release of the European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-46_en.htm
1. Background
Fuels can be produced from several different resources. But fuel does not equal fuel in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason the Commission has set two goals regarding greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector: First, as greenhouse gas emission neutral energy sources, renewable energy in the transport sector should amount to 10% by 2020.[1] Second, overall the transport sector should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%,[2] wherefore, again, as being greenhouse gas emission neutral fuels from renewable energy sources biofuels are good means to achieve these goals.
[1]Directive 2009/28/EC Article 3(4)
[2] Directive 2009/30/EC Article 7(a)
[1]Directive 2009/28/EC Article 3(4)
[2] Directive 2009/30/EC Article 7(a)
[3] Directive 2009/28/EC
1. Existing Legislation
Currently the Renewable Energy Directive[1] and the Fuel Quality Directive[2] are the main legislation in the field of biofuels. The first sets the separate 10% target for renewable energy in the transport sector. However, as not all biofuels are considered equally sustainable, therefore there are sustainability criteria set in the Renewable Energy Directive. The biofuel has to have at least a 35% emission reduction compared to fossil fuels.[3] This figure will increase to 50% in 2017 and 60% in 2018. Other sustainability criteria concern the source of the biomass, e.g. biofuels may not be made of raw material obtained from nature protection areas or areas with high carbon stock. In order to ensure the sustainability of the entire supply chain, it needs to be checked by Member States or through voluntary schemes approved by the European Commission. The Fuel Quality Directive does not directly address renewable energy but only sets the 6% greenhouse gas emission reduction target, which the Member States have to make sure that it is reached by their fuel suppliers. This EU legal framework has been implemented in the Member States e.g. through certain quota obligations on fuel suppliers to integrate biofuels into their product portfolios or through schemes incentivizing the supply and use of biofuels for example through favourable tax treatment.
However, upon a review performed by the European Commission, it was perceived insufficient, in particular since (some) biofuels had been subject to heavy criticism, among which environmental and human rights activists. Thus, in 2012, the Commission proposed to amend those two Directives.
2. Proposal 2012
The original 2012 proposal by the Commission for a Directive amending Fuel Quality Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive first of all attempted to improve the sustainability criteria set in the Renewable Energy Directive. Among other things it provided that the 60% threshold originally envisioned to be applied only from 2017 should already be enforced for biofuels and bioliquids produced in installation starting operation after the 1stof July 2014.[4]
Additionally, it dealt with the problem of indirect land use change (ILUC).[5] Even though the sustainability criteria prevent certain areas from being used for biofuel production, the impact and potential negative effects of biofuels on the landscape has been subject to increasing discussions over the last years. The discussion is thus a bit older and was already vivid at the time of the adoption of the current legislation, which is why under Article 7(d)(6) of the current Renewable Energy Directive, the Commission had been required to review the impact of ILUC, which might occur due to the production of biofuels.
Generally, in those discussions, a distinction is made between two types of biofuels: conventional and advanced biofuels. Conventional or first generation biofuels, are produced from food crops, such as sugar cane or weed, while advanced or second and third generation biofuels are made from other materials, such as waste and agricultural residue but also algae and forests. However, today, in fact most biofuels are made from food crops. Hence, ILUC critics say, food crops needed to meet the world’s food demand have to be planted elsewhere. For this forests and wetlands are transferred into agricultural land, which causes higher CO2emissions. Agricultural, social and development policy issues, such as exploitation of the local population, food and water shortages, and accordingly increase in prices, were also regularly raised. However, the main focus in the ILUC discussion in the EU context, i.e. relevant to the Renewable Energy and the Fuel Quality Directives, was the danger that the increase of CO2emissions due to ILUC might outweigh the savings created by biofuels themselves.
As a response to that discussion, the European Commission proposed in to limit the amount of food-based biofuels to 5% of the final consumption target of 10% for energy in transport in 2020,[6] which is the amount of those conventional biofuels that is currently used. Thus, with the Commission’s proposal, the amount of food-based biofuels should not increase. Consequently, there would be an increase in second and third generation biofuels such as algae, straw or some types of waste, or electrification and use of renewable electricity in the transport sector.
