Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2020)109 - Application by MS of Directive on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of Commercial vehicles circulating in the EC Reporting period 2015-2016 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2020)109 - Application by MS of Directive on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of Commercial vehicles circulating ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2020)109  |
| date | 23-03-2020 |
Contents
- Brussels, 23.3.2020
- 1. INTRODUCTION
- 2. DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC
- 3. DATA COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES
- 4. CONTENT OF THE INSPECTION
- 5. STATISTICAL DATA
- 5.1. Inspection volumes
- 5.2. Origin of vehicles inspected
- 5.3.Prohibition volumes
- 5.4.Origin of vehicles prohibited
- 5.5.Prohibited vehicles per vehicle category and per Member State of registration
- 5.6.Types of deficiencies reported by Member States
- 6. TYPES OF PENALTIES
- 7. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
- 7.1Inspections
- 7.2Prohibitions
- 7.3Defects
- Table 2: Origin of vehicles checked
COM(2020) 109 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the application by the Member States of Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of Commercial vehicles circulating in the Community
Reporting period 2015-2016
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
In the interest of road safety, environmental protection and fair competition, European legislation provides for a set of measures to ensure that commercial vehicles on European roads are in an appropriate technical condition. These include:
·rules on admission to the occupation, which require transport operators to have sufficient financial capacity to ensure the proper maintenance of vehicles (Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 1 );
·periodic roadworthiness tests of vehicles, to be carried out in Member States for vehicles registered on their territory, with a minimum frequency laid down at European level (Directive 2009/40/EC 2 );
·technical roadside inspections — the subject of this report — ensuring that commercial vehicles are only used if they are maintained such as to ensure a high level of technical roadworthiness (Directive 2000/30/EC 3 ).
Under Directive 2000/30/EC, commercial vehicles, including motor vehicles and their trailers and semi-trailers, circulating in Member States are subject to technical roadside inspections aimed at improving road safety and protecting the environment.
Article 6 sets out, that every two years Member States should provide the Commission with data collected for the previous two years relating to:
·the number of commercial vehicles checked, grouped into seven vehicle categories and further grouped by the country of registration;
·the items checked as per the Directive; and
·the deficiencies discovered.
Having collected this data, Directive 2000/30/EC also requires that the Commission submit a report to the Council on the application of the Directive, based on the data received from the Member States, together with a summary of the results obtained. This is the subject of this report. Directive 2000/30/EC also requires the Commission to forward to the European Parliament the information received from Member States pursuant to Article 6 thereof.
Directive 2000/30/EC sets out nine different areas (see section 4 below) within scope of a technical roadside inspection. During an inspection, if it becomes clear that a commercial vehicle presents a serious risk to its occupants or other road users, the use of that vehicle may be prohibited until any dangerous deficiencies discovered have been rectified. Also having carried out an inspection of a vehicle, any deficiencies identified must be documented in an inspection report given to the driver.
In 2014 as part of the Roadworthiness Package, the European Parliament and the Council revised the rules and procedures for technical roadside inspections of commercial vehicles. On 3 April 2014 Directive 2014/47/EU 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Directive 2014/47/EU’) was adopted. It has been applied from 20 May 2018. Directive 2014/47/EU introduced inter alia two inspection types, i.e. initial and more detailed inspections 5 , and that the total number of initial roadside inspections in the EU per calendar year will have to correspond to at least 5% of the total number of these vehicles registered in the Member States. In order to reach this target, each Member State has to make efforts to carry out an appropriate number of roadside inspections proportionate to the total number of such vehicles registered in its territory. The first reporting obligation when this target will be scrutinised will be due by 31 March 2021 for the years 2019-2020 respectively.
2. DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC
According to Directive 2009/40/EC on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, vehicles used for commercial purposes must be tested annually. However, as the annual test is considered insufficient to guarantee that these vehicles stay in a roadworthy condition between successive roadworthiness tests, it is a necessary road safety measure to also carry out technical roadside inspections as an enforcement measure.
A technical roadside inspection means an unannounced examination of a commercial vehicle circulating within the territory of a Member State. The inspection is carried out mainly on the public highway by either the authorities or another body, acting under their supervision.
All technical roadside inspections must be carried out without discrimination on grounds of the driver’s nationality or the country in which the commercial vehicle is registered or has been entered into service. Inspection activities must also be undertaken in such a manner as to minimise the costs and delay for drivers and operators.
A targeted approach should be adopted in selecting commercial vehicles for technical roadside inspection, placing particular importance on identifying vehicles that seem most likely to be poorly maintained 6 .
Roadside inspections are usually carried out in a stepwise approach. First, a visual assessment of the vehicle’s maintenance condition is carried out when stationary, accompanied by a check of any documentation relating to a recent roadside inspection (if applicable) and roadworthiness test. A detailed inspection for irregularities based on the list of items of Directive 2000/30/EC may be also conducted on the spot or at a testing centre in the vicinity. In the case of a detailed inspection, the outcome must be documented in a technical roadside inspection report that follows the model set out by the Directive. This information provides the basis for the information Member States are required to communicate to the European Commission.
