Brussels, 08/04/2016 (Agence Europe) - At the first meeting of the European Parliament's investigative committee on responsibly for the Volkswagen scandal (EMIS) on Thursday 7 April, three European Commission representatives stressed that their institution, as Guardian of the Treaties, is 'responsible for EU reglemention' but not its implementation.
The same questions were on the lips of the MEPs who turned up for the discussions with Antti Peltomaki, deputy director at the Commission's Directorate General for the Internal Market (DG Grow), Daniel Calleja Crespo, director general of the DG responsible for the environment, and Artur Runge-Metzger, director of DG Climate Action. What failings were there at the level of the European system that could have led to such a massive use of invalidation mechanisms to cheat in certification tests at vehicle laboratories? Why did the scandal break out in the United States rather than Europe?
In response to the first question, Peltomaki said at the outset that the Commission was responsible for European reglementation rather than implementation. The European institution does not have enough officials to carry out certifications, added Calleja. Intrigued, MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE, Netherlands) asked whether there had been an internal investigative committee set up by the Commission to examine the existence of potential shortcomings. Peltomaki said that there had not yet been one because it would take time to set one up. He added that such a committee would be set up shortly.
Karima Delli (Greens/ALE, France) asked whether a member of the Commission had met a representative of the Association of European Car Manufacturers (ACEA) in January to give him confidential information in order to influence to their benefit legislation on certification tests in real driving conditions (see EUROPE 11514). Peltomaki was very evasive, saying it had not yet been confirmed and adding that it was standard practice for the Commission to meet lobbyists. He said it wanted to be as open and accessible as possible.
On the conditions that enabled the scandal to break out on the other side of the Atlantic, the Commission's representatives offered a number of explanations. They said NGOs in the United States were particularly determined to defend the environment, said Peltomaki first of all. On this point, Robert asked what the Commission was telling European NGOs at the time. Calleja said they were being told that the Commission was aware that there were differences between emissions measures in a laboratory and those measured in real driving conditions and the Commission was working to change the system.
The Commission's arms are tied by European legislation, added Peltomaki. Sufficient proof of malpractice has to be provided before infringement proceedings can be launched, thus admitting that there are shortcomings in terms of market surveillance. The big difference is that the US system focusses on vehicles in circulation, whereas the EU focusses on certification. Finally, he pointed the finger at the complexity of the European certification system, whose implementation and inspection processes vary among the 28 member states.
On the latter point, the investigative committee's chair, Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgium), said that a meeting would shortly be held with US experts to determine the differences between the EU and US certification and surveillance systems. The next meeting will be held on 19 April. The chair said a new meeting would be added following the cancellation of the 22 March meeting due to the terrorist attacks in Brussels. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)