Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2008)151 - Facilitation of cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2008)151 - Facilitation of cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2008)151  |
| date | 19-03-2008 |
Grounds for and objectives of the proposal Since 2001, the aim of EU road safety policy has been to halve the number of road fatalities by the year 2010. In 2001, 54 000 people died on the roads in the 27 countries, which are today Member States of the European Union, and many measures have been taken since then in order to achieve the objective of a 50% reduction. In 2007, for the first time since 2001, no progress has been made in the reduction of deaths on the roads in the EU. The reduction of the number of fatalities each year was 6 % in 2004, 5% in 2006 and 0% in 2007. In 2007, the number of deaths was still 43.000, equivalent to five medium-sized passenger planes crashing in the EU every week. Over the period from 2001 to 2007, the number of fatalities has decreased by 20%, while a 37% reduction would have been necessary to achieve the objective of halving the number of road fatalities. Because enforcement has proven to be a very effective instrument for reducing the number of fatalities, the Commission has, as part of its Work Programme for 2007, adopted a proposal for a directive in this area. Currently, traffic offences are often not sanctioned if they are committed with a vehicle which is registered in another Member State than the Member State where the offence has been committed. The problem is particularly acute for offences that are registered automatically using road-side cameras, where there is no direct contact between the driver and the police. Public acceptance of enforcement is vital to the ongoing effort to reduce casualties and evasion by non-resident drivers could undermine this acceptance. The share of non-residents in road traffic appears to be around 5% for the countries where this information is available i. The share of non-resident drivers in speeding offences shows a range of 2.5% to 30%[2]. These figures suggest that non-resident drivers are relatively more involved in speeding offences than resident drivers i. A number of bilateral agreements have been concluded between Member States, but these have proved difficult to implement. Moreover, failure to pursue cross-border enforcement throughout the EU not only results in the impunity of non-resident offenders who are not covered by any bilateral agreement, but also discriminates against resident traffic offenders. The objective of this proposal is to facilitate the enforcement of sanctions against drivers who commit an offence in another Member State than the one where their vehicle is registered. The purpose of this system is to ensure that enforcement with respect to such offences takes place regardless of where in the European Union the offence has been committed and regardless of the place of registration of the vehicle with which it has been committed. The offences covered by the proposal are speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter referred to as 'drink-driving'), not using a seat belt, and failing to stop at a red light. These are the traffic offences which cause the greatest number of accidents and deaths on the roads. The proposal aims at setting up an EU electronic data exchange network in order to identify the holder of a vehicle so that the authorities in a Member State, where an offence has been committed, can send out a notification to the holder of the vehicle involved in the offence. Such a system is of particular value in relation to road traffic offences detected by automated devices where the identity of the offender cannot immediately be established, such as speeding or failing to stop at a red traffic light. It is also useful in order to enable the follow-up of offences where verification of the vehicle registration details may be necessary, in the case where the vehicle has been stopped. This is notably the case for drink driving. The proposal does not deal with harmonising road traffic rules, nor with harmonisation of penalties for road traffic offences, since these matters are best left to the Member States. It merely contains provisions of a purely administrative nature for putting in place an effective and efficient system of cross-border enforcement of the main road traffic offences. It does not interfere with Member States qualifications of these traffic offences, which can be either of an administrative or of a penal nature. Neither does it interfere with Member States' laws in terms of who should be liable for the offences in question. The text applies without making any distinction between the offences concerned in terms of their legal qualification as being criminal or administrative, since this is different in the different Member States; it can readily be applied irrespective of such a qualification. Considering all these limitations, the proposal takes the principle of subsidiarity fully into account. The proposed system remains in line with the traditional way of dealing with cross-border offences: they are pursued by the Member State where the offence has been committed. Its added value is the introduction of a mechanism, which does not currently exist, with which the authorities concerned can identify and pursue foreign offenders. The proposal does not interfere with the application of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (third pillar). The proposed directive applies to the phases before a final sanction has been imposed, whereas the framework decision starts to apply when the offender has not paid the fine and a final decision has been taken obliging him to do so.