If a commercial vehicle with dangerous deficiencies presents a serious risk to road safety, its use may be prohibited until these deficiencies have been rectified. In addition, foreign vehicles with serious deficiencies must be notified to the Member State of registration to allow for appropriate follow-up.
Directive 2000/30/EC as amended 7 - which had applied until 19 May 2018 - set out a number of conditions for the technical roadside inspections of commercial vehicles circulating in the EU. Directive 2010/47/EU amended the vehicle categories and the list of inspection items in Annex I since 1 January 2012.
Before the amendment, vehicles on the roadside inspection report (Annex I) were defined by classes e.g. road train which meant any motor vehicle for the carriage of goods with a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes (categories N2 and N3) coupled to a trailer (categories O3 and O4). At the same time vehicles of the category N2 had to be indicated under 'light goods vehicle', category N3 vehicles under 'lorry' while categories O3 and O4 vehicles under 'trailer' and 'semi-trailer'.
However, one of the amendments introduced by Directive 2010/47/EU introduced a different way of grouping of the vehicles by using their category designation according to the type-approval legislation. As a result a vehicle which might have been indicated in different classes can now be only indicated in one vehicle category. Furthermore the towing vehicle and the trailer have to be indicated separately. Taking into account that the towing vehicle and the trailer can be registered in different Member States, these revised classifications provide more accurate information, whilst also improving the situation for Member States in situations where it is necessary to notify another Member State if serious deficiencies were found on a vehicle registered in that Member State.
3. DATA COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES
This is the sixth report on how Directive 2000/30/EC has been applied in Member States and covers the calendar years 2015-2016. The deadline for Member States to submit their data to the Commission for this reporting period was 31 March 2017.
In order to facilitate the reporting obligation, and in line with previous practice, the Commission sent out an information letter to Member States at the beginning of January 2017. A template (developed together by the Commission and Member State experts) accompanied this letter, and Member States were encouraged to use it for the submission of their reports.
A reminder communication was then issued in early March 2017 advising Member States that the deadline for submitting their returns was fast approaching. Every Member State made use of the template to submit their data electronically. This was welcomed as it simplified the task of collating the data.
However not all Member States met the deadline for submitting their data. Some (Belgium Czech Republic, Finland and France) were marginally late, whereas others (Malta and Netherlands) did not submit their data until January and March 2018 respectively.
Eleven Member States, namely Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland and Romania also submitted data on vehicles registered outside the EU classified by the country of registration; while a further two, namely Belgium and Italy provided total figures for the number of non-EU vehicles inspected.
Cyprus only provided data on domestic vehicles. Ireland initially did the same but subsequently submitted a revised data set, which included details of vehicles inspected that were registered in other Member States.
Finally thirteen Member States, namely Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, France, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the UK, provided also additional information in relation to defect codes within the inspected items (e.g. (1) braking equipment; 1.1.8. couplings for trailer brakes). These details were introduced by Directive 2010/47/EU which amended Annex I of Directive 2000/30/EC from 1st January 2012, however it is not obligatory to provide this extra layer of detail.
After the first analysis of the national reports, the Commission contacted several Member States to understand the potential reasons for outstanding results or changes compared to the previous period. According to the explanations provided by the Member States, there are a number of circumstances that had a negative effect on amount and quality of the technical roadside inspections. Such circumstances were among others the reorganisation or decentralisation of the competences leading to periods when inspections had not been carried out, financial restrictions leading to staff shortages, to limited amount of inspections and to limited access to equipment. The exchanges with the Member States also revealed that there are significant differences in the understanding and execution of the collection of the data and the reporting, which may also contribute to the differences. These differences may reduce from 20 May 2018 considering that Directive 2014/47/EU will introduce greater harmonisation in testing methods, assessment of deficiencies, the use of test equipment and the reporting requirements. The first report based on Directive 2014/47/EU will cover the period 2019-2020 and Member States will have to submit their national reports by 31 March 2021.
4. CONTENT OF THE INSPECTION
At a minimum, data relating to the inspection areas detailed in point 10 of the specimen report contained in Annex I to Directive 2000/30/EC must be forwarded to the Commission. These areas are:
·identification;
·braking equipment;
·steering;
·visibility;
·lighting equipment and electric system;
·axles, wheels, tyres, suspension;
·chassis and chassis attachments;
·other equipment, including tachograph and speed limitation devices;
·nuisance including emissions and spillage of fuel and/or oil.
In order to facilitate the recording of deficiencies identified by the inspectors in these areas, the inspection report should contain a complete list of inspection items on its reverse side. Inspectors are required to mark off on the report (using the predefined codes) any areas where they have identified deficiencies and give a copy of this report to the driver of the vehicle once they have finished their inspection.
If the inspector considers that any identified deficiencies may represent a safety risk such that, as regards the brakes in particular, further checks are justified, he/she may direct that the vehicle be submitted to a more detailed examination in a designated roadworthiness testing facility in the vicinity.
