Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2017)47 - Amendment of Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of road vehicles and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2017)47 - Amendment of Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of road vehicles and ...
source COM(2017)47 EN
date 01-02-2017


1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Directive 2003/59/EC (‘the Directive’) lays down the initial qualification and periodic training requirements for professional drivers of trucks and buses, thus improving safety on European roads.

The purpose of the Directive is to raise standards among new drivers and to maintain and improve the professional skills of existing truck and bus drivers throughout the EU. The Directive aims specifically to increase drivers’ awareness of the risks, with a view to reducing risks and increasing road safety. Moreover, the Directive lays down standards on professional skills to ensure fair competition throughout the EU.

Member States have been given significant flexibility in how they implement the Directive, for example on the specific content of driver training and on administrative procedures and the structure of the training system.

In July 2012, the European Commission published a Report on the implementation of the Directive which identified a number of shortcomings. The ex-post evaluation of the Directive, including a stakeholder consultation, was completed in October 2014.

The evaluation concluded that the Directive had been implemented without major problems. It had improved labour mobility and contributed to the free movement of drivers. The evaluation also confirmed that the Directive had made an effective contribution to its primary objective of ensuring road safety.

The evaluation also identified shortcomings that are hindering the effectiveness and consistency of the legal framework and undermining the original objectives of the Directive. These shortcomings are explained in section 3.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

This Directive is an integral part of the general framework of EU legislation concerning professional drivers of trucks and buses. It is also closely linked to road safety, and works alongside other EU legislation, such as the Directive on driving licences 1 , the Directive on the transport of dangerous goods 2 and the rules on driving and resting times 3 . It also works alongside EU law on market access.

The evaluation identified several specific issues regarding consistency with other EU legislation. In this regard, the objective is to ensure the consistency of EU legislation.

Clarifying the mutual recognition of driver attestation for the purposes of the Directive would improve the internal consistency in the Directive between the provisions on the place of training and the administrative procedures for mutual recognition. Furthermore, it would improve consistency with Regulation 1072/2009, ensuring the mutual recognition of professional driver training, while also taking account of the recent evaluation of that Regulation.

All policy options contribute to better training and therefore to improved road safety. This is compatible with the objectives of the Directive, the 2011 Transport white paper and the 2010 Communication ‘Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020’, in particular the objective of reducing considerably the number of accidents and injuries and halving fatalities over this period. One of the main objectives of the latter is to improve the education, training and post-licence training of road users.

• Consistency with other Union policies

The White Paper on the future of transport policy promotes environmental sustainability through its target to reduce CO2 transport emissions by 60 % by 2050. An even greater focus on training on fuel-efficient driving for professional drivers will reduce CO2 emissions and fuel costs.

The initiative is coherent with the present Commission's priority to boost jobs and growth. Modernised provisions on training contributes to the objectives of smart growth with an economy based on knowledge and innovation, where life-long learning and the capacity to adapt to technological innovations play an important role, as well as sustainable growth by promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy and inclusive growth by fostering a high-employment economy. Furthermore, improved mutual recognition of drivers' training is consistent with the improvement of the single market, in particular labour mobility.

Encouraging the use of ICT-tools is consistent with the policies under the Digital Single Market Strategy.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

The legal basis for the Directive on training for professional drivers (2003/59/EC) and for the proposed amendment is Article 91(1)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) 4 (formerly Article 71 TEC). This article provides the basis for the adoption of EU legislation to improve transport safety, including road safety.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The EU shares competence with Member States to regulate in the field of transport pursuant to Article 4(2) (g) TFEU. The EU can only legislate as far as the Treaties allow it, with due consideration being accorded to the principles of necessity, subsidiarity and proportionality 5 .

Around 33% of all journeys made by heavy goods vehicles in the EU cross borders between Member States. Around 8 % of cross-border transport in the EU involves busses or coaches. These figures have been rising over the last few years.