General context Progress in reducing the number of deaths has been decreasing over the period between 2001 and 2007. In 2007, no progress has been made; the percentage of reduction of fatalities was 0% for the EU. The available data indicate that the main causes of fatal accidents are speeding, drink-driving and non-use of a seat belt. This was already the case in 1999 and has not changed since then. According to the impact assessment study completed in 2007, which gives estimates for the year 2004, 30% of road deaths were caused by speeding, 25% by drink-driving, 17% by non-use of seat belts, and around 4% by failing to stop at a red traffic light. In other words, some 75% of all road deaths are caused by one (or more) of these four traffic offences. On 21 October 2003 the Commission adopted a Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC) which contains best practices for enforcement in relation to these three main offences. It would appear from the trend in the number of road deaths to date that this recommendation, which is a non-binding instrument, is not sufficient to achieve the objective of cutting road deaths by half. If nothing is done, it is highly likely that the objective will not be achieved.
Existing provisions in the area of the proposal The Commission Recommendation of 21 October 2003 on enforcement in the field of road safety in the areas of speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat belts focuses on best enforcement practices and deals in less detail with cross-border enforcement. The current proposal focuses on the cross-border issues; it does not deal with enforcement practices as such. The main similarity is that both of these acts deal with enforcement of mainly the same traffic offences.
Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union The proposed action is in line with EU policies on human health and the environment. It will also complement Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, which sets out a mechanism for cross-border recognition and enforcement of final decisions concerning financial penalties, among others for traffic offences.
Consultation of interested parties
Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents Stakeholders have been consulted from the early stages of the project. In 2004, under the SARTRE 3 project (Social Attitude to Road Traffic Risks in Europe) 24 000 EU citizens were asked for their views on road safety enforcement. On 20 July 2006 a meeting was held with the expert group set up following the Commission Recommendation of 21 October 2003 on enforcement in the field of road safety to discuss the objectives and the scope of regulatory action at EU level. In addition, various bilateral meetings have been held with a number of stakeholders, especially Member States and enforcement authorities. A public consultation, via the Commission's 'Europa' website, was held from 6 November 2006 to 19 January 2007, in accordance with applicable Commission standards. A total of 54 comments were received from various stakeholders. All of the comments are published on the Road Safety Site of the 'Europa' portal of the Commission. A stakeholders' meeting was held on 27 February 2007 to which all authors of comments and all Member States were invited. The Commission drew up a questionnaire directed at the traffic police forces of Europe in order to gather information on road traffic enforcement in Europe. Twenty-one countries replied to the questionnaire, and those replies were used as a basis for a panel discussion to which the traffic police forces were invited in order to give their comments with a view to action by the EU.
Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account All participants agreed on the problem definition and intended EU action: increasing road safety through better enforcement, both in substance and in procedural matters. However, disagreement remained as to what constituted the appropriate legal framework. The responses have been taken into account.
An open consultation was conducted over the internet from 6 November 2006 to 19 January 2007. The Commission received 54 responses. The results are available on ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/enforcement
Scientific fields/areas of expertise concerned Road safety and road safety enforcement
Methodology used Meetings with experts from the Member States; consultation of and meetings with stakeholders; various research projects; other projects and studies.
Main organisations/experts consulted Transport policy officials and road traffic enforcement officers from the Member States, TISPOL (European Traffic Police Network) and the European Transport Safety Council.
Summary of advice received and used The existence of potentially serious risks with irreversible consequences was not mentioned.
It was unanimously agreed that, unless further action in the form of better road safety enforcement was undertaken, it would not be possible to reduce the unacceptable number of deaths on the roads, in accordance with the objective supported by all the EU Institutions. There was disagreement over the appropriate legal means to pursue that objective.