Furthermore, if during the inspection it becomes evident that a commercial vehicle presents a serious risk to its occupants or other road users, the use of that vehicle may be prohibited until any dangerous deficiencies identified have been rectified.
5. STATISTICAL DATA
5.1. Inspection volumes
Compared to 2013-2014, 534,473 fewer vehicles were inspected in 2015-2016, which is a decrease of 9.6%. Table 1 below provides a breakdown per Member State.
In 2011-2012 8.145.984 vehicles were inspected, while in the period of 2013-2014, 2.561.820 less, 5.584.164 checks have been carried out. In 2015-2016 further decrease of about 10% can be observed with the amount of inspections being 5.029.763.
Table 1: Inspection Volumes - Comparison between 2013-14 & 2015-16
| Reporting Member State (MS) | Vehicles Inspected in 2013-2014 Period | Vehicles Inspected in 2015-2016 Period | Difference Between 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Periods | % Difference Between 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Periods |
| Austria | 48.884 | 42.438 | -6.446 | -13,2% |
| Belgium | 18.073 | 9.693 | -8.380 | -46,4% |
| Bulgaria | 321.325 | 250.516 | -70.809 | -22,0% |
| Croatia | 39.608 | 39.204 | -404 | -1,0% |
| Cyprus | 1.174 | 6.214 | 5.040 | 429,3% |
| Czech Republic | 136.981 | 88.389 | -48.592 | -35,5% |
| Denmark | 2.081 | 3.753 | 1.672 | 80,3% |
| Estonia | 1.689 | 2.768 | 1.079 | 63,9% |
| Finland | 11.152 | 8.390 | -2.762 | -24,8% |
| France | 1.053.692 | 996.892 | -56.800 | -5,4% |
| Germany | 1.600.728 | 1.620.465 | 19.737 | 1,2% |
| Greece | 16.816 | 5.395 | -11.421 | -67,9% |
| Hungary | 216.504 | 195.905 | -20.599 | -9,5% |
| Ireland | 12.939 | 29.840 | 16.901 | 130,6% |
| Italy | 15.147 | 5.514 | -9.633 | -63,6% |
| Latvia | 6.101 | 8.652 | 2.551 | 41,8% |
| Lithuania | 79.860 | 70.586 | -9.274 | -11,6% |
| Luxembourg | 726 | 398 | -328 | -45,2% |
| Malta | 4.012 | 6.943 | 2.931 | 73,1% |
| Netherlands | 8.860 | 6.709 | -2.151 | -24,3% |
| Poland | 888.111 | 627.384 | -260.727 | -29,4% |
| Portugal | 631 | 1.522 | 891 | 141,2% |
| Romania | 8.135 | 13.144 | 5.009 | 61,6% |
| Slovakia | 16.211 | 18.760 | 2.549 | 15,7% |
| Slovenia | 5.113 | 4.945 | -168 | -3,3% |
| Spain | 723.250 | 654.392 | -68.858 | -9,5% |
| Sweden | 53.527 | 45.417 | -8.110 | -15,2% |
| United Kingdom | 292.838 | 265.535 | -27.303 | -9,3% |
| Totals | 5.584.164 | 5.029.763 | -554.401 | -9,9% |
Eighteen Member States carried out less inspection during the 2015-2016 period compared to the 2013-2014 period. Percentage reductions ranged from 1% in the case of Croatia to a 68% reduction in the case of Greece. Other Member States that recorded significant reductions were Italy (64%), Belgium (46%), Luxembourg (45%) and Czech Republic (35%). The reasons for the reductions according to the explanation provided by the Member States are financial restrictions and human resource shortages or re-organisation of competences. Furthermore changes of the national legislation and internal administrative procedures also affected the enforcement activities.
On the other hand, ten Member States recorded increases in the number of inspections carried out during the 2015-2016 period. Percentage increases ranged from 1.2% in the case of Germany to 122% on the case of Ireland, 141% in the case of Portugal and 429% in the case of Cyprus. In terms of Cyprus though, it is recognised that they were working off a low baseline in terms of their returns for the 2013-2014 reporting period. Therefore, the percentage increase is relative. In case of Ireland the increase is due to the fact that the Irish authorities increased the number of inspectors carrying out technical roadside inspections.
5.2. Origin of vehicles inspected
Table 2 below provides an overview of the origin of vehicles checked by the Member States. As mentioned previously, only Cyprus submitted no data in respect of checks on ‘out of state’ vehicles, i.e. registered either in another Member State or outside the EU. Twenty-seven Member States reported data on checks conducted on vehicles registered within another Member State, and of these thirteen Member States also carried out checks on vehicles registered outside the EU.
Some key points to note from the data displayed in Table 2 is that 62% of inspections carried out during the 2015-2016 period were on domestic vehicles, 33% were on vehicles registered in another Member State and 5% were on vehicles registered outside the EU.