As regards the 10% target under the Renewable Energy Directive, the proposal also introduced a new calculation procedure. In the proposed Annex IX to the Renewable Energy Directive, it is determined that certain feedstock shall be counted four times their energy content towards the 10% target referred to in Article 3(4) of that Directive. Feedstock belonging to this group are inter alia Algae, biomass fraction of mixed municipal waste, biomass fraction of industrial waste, and straw. In Part B of the Annex feedstock are listed, which shall count double towards the 10% target. These include inter alia used cooking oil, non-food cellulosic material and Lignocellulosic material. Those double and quadruple counting rules had been proposed to address the problem that second and third generation biofuels to date are at very early stages – and there are also concerns that renewable e-mobility may not suffice to reach the 10% target either.
Further, the Commission wanted the introduction of an obligation for the reporting of estimated emissions from carbon stock changes caused by indirect land-use change, based on the best available scientific evidence, for the purposes of reporting the life cycle greenhouse gas emission savings from biofuels, which is both relevant for and results in proposed amendments of the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive. Generally, under the latter, the Commission proposed updates and simplifications of the calculation methods. Not suggested, though, was increasing the 6% reduction target, increasing the number of counts for second and third generation biofuels towards this target or any specific quota for those or the like, so that it was at some point questioned by the industry whether the Commission would really take the right measures: If second and third generation biofuels would be counted “higher” towards the 6% greenhouse gas reduction obligation on the suppliers under the Fuel Quality Directive, given the limited room for the Member States to manoeuvre this might have directly created a business case and incentivized the much needed private investment. Under the Renewable Energy Directive, the achievement of the target and thus the business case for private investment depends much more on the discretion of the Member States which technologies to support and how.
3. European Parliament opinion
Generally, the European Parliament agreed with the proposal made by the Commission. The first reading took place in September 2013. As the discussion continued on throughout the Parliamentary Elections 2014, a second Rapporteur was appointed and the Parliament got to speak about the proposal in a different composition again. However, the main lines did not change. Besides the principal agreement, there were some issues on the agenda, which were important for the Parliament:[7]
One main amendment the Parliament called for was the increase from 5% to 6% as a limit on the share of biofuels and bioliquids produced from cereals and other starch rich crops, sugars and oil crops. The first Rapporteur Alejo Vidal-Quadras of the ITRE committee is of the opinion that 5% cap would harm those Member States which relied on the Renewable Energy Directive for biofuels being the main way in reaching the 2020 targets. Some Member States, he stated, already now have a higher percentage of conventional biofuels than 5%. Second Rapporteur Nils Torvalds in the ITRE committee agreed, and generally upheld that position throughout the negotiations.
Furthermore, according to the Parliament, the disadvantage of the cap would that it does not differentiate between biofuels, which have a major ILUC impact and those which are more effective. The difference between the ILUC effects would have to be included in the calculations for greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, the Parliament wanted to see an additional target requiring that 7,5% of the final energy consumption in petrol shall be energy from renewable sources in 2020. The Parliament also called to further increase the use of advanced biofuels by setting the target that at least 0.5% of the final consumption of energy in transport shall be met with energy from advanced biofuels by 2016. This number should be raised to 2,5% by 2020.
On a communication level, the Parliament also proposed to include next to the two objectives the Commission stated, i.e. (i) ensuring a single market and (ii) ensuring respect for minimum level of environmental protection[8], the objective to avoid adverse effects of the production and utilization of biofuels on food security and on land use.
4. Council opinion
The Council took position officially only in December 2014, thus after the Parliamentary Elections. The late submission of the position of the Council to the Parliament might have already been seen as an indication of difficult procedures, and such indication would prove right.
While just as the European Parliament the Council agreed with the Commission that ILUC problem needs to be tackled, there was a heavy discussion on the 5% threshold for conventional biofuels. Ultimately, the Council called for a 7% threshold, if at all, as the Member States were concerned that there would not be sufficient-efficient advanced biofuels to cover the gap created by the threshold.
The double and quadruple counting of certain feedstock as proposed by the Commission towards the 10% target was also observed sceptically. On the one hand the multiple counting of certain feedstock is seen as an incentive for producing advanced biofuels, especially regarding their high production costs. However, there were doubts about the scientific basis of the classification, as well as about possible risks of fraud and market distortions. Some Member States – which already had developed certain biofuels seen as “advanced” to considerable extent – pushed for it, while others pulled back and instead asked for a more in-depth analysis of the specific lists of feedstock and to include a definition of “conventional” and “advanced” biofuels. Double-counting e-mobility, in particular on railroads, was however generally supported, not the least as this is where Member States have actually advanced in the last years.
As the Parliament, the Council also for some time considered minimum percentages for advanced biofuels, but not in addition but rather instead of a cap on conventionals.[9]
Introducing ILUC into the greenhouse gas emission calculations was no option for the Council, as it would have meant that biofuels based on food crops could no longer be counted towards the renewable energy target at all, and that they could no longer benefit from financial support.