Means used to make the expert advice publicly available The reactions from stakeholders to the consultation paper were published on the Commission website: ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/enforcement
Impact assessment The impact assessment considers five options, each of which addresses both cross-border enforcement and good enforcement practices to be implemented in Member States. The first option consists in maintaining the current situation unchanged. In the second option, non-resident offenders are prosecuted on their return to the country of offence, based on cooperation with the country of residence. This option involves non-regulatory measures which could be taken without any need to change the existing laws or to introduce new legislation at EU level. The Commission Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC) encourages Member States to apply best enforcement practices. In terms of cross-border enforcement, national rules are improved. The third and fourth options also involve non-regulatory measures for the purposes of enforcement, based on the existing Commission Recommendation. As regards cross-border enforcement, option 3 consists in setting up an EU electronic data exchange network in order to identify the holder of the vehicle; option 4 is based on mutual recognition of evidence and transmission of the relevant data to the authorities of the State where the vehicle is registered, for enforcement of offences and implementing of sanctions by these authorities. The fifth option is also based on the transmission of evidence to the State of residence for cross-border enforcement. It differs from options 2, 3 and 4 in that it comprises regulatory measures for the application of good enforcement practices by all Member States. This option also includes measures on the standardisation of enforcement devices. The last option brings more social, economic and environmental benefits than the other options (social: fewer people killed and injured on the roads; economic: significant financial benefits owing to fewer accidents, hence less personal and material damage, and via financial penalties; environmental: due to less speeding, thus less pollution and lower fuel consumption). However, at the present stage of development of Community law, option 5 is not practicable because, on substance, it is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and, on procedure, it overlaps with Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Consequently, the proposed action is based on option 3. It aims at setting up a system for the exchange of relevant data between Member States with a view to facilitating the sanctioning of certain traffic offences committed in one Member State with a vehicle registered in another Member State. Contrary to option 4, it leaves action to follow-up on offences to the Member State where the offence has been committed. It covers the phases from when an offence is recorded up to sending the offence notification to the holder of the vehicle registration certificate. It does not deal with cases where the addressee has refused to pay and is convicted to do so by a final decision, since the above mentioned Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA provides for the mutual recognition and enforcement of such final decisions.
The Commission carried out an impact assessment as set out in the Work Programme; the impact assessment report can be accessed on SEC(2008) 351.
3)
Contents
Summary of the proposed action The proposal introduces the technical mechanisms and legal instruments necessary for carrying out cross-border enforcement with respect to road traffic offences that endanger road safety. The proposed procedure envisages that the exchange of information between Member States starts when an offence has been committed in a Member State with a vehicle that is registered in another Member State. The Member State where the offence has been committed sends the vehicle registration number and other relevant information to the other Member States or the State of residence if this can be identified and requests information on the vehicle holder. The exchange of information between Member States takes place via an electronic network. Once the State where the offence was committed has received the requested information, it sends an offence notification to the vehicle holder using the standard form in annex. This document contains the necessary information for payment of the amount due and information on the possibilities of contestation and appeal. As a last resort, in the case of non-payment by the offender, Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties can be applied. The proposal covers the offences of speeding, drink-driving, non-use of seat belts and failing to stop at a red traffic light. Lastly, the Commission will be assisted by a Committee on road safety enforcement, which will deal with the development of common rules concerning the exchange of information by electronic means. This Committee will also be involved in possible adaptations of the model offence notification.
Legal basis The legal basis for taking measures at EU level in the field of road safety is Article 71 i ECT, which states that "… the Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 …., (c) lay down measures to improve transport safety."
Subsidiarity principle The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community.
The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States for the following reasons.
It appears that, despite the Commission Recommendation on best enforcement practices (October 2003), EU Member States will not manage to reach the common objective of halving the number of people killed on the roads in 2010. Currently, the risk of being killed on the roads is nearly five times higher in some Member States than in others. Countries which apply good enforcement practices generally have a better road safety record than countries which do not apply such practices. Automated devices have proven to be an important element in improving enforcement and it is important to facilitate their operation. With respect to speeding, for instance, countries that use large numbers of automated speed devices, such as the Netherlands and the UK, tend to have low numbers of road fatalities (46 and 56 per million inhabitants respectively), whereas countries with few if any such devices, e.g. Poland and the Czech Republic, generally have much higher death rates (143 and 126 per million inhabitants respectively). (The numbers are for the year 2005). Similarly, for drink-driving, countries that carry out many tests for drink-driving tend to have better road safety records than countries carrying out fewer tests. However, since under the subsidiarity principle the application of enforcement practices by Member States in their own territory is considered to be primarily within their competence, the proposal does not seek to impose requirements for road safety enforcement methods as such. The proposal focuses on enabling cross-border enforcement, which Member States have been unable to achieve through unilateral or bilateral activity to date. The admittedly incomplete set of available data shows that considerable numbers of offences are committed, but remain unsanctioned, thereby undermining the effectiveness and credibility of automated enforcement. Without the application of automated speed enforcement and efficient follow-up procedures, adequate cross-border enforcement of the large numbers of speeding offences that take place will not be possible. The same applies to cross-border enforcement of drink-driving offences without the application of random breath testing. As revealed in the Impact Assessment, it is expected that the implementation of the proposed provisions on cross-border enforcement will also result in the application by Member States of effective practices for the enforcement on their territory of purely national offences.