The problem of the mutual recognition of periodic training followed in another Member State cannot be solved effectively by individual Member States acting alone. Although issuing driver qualification cards, as already provided for in the Directive, would resolve the situation, the current legislation makes this optional. Eight Member States have chosen not to use this option, despite the efforts made through the CPC (certificate of professional competence) committee to resolve the issue by non-legislative action. Thus, EU legislative action is necessary to ensure that administrative practices in the Member States enable the mutual recognition of training within the EU. Possible bilateral agreements between some Member States cannot effectively ensure mutual recognition EU-wide.

Different interpretations of the Directive and different practices applied by Member States negatively affect the functioning of the single market. Attempts already made to align understanding and application across Member States through non-legislative actions, such as issuing guidance notes or discussions at the CPC committee, have not yielded sufficient results. Only common EU rules can create a level playing field for road transport operators while ensuring a minimum level of road safety.

Furthermore, since specific training on dangerous goods, disability awareness and animal welfare are required by EU law, it is the EU’s role to provide legal clarity and ensure consistency between the different instruments of EU law.

As regards periodic training, some Member States have deviated from the safety objectives by allowing the same course module to be taken several times or offering a full training course that does not cover safety issues. While it is and should remain primarily for the Member States to adapt training to national needs and priorities, it is for the EU to ensure that the minimum level of training content is consistent with the overall policy objectives.

• Proportionality

As indicated in point 7 of the impact assessment report, the problems identified are best addressed at EU level in the form of an amended Directive that provides clarity on certain elements and sets out better harmonised minimum requirements, while still offering Member States some flexibility.

A revised Directive is a proportionate measure because it would enable further harmonisation of training requirements to resolve some of the issues while still leaving flexibility for Member States to adapt the implementation of parts of the training to their economic and social environment and to the specific needs and characteristics of its road transport sector.

An EU directive would ensure that appropriate minimum training requirements are applied and that training is recognised EU-wide.

• Choice of the instrument

Considering the limited number of changes proposed, and taking into account that the original legal act is a directive, this is considered to be the most appropriate instrument.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

The evaluation concluded that the Directive was implemented in the Member States without major problems; it has improved labour mobility and contributes to ensuring free movement of drivers. The evaluation furthermore confirmed that the Directive effectively contributes to its main objective of ensuring the road safety together with the legislation mentioned above.

Furthermore, while the ex-post evaluation showed that the Directive has, overall, had a positive effect on the sector, it also identified shortcomings that hinder the effectiveness and consistency of the legal framework and undermine the objectives of the Directive.

Contents

1.

The main shortcomings identified were:


difficulties for drivers to obtain recognition of completed/partially-completed training undergone in another Member State;

content of the training only partially relevant for drivers' needs;

difficulties and legal uncertainties in the interpretation of exemptions;

inconsistencies in minimum age requirements between the Directive on the training of professional drivers (2003/59/EC) and the Directive on driving licences (2006/126/EC), ambiguity regarding the possibility to combine professional driver training with other training courses required under EU law (i.e. hazardous goods (ADR), passenger rights and animal welfare training), and the lack of clarity regarding the use of ICT in training courses (e.g. elearning/blended learning).

The objective of the proposal is to deal appropriately with the identified shortcomings.

• Stakeholder consultations

Before the legislative proposal was drafted, stakeholder consultations were conducted to gather as many comments and suggestions as possible from the individuals and bodies concerned. This exercise complied with the minimum standards for the consultation of interested parties set out in the Commission Communication of 11 December 2002 (COM(2002) 704 final).

The consultation process included two types of actions – opinion gathering and data collection. Open and targeted consultation methods and various consultation tools were used.

As for the open consultation, an internet-based public consultation took place between 17 July and 25 October 2013. The Commission received 395 contributions, 203 respondents participated as private individuals 192 replied on behalf of institutions or interest representations. 58 respondents are registered in the Transparency Register of the European Parliament and of the European Commission.

