Typical EU thinking and taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I have had Low energy bulbs in my house for years, even before the price became "reasonable", but there are a couple of incandescent bulbs still in use. In the lounge we have a couple of LE table lamps but the main lamp is incandescent, why because it's on a dimmer and for the reason that now and then we need a really strong light to see various things, small print, fine detail, threading a needle etc, light that just isnt available from the LE unless you put 25W+ which you don't need all the time. The alternative is to put the very much more expensive LE that can be dimmed.
Eventually ALL incandescents will be banned so what about my security lights. When they are activated you would have to wait for ages before they come up to full brightness. Would it not have been more sensible for the EU to have increased the price of incandescent by way of green tax to a level above LE's then there would be a choice and source of payment to offset the green (supposed) issue.
These Law/Directive makers never consider the future, the UK smoking ban is an example, no smoking in offices, shops etc, we all know that. However it was decreed that ALL of these building MUST display notices to that effect, not just for a while or until everybody got used to the idea, but forever. Every new building for the next x hundred years MUST display no smoking signs. Would I be unduly cynical if I suggested that the law makers [probably had a stake in the sign industry