Other points worth noting are that in Luxembourg only 15.8% of the inspections were carried out on domestic vehicles, and while 51% of vehicles inspected by the Polish authorities were registered in Poland, they carried out twice as many inspections on vehicles registered outside the EU as they did from other Member States. The rationale behind these statistics presumably has to do with the geographical locations of these Member States.
| Reporting Member State (MS) | Registered in the MS | Registered in another MS | Registered outside the EU | Total | Vehicles of the MS (%) |
| Austria | 18.672 | 22.188 | 1.578 | 42.438 | 44,0 % |
| Belgium | 2.918 | 6.509 | 266 | 9.693 | 30,1 % |
| Bulgaria | 209.717 | 40.016 | 783 | 250.516 | 83,7 % |
| Croatia | 24.511 | 4.729 | 9.964 | 39.204 | 62,5 % |
| Cyprus | 6.214 | 0 | 0 | 6.214 | 100,0 % |
| Czech Republic | 53.949 | 32.370 | 2.070 | 88.389 | 61,0 % |
| Denmark | 3.175 | 553 | 25 | 3.753 | 84,6 % |
| Estonia | 2.581 | 92 | 95 | 2.768 | 93,2 % |
| Finland | 6.646 | 1.744 | 0 | 8.390 | 79,2 % |
| France | 369.857 | 627.035 | 0 | 996.892 | 37,1 % |
| Germany | 1.055.997 | 525.616 | 38.852 | 1.620.465 | 65,2 % |
| Greece | 4.465 | 930 | 0 | 5.395 | 82,8 % |
| Hungary | 145.921 | 49.984 | 0 | 195.905 | 74,5 % |
| Ireland | 28.754 | 1.086 | 0 | 29.840 | 96,4 % |
| Italy | 4.740 | 756 | 18 | 5.514 | 86,0 % |
| Latvia | 5.739 | 2.913 | 0 | 8.652 | 66,3 % |
| Lithuania | 56.237 | 14.349 | 0 | 70.586 | 79,7 % |
| Luxembourg | 63 | 311 | 24 | 398 | 15,8 % |
| Malta | 6.924 | 19 | 0 | 6.943 | 99,7 % |
| Netherlands | 2.845 | 3.612 | 252 | 6.709 | 42,4 % |
| Poland | 317.270 | 100.168 | 209.946 | 627.384 | 50,6 % |
| Portugal | 1.435 | 87 | 0 | 1.522 | 94,3 % |
| Romania | 12.018 | 768 | 358 | 13.144 | 91,4 % |
| Slovakia | 9.761 | 8.999 | 0 | 18.760 | 52,0 % |
| Slovenia | 4.048 | 897 | 0 | 4.945 | 81,9 % |
| Spain | 592.537 | 61.855 | 0 | 654.392 | 90,5 % |
| Sweden | 38.336 | 6.986 | 0 | 45.322 | 84,6 % |
| United Kingdom | 130.661 | 134.874 | 0 | 265.535 | 49,2 % |
| Totals | 3.115.991 | 1.649.446 | 264.231 | 5.029.667 | 62,0 % |
| Switzerland | 39.813 | 20.034 | 4.492 | 64.339 | 61,9% |
| Totals | 3.155.804 | 1.669.480 | 268.423 | 5.094.017 | 62% |
5.3.Prohibition volumes
Compared to 2013-2014, 60.112 more vehicles were prohibited in 2015-2016, which is an increase of 17.5%. Table 3 below provides a breakdown for each Member State. Considering that at the same time the number of checked vehicles decreased by 9.6% compared to 2013-2014, this may indicate a more targeted approach during the roadside inspections in most of the Member States or in some cases the use of a stricter inspection regime.
Table 3: Prohibitions - Comparison between 2013-14 & 2015-16
| Reporting Member State (MS) | Vehicles Prohibited in 2013-2014 Period | Vehicles Prohibited in 2015-2016 Period | Difference Between 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Periods | % Difference Between 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Periods |
| Austria | 28.088 | 24.194 | -3.894 | -13,9% |
| Belgium | 997 | 691 | -306 | -30,7% |
| Bulgaria | 5.798 | 1.646 | -4.152 | -71,6% |
| Croatia | 1.643 | 2.548 | 905 | 55,1% |
| Cyprus | 1.719 | 1.232 | -487 | -28,3% |
| Czech Republic | 514 | 375 | -139 | -27,0% |
| Denmark | 532 | 1.192 | 660 | 124,1% |
| Estonia | 1.513 | 2.636 | 1.123 | 74,2% |
| Finland | 5.840 | 163 | -5.677 | -97,2% |
| France | 2.714 | 103.720 | 101.006 | 3721,7% |
| Germany | 34.269 | 26.768 | -7.501 | -21,9% |
| Greece | 252 | 71 | -181 | -71,8% |
| Hungary | 5.651 | 8.388 | 2.737 | 48,4% |
| Ireland | 779 | 1.909 | 1.130 | 145,1% |
| Italy | 6.090 | 2.923 | -3.167 | -52,0% |
| Latvia | 45 | 61 | 16 | 35,6% |
| Lithuania | 931 | 311 | -620 | -66,6% |
| Luxembourg | 31 | 12 | -19 | -61,3% |
| Malta | 1.937 | 3.674 | 1.737 | 89,7% |
| Netherlands | 111 | 172 | 61 | 55,0% |
| Poland | 32.969 | 38.374 | 5.405 | 16,4% |
| Portugal | 11 | 776 | 765 | 6954,5% |