With respect to cross-border enforcement, existing bilateral and other intergovernmental initiatives by Member States are not optimally effective and result in insufficient application of national laws and in administrative and financial inefficiency. Although some of these agreements result in improved cross-border enforcement between the countries concerned (notably the Dutch – German and the Dutch – Belgian agreements), others have very little added value. The result is less-than-optimal road safety in all Member States and unequal treatment between non-resident offenders who are not sanctioned and national offenders who are. The proposal aims at setting up an EU-wide system for cross-border enforcement which solves the problems inherent in the existing agreements and avoids the further development of a patchwork of different bilateral or other intergovernmental agreements which would be time and resource consuming and, ultimately, less effective. Moreover, there is still room for improvement in road safety performance within all Member States; dramatically in the Member States that currently have a bad road safety record, but also in Member States that are already performing well. Failure to take the proposed measures, would be deleterious to the interest that all Member States have in reducing wherever possible the number of people dying on their roads. Effective enforcement methods can, if applied by all Member States, significantly contribute to halving the number of crashes on the roads/serious road accidents. The Impact Assessment study found that up to 5 000 lives could be saved every year by the application of such methods.
Community action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following reasons.
Only an EU instrument can bring about consistent and efficient EU-wide cross-border enforcement of road traffic offences, through the exchange of relevant information via an electronic system.
The proposal does not deal with harmonising road traffic rules, nor with harmonisation of penalties for road traffic offences, since these matters are best left to the Member States. It merely contains provisions of a purely administrative nature for putting in place an effective and efficient system of cross-border enforcement of the main road traffic offences. It does not interfere with Member States qualifications of these traffic offences, which can be either of an administrative or of a penal nature. Neither does it interfere with Member States' laws in terms of who should be liable for the offences in question. Member States have different laws for instance with respect to the liability concerning speeding offences: in a number of Member States the holder of the vehicle registration certificate is liable, in other Member States it is the driver. Member States should make every effort to ensure that drivers from other Member States who are driving on their territory are aware of the major road traffic rules in force, such as speed – and alcohol limits. The offence notification which has to be sent to the holder of the vehicle registration certificate requests this holder to give details concerning the driver of the vehicle when the offence was detected if the holder does not accept to pay the penalty. If it appears from the answer of the holder of the vehicle registration certificate that the offence had been committed by a driver other than the holder, it is left to the State of offence to decide whether or not to subsequently pursue the driver.
Proportionality principle The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons.
The form of a directive is the simplest form possible for achieving the objectives of the proposal. The proposal deals only with enforcement with respect to road traffic offences, and not with harmonising road traffic rules, criminal procedure or sanctions, since this is not necessary for achieving the required results. The proposal does not deal with cases where the addressee has refused to pay a financial penalty but is convicted to do so in a final decision, since Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties provides for mutual recognition and execution of such final decisions.
As shown in the Impact Assessment, the financial and administrative burden of this proposal is very limited. Moreover, an already existing EU information system will be used and expanded for the purpose of exchanging information for cross-border enforcement. This will also reduce costs.
Proposed instrument: directive.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reasons. The existing Commission Recommendation has proved not to be sufficient for achieving the objective. The same applies, but even more so, to co-regulation and self-regulation. A regulation would be unnecessarily prescriptive and would not necessarily fit within the existing bodies of national law.
4)
The proposal has budgetary implications for the setting up and the running of a Committee to manage the Directive.
Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period
The system for exchange of information will be developed and tested at the latest two years after the entry into force of the Directive.
The proposal provides for simplification of administrative procedures for public authorities (EU or national), e.g. by streamlining the exchange of information in a single protocol.
In order to effectively follow up very high numbers of road traffic offences, such as speeding, there is a need to establish simplified procedures to follow up these offences consistently with penalties. Currently, many Member States have not established such procedures, or the procedures they do have differ according to the existing bilateral or multilateral agreements. These Member States will be encouraged to introduce such procedures as a spin-off from the expected increase in the use of automated speed devices resulting from the proposed measures.
Correlation table Member States are required to communicate to the Commission the text of national provisions transposing the Directive as well as a table of correlation between those provisions and this Directive.
European Economic Area The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.