Participants emphasised the importance of ongoing EU action in the field of qualifications and training for professional drivers. Stakeholders consider that the Directive contributed only insufficiently to achieving its objectives, namely increased road safety, developing the skills of professional drivers, driver mobility and the creation of a level playing field for drivers and businesses. Opinion was divided, however, on the concrete measures needed to address these difficulties.

The consultation paper, the contributions received, a summary of these contributions and the report on the stakeholder conference of 6 March 2014 are available on the website of the road safety unit of DG MOVE and on the “Your voice in Europe” website 6 .

2.

The targeted consultation process included the following elements:


• The Commission presented the initiative in the framework of the social dialogue with the road transport social partners on 24 June 2013 and with the urban public transport on 25 September 2013 7 . The main findings of the open public consultation were presented again to the road transport social partners on 25 April 2014. The key issues addressed in the proposal were presented to social partners on 19 November 2014. On that occasion, the social partners expressed their support for having legislation at EU level in this field and had no objections to the objectives proposed by the Commission.

• On 6 March 2014 a hearing of stakeholders was held in Brussels with the participation of delegations from around 100 organisations representing haulage operators, passenger transport operators, workers, training providers and national administrations. The conference confirmed the findings of the open public consultation (see above). The report on the conference is available on the website of the road safety unit of DG MOVE.

• On 23 January 2014 the Commission held an informal workshop with Member States to discuss minimum age requirements and the structure of the training in the context of a possible review of the Directive. At the meeting of the CPC committee on 23 October 2014 the last part of the meeting was dedicated to an informal discussion with Member States on how to improve mutual recognition. The CPC committee met again on the 9 October 2015, when the ongoing review of Directive was discussed. As regards mutual recognition of periodic training, the participants expressed concern about Member States applying different practices and generally saw the need for a harmonised approach. The importance of keeping the Directive up to date as regards technological progress was highlighted, as was the need for additional clarity on some aspects, such as e-learning.

• A questionnaire was sent to Member State authorities in December 2013 in the course of the support study to collect detailed information on the implementation of the Directive. The questionnaires were distributed among the DG MOVE CPC committee members. In April 2014, a follow-up data request was sent to collect additional quantitative information on specific points relating to the Directive.


In addition, the contractor together with the European Transport Workers Federation (ETF) developed a questionnaire about possible barriers to the free movement of drivers. This questionnaire was submitted to the EU members of ETF in April 2014.


Targeted interviews were carried out in the course of the support study to supplement the data obtained using the other methods, investigate certain specific issues, strengthen findings, or seek clarifications on the answers given by stakeholders to questionnaires. Interviews were held with a number of stakeholders, ranging from public entities to relevant transport associations.

The results of the consultation showed a general agreement on the need to improve the implementation of the Directive without substantial changes to its content. There was support for a cost effective solution to the problem of mutual recognition; however, the views on the most suitable measures to achieve it were diverging. Stakeholders also agreed that training could be better adapted to the driver's needs. Vulnerable road users were considered to be one of the priorities for the road safety content of training by some stakeholders. The clarification of the exemptions and its alignment in the CPC Directive and working time rules were generally welcomed, but not a change in its scope. On the issue of minimum age, stakeholder's opinions differ, the industry and Member States being generally in favour of the proposed modification. The possibility to use ICT tools or to combine mandatory trainings was also generally welcomed.


• Collection and use of expertise

An external contractor assisted with an ex-post evaluation report and a support study for the Impact Assessment 8 , which were concluded in October 2014.

• Impact assessment

The initiative is supported by an Impact Assessment, which has received a positive opinion from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

Given the independent nature of the three main problems identified, the Impact Assessment considers three sets of policy options according to three main fields of intervention: mutual recognition, training content, and legal clarity and consistency.