| Romania | 357 | 3.035 | 2.678 | 850% |
| Slovakia | 6.123 | 5.955 | -168 | -2,7% |
| Slovenia | 477 | 109 | -368 | -77,1% |
| Spain | 83.280 | 57.239 | -26.041 | -31,3% |
| Sweden | 40.871 | 42.087 | 1.216 | 3,0% |
| United Kingdom | 80.283 | 72.886 | -7.397 | -9,2% |
| Totals | 343.825 | 403.937 | 60.112 | 17,5% |
Twelve Member States recorded an increase in the number of prohibitions during the 2015-16 reporting period in comparison to the 2013-2014 period. Percentage increases ranged from 3% in the case of Sweden to approximately 6,955% in the case of Portugal, albeit that Portugal was working off a low base with just 11 prohibitions for the 2013-2014 reporting period. Other Member States that recorded notable increases were Romania (850%), Denmark (124%) and Malta (90%). The outstanding increase of 3722% in France is due to the fact that for the period of 2013-2014 France did not provide data on trailers (categories O3 and O4) and that the report of 2013-2014 did not cover the complete range of authorities involved in the roadside inspection activities. Some other outstanding increase can be explained by the changes of the national legislation, the data collection and reporting methodology.
Comparing these increases to the corresponding change in inspection volumes for the Member States concerned; with the exception of France (who recorded a decrease of 3.6%), Romania, Malta, Denmark and Portugal recorded inspection volume increases of 61.6%, 73.1%, 80.3% and 141% respectively.
On the other hand, sixteen Member States recorded decreases in the number of prohibitions recorded, ranging from 2.7% in the case of Slovakia to 97.2% reduction in the case of Finland, the latter being caused by mistakes in the reporting methodology during 2013-2014, which. Interestingly this corresponded with a 15.7% inspection volume increase in the case of Slovakia and a 24.8% decrease in the case of Finland. Once again, this would indicate a change in inspection policy, coupled with the fact that perhaps the roadworthiness condition of vehicles is improving.
5.4.Origin of vehicles prohibited
Table 4 below summarises the data submitted by Member States and indicates that the percentage of domestic vehicles prohibited ranges from less than 1% in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania to over 50% in Austria, Estonia, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Sweden. Estonia has prohibition rate of over 90% for domestic vehicles, the reason for this being the data collection methodology, whereas the overall prohibition rate for domestic vehicles across all Member States is 7.9%. It should be noted that in the case of Sweden a revision of the reported data revealed a mistake in the data collection and reporting methodology that has persisted for a longer time, the periods 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 included.
When considering the differences in prohibition rates for domestic versus foreign vehicles, six Member States submitted data that would suggest that foreign vehicles meet higher roadworthiness standards due to the higher prohibition rates of domestic vehicles. These Member States with a prohibition rate difference of greater than 10% for foreign vehicles were Slovakia, Italy, Denmark, Romania, Malta and Portugal.
On the other hand, there were also two Member States (the UK and Ireland) where the prohibition rate of foreign vehicles was more than 10% higher than the prohibition rate of domestic vehicles.
The average prohibition rate for EU (excluding domestic) vehicles across the 28 Member States is 9.0%, and again this represents a slight decrease on the 10.4% figure quoted for the 2013-2014 reporting period.
Also, as Cyprus did not supply data in relation to inspections carried out on foreign vehicles, they could not be included in the analysis. A similar situation also arose in respect of the 2013-2014 reporting period, presumably due to their geographical position.
