Cars: The EU grants three years to manufacturers to meet emission targets

Have you got a question?

The recent announcement by the European Union regarding a three-year extension for meeting the emission targets for internal combustion engine vehicles has reignited the debate on the ecological transition and the regulation of the automotive sector. This decision raises economic, legal, and environmental questions, highlighting the complexity of European industrial policy in the context of sustainable mobility.

The Regulatory Framework and the Extension

The EU had set stringent targets for reducing emissions from internal combustion engine vehicles, aiming to phase out the production of internal combustion engines by 2035, as outlined in Regulation (EU) 2023/851. However, the recent three-year extension represents a significant revision of the originally established timeline. This modification is part of a regulatory framework that already allowed exemptions for small producers and synthetic fuels (e-fuels), but now introduces an additional element of flexibility for the entire industrial sector. From a legal standpoint, this decision could impact legal certainty and the predictability of market regulations. Regulatory stability is a cornerstone principle for investors and businesses planning long-term investments. Altering such significant deadlines during the process could set a precedent for future downward revisions of environmental targets, reducing the credibility of EU policies on sustainability.

Between Competitiveness and Sustainable Transition

Economically, the extension lends itself to different interpretations. On one hand, it allows automakers to gradually adapt to new technologies, avoiding an overly abrupt impact on the labor market and the production chain. The crisis in demand for electric vehicles, combined with increasing competition from non-European manufacturers, makes the ecological transition particularly delicate for automotive companies in the Old Continent. On the other hand, this delay could slow down investments in electrification, prolonging the commercial life of internal combustion engines and reducing pressure on the industry to accelerate technological innovation. From the perspective of international competition, the EU’s decision could have ambivalent effects. While it provides European companies with more breathing room, it could also make them less competitive in the long term compared to Chinese and American manufacturers, who are investing heavily in electrification without interruption. China, in particular, is emerging as a leader in the battery sector and in the production of low-cost electric vehicles, threatening the dominant position of European automakers in the global market. The environmental aspect is the most controversial aspect of this decision. The extension could be interpreted as a sign of slowing down the EU’s climate commitments, undermining the emission reduction targets

set by the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal (Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, “Climate Law”). The previous regulation aimed to incentivize a radical transformation of the transport sector, one of the largest contributors to CO2 emissions. Granting three additional years could result in a generalized delay in the adoption of clean technologies and in the reduction of the sector’s environmental impact. At the regulatory level, this revision of timelines raises questions about the ability of European institutions to maintain a clear trajectory in climate policy. Furthermore, it opens the door to new demands from other industrial sectors that might push for similar extensions in the energy, heavy industry, and construction sectors.

An Extension Between Necessity and Risk of Stagnation

The EU’s decision to grant an additional three years for compliance with emission regulations opens a wide range of reflections on the future of the automotive industry and the coherence of European environmental policies.

This time extension could offer automakers the opportunity to consolidate more effective transition strategies, investing in research and development without the fear of destabilizing employment and the supply chain. However, the extension should not transform into a slowdown of the energy transition, but rather an opportunity to redefine a production model that integrates innovation, sustainability, and global competitiveness. From a regulatory standpoint, the revision of timelines demands reflection on the flexibility of EU regulations. On one hand, it allows for a more gradual adaptation; on the other, it risks undermining the credibility of European climate commitments, setting a precedent for further future exemptions. Moreover, the extension raises questions about the effectiveness of policies incentivizing electric mobility and the adequacy of charging infrastructure, which still pose a barrier to the large-scale adoption of zero-emission vehicles. In this context, the main challenge will be finding a balance between economic realism and ecological determination, ensuring that the extension is accompanied by concrete measures to accelerate innovation and industrial transition. Europe has the opportunity to strengthen its leadership role in sustainable mobility, but to do so, it must demonstrate that regulatory flexibility does not translate into stagnation, but rather into a conscious and far-sighted strategy for the future of the industry and the planet. The EU’s decision to grant a three-year extension in the transition from internal combustion engines raises complex issues that go beyond the automotive sector. While it appears to be a pragmatic measure to avoid excessive impact on automakers and the labor market, it could slow down investments in sustainable mobility and weaken Europe’s leadership in the ecological transition. This choice calls into question the Union’s ability to balance economic needs with environmental objectives and legal certainty. If the extension is used to strengthen the European automotive sector in global competition, while simultaneously

improving electric mobility infrastructure and encouraging innovation, it could prove to be a strategic move. However, if it is simply viewed as a delay, without concrete measures to accelerate the transition in the coming years, it risks becoming a missed opportunity for the future of environmental sustainability and European industry.