The preferred solution to ensure mutual recognition involves issuing driver qualification cards to foreigners. This solution was compared with the possibility of recognising training through the RESPER driving licence information system or a recognised certificate.


The preferred solution for addressing the training content is to strengthen content on road safety and fuel efficiency in the training courses and make it clear that it is possible to use elearning/blended learning in the training courses. For legal clarity and consistency, the preferred solution is to clarify the lower age limit that applies and the scope of exemptions and to spell out to the national authorities that the training can be combined with other training courses required under EU law. All policy measures were compared to a baseline scenario.


The preferred option corrects the existing problem of mutual recognition which could affect around 46 700 drivers (2016). Given the repetitive nature of the training, in the next 15 years the total number of such cases could reach 100 000. Strengthening training content will have a positive impact on road safety and fuel efficiency. Due to the complementary nature of the Directive to a number factors affecting road safety and fuel efficiency, the attributed expected effect are quite limited. The preferred option leads to consistent application of exemptions and minimum age to access the profession, which, as pointed out by the industry, could mitigate a growing shortage of drivers entering the profession.


The proposal is in line with the preferred option in the Impact Assessment.

• Regulatory fitness and simplification


The proposal is pursuing the following REFIT objective: By ensuring smoother administrative practices for mutual recognition administrative costs for business and administrations could be reduced. A revision would make it possible to resolve the issues related to mutual recognition at the lowest costs. This is estimated at EUR 6.3 million for the period of 2018 – 2030. This change will bring benefits to the industry in terms of the costs savings, which account over the period 2018 – 2030 for 2.3 million and 6.7 million euros for businesses and drivers respectively. Furthermore, it will make the training system more effective by revising the content of initial and periodic training to provide for further safety and environmental benefits. This will mitigate the transitional costs (in total EUR 14.1 million for 2018 – 2030) related to the change of the content.


A large share of transport businesses are microenterprises or small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs). Overall, 65-95 % of companies in this sector have fewer than ten employees. The Directive does not exempt microenterprises or SMEs from its scope and they will be affected, primarily through simplification of the mutual recognition process, changes of the training content and the more consistent application of exemptions.


• Fundamental rights

No absolute rights are to be affected and no non-absolute rights from the Charter for fundamental rights will be limited by the policy objectives. The general policy objective is to improve the implementation of the fundamental rights set in the Charter within the EU acquis, as supporting the safety of transport workers is one of the key objectives of the legislation.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal will have no implications on the Union budget.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

It is crucial to monitor the measures to ensure that the general and specific objectives are achieved in an effective and efficient manner. To this end the Commission set up a list of indicators that will help further evaluate the Directive.

The Commission will remain in close contact with the Member States and with the relevant stakeholders to monitor the effects of the new qualification and training requirements. The CPC committee represents an excellent forum for the exchange of information with the Member States. The Commission will also stay in contact with the social partners. The sectorial social dialogue committee can be used to exchange information with social partners.

The Commission will conduct a detailed transposition assessment after expiry of the deadline set in this Directive expires.

• Explanatory documents (for directives)

Considering the scope of the proposal, the fact that it only amends Directive 2003/59/EC and Directive 2006/126/EC, both of which all Member States have transposed in full, it does not seem justified or proportional to require explanatory documents.

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

3.

In addition to certain minor linguistic and editorial changes, as well as updates of reference to other EU legislation, the main elements of proposal are:


Article 2 of Directive 2003/59/EC – Exemptions

4.

The wording of the exemptions is amended to make them clearer and consistent with those under Regulation (EC) 561/2006, as follows:


2(b) the amendment clarifies that the vehicles cannot be used for other purposes than the one they have been assigned as stated in the exemption. This means that e.g. if a fire truck is used as an attraction at a fun fair, the driver is not exempt. Adding this phrase also ensures consistency with the similar exemption in Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) 561/2006.