5. Fuel Quality Directive Proposal 2014[10]
On the basis of Article 7(a)(5) of Fuel Quality Directive as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC, the European Commission also made a proposal in 2014 laying down calculations methods and reporting requirements. The main legal points of this proposal are the use of one average default value to represent the unit greenhouse gas intensity per fuel type and harmonized annual reporting by suppliers to Member States and Member States to the Commission. This proposal was a proposal for a Council Directive and will be adopted according to the non-legislative procedure instead of the commonly used ordinary legislative procedure. Thus it had to be considered first by the Council.
The proposal was based on an impact assessment, which focussed on analysing the accuracy of the evaluated greenhouse gas calculation methods and the related cost of compliance and administrative burden suppliers and the Member States would incur for complying with Article 7(a). The impact assessment concludes that the choice of methodology is critical in determining the accuracy of the reported carbon intensity, as some methodologies lead to under- and/or overestimation of the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels at EU level. However, the preferred option - average default greenhouse gas values by fuel type (petrol/diesel) based on an EU fuel mix - is said to be the least accurate option. This option entails to establish representative lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity in grams CO2per Mega Joule for each of the four main road fossil fuel types consumed in the EU (petrol, diesel/gasoil, liquefied petroleum gas compressed natural gas). Suppliers would need to determine their annual volumes and energy content of each fuel type produced or imported. This option also represents the simplest method, e.g. suppliers do not have to differentiate between conventional and unconventional fossil fuel sources in the reporting of their specific carbon intensities towards achieving the 6% target. These would be integrated in the EU average for the respective fuel types.
Being a very technical topic, on which the Commission already opted for the simplest solution, the Council agreed by and large, so that there was not much discussion on the amendments to the Fuel Quality Directive.
6. Outlook
The above-described framework and the positions towards amendments show that there is a lot more to the 10% renewable energy target in the transport sector until 2020 than visible at first sight. The discussion on ILUC was one of the most heated ones among the institutions in early 2015. For some times, the positions of the Parliament and the Council seemed not to reconcile, and a final failure of the Directive was almost expected. However, only in the third and thereby final trilogue meeting end April 2014 a compromise was achieved.
The Parliament perceived the compromise as a “success” even though most of the amendments to the original proposal by the Commission will bear the signature of the Council:
- 7% threshold on conventional biofuels towards the 10% renewables in transport target;
- Multiple counting in particular of e-mobility (5% on road, 2,5% on railroads);
- No accounting for ILUC in the greenhouse gas emission balance; but
- Only a reporting obligation.
The Parliament’s small success was on the minimum target for advanced biofuels: Member States shall set themselves such a target, though, and the 0,5% are only a reference value.
Based on above-mentioned availability concerns, both institutions agreed that the Commission should already by 31 December 2016, submit a report including an assessment of the availability of the necessary quantities of cost-efficient biofuels on the Union market from non-land using feedstocks and non-food crops by 2020 and of their environmental, economic and social impacts. In 2017, a more general report about the functioning of the Directive should be due.[11]
Now, as the case maybe, the Council will officially vote and then adopt the Directive, after which it will be published, enter into force and have to be implemented by the Member States.
While the final result certainly is a compromise, it may indeed be considered a success it seems, as now the ILUC debate is being addressed and the reporting obligations may lead to more scientific evidence and more experience, which ultimately may lead also to more demanding legislation. Certainly, this topic will be around for a while, the more as e.g. in the emission trading system, there is also not real approach towards it as of now, but the Commission is supposed to come up with a proposal in the years to come.
[1] Directive 2009/28/EC
[2] Directive 98/70/EC as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC
[3] Directive 2009/28/EC Article 17(2)
[4] COM(2012) 595 final, 17th October 2012, Article 2(5)(a) – though the date would have been adapted to the later entry into force of the proposal.
[5] COM(2012) 595 final, 17th October 2012
[6] COM(2012) 595 final, 17th October 2012, Article 2(2)(c)
[7] Compare the first Rapport: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-357 and the second: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE544.412.
[8] COM(2012) 595 final, 17th October 2012, Paragraph 15
[9] Compare: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1372885&t=e&l=en.
[10] Proposal for a Council Directive on laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC of the European parliament and of the council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels, 2014/0286 (NLE).
[11] Compare e.g. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1387307&t=e&l=en.