Table 4: Breakdown of Prohibitions – Domestic vs. EU
| Vehicles registered in the reporting Member State | Vehicles registered in the EU (Excluding Reporting Member State) | |||||
| Reporting Member State | Number of vehicles checked | Number of prohibitions | Prohibition ratio (%) | Number of vehicles checked | Number of prohibitions | Prohibition ratio (%) |
| Austria | 18.672 | 10.315 | 55,2 % | 22.188 | 12.882 | 58,1% |
| Belgium | 2.918 | 269 | 9,2 % | 6.509 | 404 | 6,2% |
| Bulgaria | 209.717 | 1.144 | 0,5 % | 40.016 | 500 | 1,2% |
| Croatia | 24.511 | 1.655 | 6,8 % | 4.729 | 301 | 6,4% |
| Cyprus | 6.214 | 1.232 | 19,8 % | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Czech Republic | 53.949 | 285 | 0,5 % | 32.370 | 85 | 0,3% |
| Denmark | 3.175 | 1.091 | 34,4 % | 553 | 95 | 17,2% |
| Estonia | 2.581 | 2.465 | 95,5 % | 92 | 79 | 85,9% |
| Finland* | 6.646 | 130 | 2,0 % | 1.744 | 33 | 1,9% |
| France | 369.857 | 44.383 | 12,0 % | 627.035 | 59.337 | 9,5% |
| Germany | 1.055.997 | 11.278 | 1,1 % | 525.616 | 14.497 | 2,8% |
| Greece | 4.465 | 55 | 1,2 % | 930 | 16 | 1,7% |
| Hungary | 145.921 | 6.884 | 4,7 % | 49.984 | 1.504 | 3,0% |
| Ireland | 28.754 | 1.716 | 6,0 % | 1.086 | 193 | 17,8% |
| Italy | 4.740 | 2.616 | 55,2 % | 756 | 297 | 39,3% |
| Latvia | 5.739 | 32 | 0,6 % | 2.913 | 29 | 1,0% |
| Lithuania | 56.237 | 211 | 0,4 % | 14.349 | 100 | 0,7% |
| Luxembourg | 63 | 3 | 4,8 % | 311 | 9 | 2,9% |
| Malta | 6.924 | 3.673 | 53,0 % | 19 | 1 | 5,3% |
| Netherlands | 2.845 | 41 | 1,4 % | 3.612 | 127 | 3,5% |
| Poland | 317.270 | 30.026 | 9,5 % | 100.168 | 2.728 | 2,7% |
| Portugal | 1.435 | 776 | 54,1 % | 87 | 0 | 0,0% |
| Romania | 12.018 | 3.741 | 31,1 % | 768 | 31 | 4,0% |
| Slovakia | 9.761 | 3.667 | 37,6 % | 8.999 | 2.288 | 25,4% |
| Slovenia | 4.048 | 53 | 1,3 % | 897 | 56 | 6,2% |
| Spain | 592.537 | 54.802 | 9,2 % | 61.855 | 2.437 | 3,9% |
| Sweden* | 38.336 | 1671 | 4,36 % | 6.986 | 5.962 | 85,3% |
| United Kingdom | 130.661 | 28.735 | 22,0 % | 134.874 | 44.151 | 32,7% |
| Totals | 3.116.086 | 247.403 | 7,9 % | 1.649.446 | 148.142 | 9,0% |
| Switzerland | 39813 | 1825 | 4,6% | 20.034 | 1733 | 8,7% |
| Totals | 3.155.899 | 249.228 | 7,9% | 1.669.480 | 149.875 | 9% |
As mentioned previously, thirteen Member States also submitted data in relation to inspections carried out on vehicles registered in countries outside the EU. Further details are included in Table 5 below. 264,231 non-EU vehicles were checked leading to 8,392 prohibitions being issued, i.e. a prohibition ratio of 3.2%, which compares to a rate of 7.9% for domestic vehicles and 9.0% for EU (excluding domestic) vehicles. With the exception of Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Italy and Romania, the prohibition rates for non-EU registered vehicles generally mirror those for EU registered vehicles. These Member States reported prohibition rate reductions of 5.1%, 6.8%, 11%, 16.4% and 10.8% respectively in favour of EU registered vehicles.
Table 5: Breakdown of Prohibitions – Non-EU Vehicles
| Prohibitions (Vehicles Registered Outside EU) | |||
| Reporting Member State | Number of Non EU Vehicles Checked | Number of Non EU Vehicles Prohibited | Non EU Vehicle Prohibition Ratio (%) |
| Austria | 1578 | 997 | 63,2% |
| Belgium | 266 | 18 | 6,8% |
| Bulgaria | 783 | 2 | 0,3% |
| Croatia | 9964 | 592 | 5,9% |
| Cyprus | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Czech Republic | 2070 | 5 | 0,2% |
| Denmark | 25 | 6 | 24,0% |
| Estonia | 95 | 92 | 96,8% |
| Finland | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| France | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Germany | 38852 | 993 | 2,6% |
| Greece | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Hungary | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Ireland | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Italy | 18 | 10 | 55,6% |
| Latvia | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Lithuania | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Luxembourg | 24 | 0 | 0,0% |
| Malta | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Netherlands | 252 | 4 | 1,6% |
| Poland | 209946 | 5620 | 2,7% |
| Portugal | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Romania | 358 | 53 | 14,8% |
| Slovakia | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Slovenia | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Spain | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Sweden | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| United Kingdom | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Totals | 264231 | 8392 | 3,2% |
| Switzerland | 44305 | 2095 | 4,7% |
| Totals | 308.536 | 10.488 | 3,4% |
5.5.Prohibited vehicles per vehicle category and per Member State of registration
Annex 1 gives an overview of vehicle prohibition rates per Member State of registration. The average prohibition rate across all Member States was 8.3% with category N3 (Heavy Goods Vehicles) being the vehicle type prohibited most often, i.e. a prohibition rate of 9.6%.
Vehicles in the ‘Other’ unspecified vehicle category had a prohibition rate of 19.3%. However, this category likely includes many vehicle types, i.e. agricultural vehicles (category T), light trailers (categories O1 & O2) and light vans (category N1) and their inspection is based on national legislative measures.