2(d) the amendment clarifies that vehicles used for the non-commercial transport of humanitarian aid are also covered by the exemption when used in states of emergency or assigned to rescue missions; it ensures consistency with Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) 561/2006.

2(e) two clarifications are made: firstly, that the vehicles can be used not only during driving lessons, but also during the driving examination; secondly, that the exemption covers driving solely for the purposes of training and instruction; it cannot be combined with commercial transport operations. These are consistent with similar exemptions under Articles 3(d) and 13(1)(g) of Regulation (EC) 561/2006 respectively.

2(f) the amendment clarifies that exempted non-commercial transport does not have to be for the ‘personal use’ of the driver (e.g. non-commercial transport for charities or non-profit organisations). This ensures consistency with similar exemptions under Articles 3(h) and 13(i) of Regulation (EC) 561/2006.

2(g) the word ‘machinery’ is added to clarify that also if the driver is carrying machinery to be used by the driver in the course of his or her work, the driver is covered by the exemption. It ensures consistency with a similar exemption under Article 3(aa) of Regulation (EC) 561/2006.

2(h) this exemption is intended for entrepreneurs within agricultural, horticultural, farming or fishery undertakings, who occasionally transport their products. This also ensures consistency with a similar exemption under Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 561/2006.


Article 7 of Directive 2003/59/EC – Periodic training

The amendment results from the fact that the transition period in Article 4 has expired and that all holders of a CPC have to comply with the provisions on periodic training since 10 September 2016.

The new wording ensures that the periodic training includes at least one subject on road safety and that the same subjects are not repeated within the same training. It also provides that the training is relevant for the work carried out by the specific driver and that it is up to date and relevant.

Article 10 of Directive 2003/59/EC – Union code

Paragraph 1 is amended to include a reference to the harmonised code 95 which was included in Annex I to Directive 2006/126/EC.

The text is amended to ensure that all holders of a CPC are issued either with mutually recognised code 95 on their driving licence, or with a mutually recognised driver qualification card. This addresses mutual recognition difficulties when a driver obtains a CPC in a Member State which is not his place of normal residence and which issues only a code 95 on driving licences.

A reference is added to ensure the mutual recognition of the driver attestation provided for in Regulation (EU) 1072/2009, including if the relevant Union code is not marked on it.

Annex I to Directive 2003/59/EC – Minimum qualification and training requirements

The reference to Decision 85/368/EEC, which was repealed, is replaced with a reference to Recommendation 2008/C 111/01 and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). Since it is based on a recommendation, the EQF gives Member States more flexibility.

5.

Section 1 is updated to:


• better reflect the current state of technology and technical characteristics of vehicles, strengthen the focus on fuel efficient driving behaviour;

• reinforce safe driving be including the ability to anticipate, assess and adapt to risks in traffic;

• include references to the use of automatic transmission systems, to better reflect the current state of technology and the technical characteristics of vehicles;

• include the transport of dangerous goods, animal transport and disability awareness to provide a more comprehensive list of subjects, taking into account the different types of carriage of goods and passengers by road.

Section 2 is amended to allow Member States to use ICT tools in training and allow them to combine the training object of the Directive with other forms of training required under EU legislation.

Annex II to Directive 2003/59/EC – Arrangements for the European Union model for a driver qualification card

The amendment of Annex II is limited to updates concerning the reference to the Union model driver qualification card and to take into account the reference to the harmonised Union code 95 provided in the Directive.

Article 4 of Directive 2006/126/EC – Categories, definitions and minimum ages

The aim of this amendment is to eliminate legal uncertainty as regards the applicable minimum age requirements for certain vehicle categories, and provide for a harmonised EU-wide application of minimum ages.

References to Directive 2003/59/EC are deleted in Article 4(4)(e), (g), (i) and (k), and a new paragraph 7 is inserted in Article 4 of Directive 2006/126/EC with a clear reference to when and under which conditions the lower minimum ages provided under Directive 2003/59/EC apply.