However, from 20th May 2018 Directive 2014/47/EU has made the inspection of speed tractors (capable of exceeding 40 km/h) obligatory where they are being used mainly on public roads for commercial haulage purposes.
The differences in the prohibition rates may be explained by the application of different selection, inspection and data collection methods and categorisation of defects amongst the Member States.
Annex 2 shows the details per vehicle category per Member State of the inspection.
5.6.Types of deficiencies reported by Member States
Annex 3 shows the defect rates found on vehicles in the nine inspection areas during inspections carried out by Member States during the 2015-2016 reporting period.
During this reporting period, the most frequent deficiencies detected during inspections concerned the roadworthiness condition of :
- lighting equipment and electric systems (23.0%; 20,9% in the previous period);
- axles, wheels, tyres, suspension (21.8%;– 20,6% in the previous period);
- other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device (15.5%; – 17,4% in the previous period), and
- braking equipment (13.9%;– 18,8% in the previous period).
Within the nine inspection areas, Member States reported considerable differences in the frequency of detection of defects. For example, in Spain defects in the ‘other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device’ inspection area accounted for 86% of the total reported defects during the reporting period, whereas defects in this area only accounted for 0.6% of the total found in the UK. Once again, the reason for this is most likely due to different testing methods being applied by Member States; perhaps coupled with a national policy to put greater emphasis on a particular inspection area during the inspection. However, it must be recognised that from 20th May 2018 the Directive 2014/47/EU will introduce greater harmonisation in testing methods, assessment of deficiencies and use of test equipment.
Comparing the figures with those of the previous period, the most significant decrease concerns the ‘braking equipment’ test area, i.e. braking related defects accounted for 13.9% of the total recorded across all Member States and this is down from 20.7% for the previous reporting period. However, deficiencies pertaining to the ‘lighting equipment and electrical system’ area are still the most common, experiencing a rise to 23% (from 20.4% for the previous reporting period). In terms of the other inspection areas, the changes compared to the previous reporting period are not of a magnitude to be of any great cause of concern; or that would indicate significant policy changes being implemented by Member States.
In five out of the nine inspection areas, namely ‘identification’, ‘braking equipment’, ‘steering’, ‘visibility’ and ‘nuisance including emissions and spillage of fuel and /or oil’, the rates are decreasing. In fact, those areas that did see slight increases over the previous reporting period, namely ‘lighting equipment and electrical system’, ‘axles, wheels tyres and suspension’, ‘chassis and chassis attachments’, and ‘other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device’, all were below a 5% increase.
Also ‘braking equipment’ related defects appear to be found more often in inspections carried out by the authorities in the United Kingdom, Latvia and Luxembourg, comprising 33.6%, 33.5% and 29.6% of total defects respectively. On the other hand, Greece reported no defects in this inspection area.
For deficiencies relating to ‘emissions and leakages’ which, in addition to being a road safety hazard, also have an impact on the environment; after an increase in the previous period by 0.9% (from 3.2 % to 4.1 %), a decrease of 0.4% (from 4.1% to 3.3%) materialised, i.e. emissions related defects accounted for 3.3% of the total recorded during the period.
Finally, as outlined in Table 2, thirteen Member States carried out inspections on vehicles registered outside the EU. However, as the total number of these inspections equates to only approximately 5% of the total number of inspections carried out during the reporting period, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions as to their roadworthiness condition.
Nonetheless, for completeness Annex 4 to this report contains further details in that it provides an overview of the number of vehicles checked by Member States per country of registration, and the prohibition ratio.
6. TYPES OF PENALTIES
Directive 2000/30/EC does not set out a system of penalties for any infringements discovered. Instead, Member States must set penalties, without discrimination on the grounds of the driver’s nationality or of the country in which the vehicle was registered or entered into service.
As mentioned previously, if it becomes evident that a commercial vehicle presents a serious risk to its occupants or other road users, the authority or inspector carrying out the inspection is empowered under Directive 2000/30/EC to prohibit its use until any dangerous deficiencies identified have been rectified.
Also, dangerous deficiencies found in a commercial vehicle belonging to a non‑resident, in particular those that lead to its use being prohibited, must be notified to the competent authorities of the Member State where it is registered.
The competent authorities of the Member State that found the dangerous deficiency may ask the competent authorities of the Member State where the vehicle is registered to take appropriate measures, such as subjecting the vehicle to a further roadworthiness inspection. However, it is left to the Member State of registration to carry out any action deemed appropriate, on which no reporting is required.
In practice, the financial impact on an operator associated with having a dangerously defective vehicle prohibited is not only the potential fine imposed by the authorities of the Member State carrying out the inspection. There might be further costs such as the costs of the vehicle being towed away to an inspection facility for a ‘more detailed’ inspection, coupled with the cost of the test itself and the costs of any repairs necessary to rectify the deficiencies. Furthermore there is also the indirect cost to the operator for potentially failing to adhere to the schedule.
Finally, according to Directive 2014/47/EU from 20 May 2019 8 the information concerning the number and the severity of deficiencies will have to be added to the risk rating system established under Directive 2006/22/EC 9 . Vehicles of undertakings with a high risk profile may be selected for roadside inspections more frequently.
7. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
As noted in chapter 3 of this report, due to the revealed differences in the inspection method, the collection of the data and in the reporting, no far reaching conclusions should be drawn based on this report and the results should be treated with caution. Bearing this in mind, the following are the main findings from the data collected for the 2015-2016 reporting period.
7.1Inspections
Compared to the previous period, which showed already a decrease of 31,5%, the number of checked vehicles decreased further. In 2015-2016 534,473 fewer vehicles were inspected which is a decrease of 9.6%. According to the explanation provided by the Member States, it is the combined result of reduced resources, reorganisation, changes of the national legislation and application of the rules and in some cases the introduction of a more targeted approach during the inspections.
In any event eighteen Member States carried out fewer inspections with percentage reductions ranging from 1% in the case of Croatia to a 68% reduction in the case of Greece. On the other hand, ten Member States recorded increases in the number of inspections carried out with percentage increases ranging from 1.2% in the case of Denmark to 429% in the case of Cyprus.
62% of inspections carried out during the reporting period were on domsetic vehicles, 33% were on vehicles registered in another Member State and 5% were on vehicles registered outside the EU.
Also the percentage of domestic vehicles inspected out of the total inspected by each Member State continues to vary substantially which suggests that further efforts may be required to ensure a more balanced approach. For example, in Luxembourg Belgium and France, inspections on domestic vehicles accounted for less than 40% of the total; whereas the situation in other ‘transit’ Member States is more balanced.
7.2Prohibitions
Compared to the previous period, 60,112 more vehicles were prohibited which is an increase of 17.5%. This indicates the beginning of a potential positive trend and would indicate that the implementation of a more targeted approach has commenced.
Thirteen Member States recorded an increase in the number of prohibitions issued with increases ranging from 3% in the case of Sweden to approx. 7000% in the case of Portugal. On the other hand, fifteen Member States recorded decreases in the number of prohibitions issued ranging from 2.7% in the case of Slovakia to a 71.8% reduction in the case of Greece or 71.6% in the case of Bulgaria.
In terms of the origin of vehicles prohibited, the overall prohibition rate for domestic vehicles was 7.9%, while 9.0% for other EU Member States' vehicles and 3.2% for vehicles registered outside the EU. This would indicate that standards are generally being universally applied for EU vehicles irrespective of the country of registration of the vehicle. The reason the prohibition rate for non-EU vehicles is lower might be due to the fact that operators are choosing to send their newest and best maintained vehicles on those journeys that involve travel within the EU.
Finally, the average prohibition rate for EU registered vehicles across all Member States was 8.3%. Category N3 vehicles (Heavy Goods Vehicles) were prohibited most often, i.e. a prohibition rate of 9.6%. Maltese registered vehicles were prohibited more frequently with a prohibition rate of 43.9%. On the other hand, German and Bulgarian vehicles were prohibited least often with prohibition rates of 1.5% and 3.7% respectively. The reasons for the differences in these prohibition rates might be due to the application of different inspection methods and categorisation of defects amongst the Member States.
7.3Defects
The two most frequent types of deficiencies detected during the reporting period related to the ‘lighting equipment and electrical systems’ and ‘axles, wheels tyres and suspension’ inspection areas. These accounted for 23% and 21.8% respectively of the total defects recorded. ‘Braking’ related defects accounted for 13.9% of the total recorded across all Member States, down from 20.7% for the previous reporting period.
However significant differences in prohibition rates per test area continue to exists amongst the Member States. For example, defects detected in Spain in the ‘other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device’ inspection area accounted for 86% of the total defects recorded during the reporting period, whereas defects in this area only accounted for 0.6% of the total found in the UK. Once again, the reason for this is most likely due to different inspection methods being applied by Member States and the emphasis, focus of the authorities on certain defects. These differences may reduce from 20 May 2018 considering that Directive 2014/47/EU will introduce greater harmonisation in testing methods, assessment of deficiencies, the use of test equipment and the reporting requirements.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast), OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72.
(2) Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (Recast), OJ L 141, 6.6.2009, p. 12.
(3) Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community, OJ L 203, 10.8.2000, p. 1.
(4) Directive 2014/47/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union, OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 134.
(5) Initial inspections include a check of documentation and a visual assessment of the technical condition of the vehicle; whereas more detailed inspections (following on from an initial inspection if necessary) must be carried out using a mobile inspection unit, a designated roadside inspection facility or in a testing centre.
(6) Directive 2014/47/EU introduced a mandatory risk rating system across all Member States from 20th May 2019. Poor performance at roadside inspections concerning the number and severity of deficiencies will lead to undertakings receiving a higher risk rating. Member State competent authorities may then use this information to check undertakings with a high risk rating more frequently.
(7) Commission Directive 2010/47/EU of 5 July 2010, adapting to technical progress Directive 2000/30/EC, OJ L 173, 8.7.2010, p. 33.
(8) Article 26(1)
(9) Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35.