Considerations on COM(2023)126 - Amendment of Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)126 - Amendment of Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2023)126  |
| date | March 1, 2023 |
(2) The practice of enforcement authorities involved in the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences has shown that the current wording of Directive (EU) 2015/413 fails in facilitating an effective investigation of the road-safety-related traffic offences committed by non-resident drivers and in the enforcement of financial penalties to the desired degree. That results in a relative impunity of non-resident drivers and has a negative impact on road safety in the Union. Furthermore, procedural and fundamental rights of non-resident drivers are not always respected in the context of cross-border investigations, in particular due to a lack of transparency in the setting of the amount of the fines and in the appeal procedures. This Directive aims to further improve the effectiveness of the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences committed with vehicles registered in another Member State in order to help reach the Union’s goal of reducing the death toll in all modes of transport to close to zero by 2050 and to strengthen the protection of fundamental and procedural rights of non-resident drivers.
(3) In its EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 51 , the Commission recommitted to the ambitious goal to get close to zero deaths and zero serious injuries on Union roads by 2050 (“Vision Zero”), and to the medium-term aim to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 50% by 2030, a target originally set in 2017 by the Union Transport Ministers in the Valletta Declaration on Road Safety. In order to achieve those goals the Commission, as part of the Communication “Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future” 52 , announced its intent to revise Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council 53 .
(4) The scope of the Directive should be extended to other road-safety-related traffic offences to ensure equal treatment of drivers. Considering the legal basis on which Directive (EU) 2015/413 was adopted, namely Article 91(1), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, additional offences should demonstrate a strong link to road safety, by addressing dangerous and reckless behaviours which pose a serious risk to road users. The extension of the scope should also reflect the technical progress in the automatic detection of road-safety-related traffic offences.
(5) Road-safety-related traffic offences are classified either as administrative offences or criminal offences under the national law of the Member States, which may give rise to proceedings brought by administrative or judicial authorities, before courts having jurisdiction in administrative or criminal matters, depending on the applicable national procedures. A specific Union legal framework regulates judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions. It is therefore necessary that the application of this Directive does not undermine the rights and obligations of the Member States stemming from other applicable Union legislation in criminal matters, and in particular those laid down in Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA 54 , Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 55 as concerns the procedures for exchanges of evidence, and the procedures for service of documents laid down in Article 5 of the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union 56 . Further, criminal proceedings demanding specific guarantees for the individuals concerned, the procedural safeguards for suspects and accused persons, enshrined in Directives 2010/64/EU 57 , 2012/13/EU 58 , 2013/48/EU 59 , (EU) 2016/343 60 , (EU) 2016/800 61 and (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council 62 , should also not be affected by the implementation of this Directive.
(6) The responsibilities and competences of national contact points should be defined to ensure that they seamlessly cooperate with other authorities involved in the investigation of the road-safety-related traffic offences which fall within the scope of this Directive. National contact points should always be available for such authorities and answer their requests within reasonable time. This should be the case regardless of the nature of the offence or the legal status of the authority, and in particular regardless of whether the authority has national or subnational or local competence.
(7) The basics of the system of cross-border exchange of information established by Directive (EU) 2015/413 have proved to be effective. However, further improvements and adjustments are necessary to remedy issues resulting from lacking, erroneous or inaccurate data. Therefore, further obligations should be imposed on Member States regarding the need to keep certain data in the relevant databases available and up-to-date to increase the effectiveness of the information exchange.
(8) The Member State of the offence should also be allowed to conduct automated searches in vehicle registers to retrieve data on end users of vehicles where such information is already available. Furthermore, a data retention period should be established as regards the identity of the previous owners, holders and end users of the vehicles to provide authorities with the appropriate information they need for the investigation.
(9) The request to disclose vehicle registration data and the exchange of the data elements in cross-border cases should be carried out through a single electronic system. Therefore, also building on the already existing technical framework, the automated searching of vehicle registration data under Directive (EU) 2015/413 should only be carried out through the European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (Eucaris) software application, and amended versions of that software. Such an application should allow for the expeditious, cost-efficient, secure and reliable exchange of specific vehicle registration data between Member States, and therefore increase the efficiency of the investigation. Member States should prevent the exchange of information by other means, which would be less cost-efficient and may not ensure the protection of the transmitted data.
(10) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the searches to be conducted by Member States, the Commission should be empowered to adopt implementing acts laying down procedures for such searches. However, transitional measures for the automated exchange of vehicle registration data based on the existing electronic system should be in place to guarantee seamless data exchanges until such rules become applicable.
(11) In cases where the liable person cannot be identified with the certainty required by the legislation of the Member State of the offence based on the information acquired from the vehicle register, Member States should cooperate in order to ascertain the identity of the liable person. To that end, a mutual assistance procedure should be introduced aimed at identifying the liable person, either through a request for confirmation, on the basis of information already held by the Member State of the offence, or through a request for a targeted enquiry to be conducted by the relevant authorities of the Member State of registration or of the Member State of residence.
(12) The Member State of registration or Member State of residence should provide the additional information requested by the Member State of the offence necessary for the identification of the liable person within reasonable time. If it is not possible to gather or provide the information, or it is not possible to do so without undue delay, a clear explanation should be given as regards the reasons thereof, and the delay be minimised as far as possible.
(13) The grounds on which the provision of mutual assistance for the identification of the liable person can be refused by the Member State of registration or Member State of residence should be specifically identified. In particular, safeguards should be introduced to avoid revealing the identity of protected persons, such as protected witnesses, through those procedures.
(14) Member States should be allowed to use national procedures they would apply if the road-safety-related offence had been committed by a resident person. Legal certainty should be reinforced as regards the applicability of specific measures taken under such procedures, namely concerning documents requiring the confirmation or denial of the commission of the offence or imposing obligations for concerned persons to cooperate in identifying the liable person. As those measures should have the same legal effects on the concerned persons as in domestic cases, those persons should also enjoy the same standards of fundamental and procedural rights.
(15) Where Union legislation or national law of Member States explicitly provides access to or the possibility to exchange information from other national or Union databases for the purposes of Directive (EU) 2015/413, Member States should have the possibility to exchange information by involving such databases, while respecting the fundamental rights of non-resident drivers.
(16) The definition of what constitutes an information letter on the road-safety-related traffic offences and its content currently differs between Member States to such an extent that the fundamental and procedural rights of the persons involved in the follow-up procedures initiated by the Member State of the offence can be adversely affected. This is especially so in cases where so-called “pre-information letters” that do not comply with the language and information standards required under Directive (EU) 2015/413 are sent out. The persons affected by those practices are usually not familiar with the legal system of the Member State of the offence nor speak its official language or languages, and therefore their procedural and fundamental rights should be better safeguarded. In order to achieve that objective, mandatory minimum requirements for the content of the information letter should be established and the current model for an information letter with only basic information, as set out Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/413 should no longer be used.
(17) As a minimum, the information letter should include detailed information on the legal classification and legal consequences of the offence, in particular as the sanctions for the offences covered by the scope of Directive (EU) 2015/413 can be of a non-pecuniary nature, such as restrictions placed on the offender’s right to drive. The right of appeal should also be supported by providing detailed information on where and how to exercise the rights of defence or lodge an appeal in the Member State of the offence, in a language that the person concerned understands. A description of in absentia procedures should also be provided when applicable, as the presumed liable person may not plan to return to the Member State of offence to participate in the proceedings. Payment options and ways to mitigate the volume of the sanctions should also be made easily understandable in order to incentivise voluntary cooperation. Finally, as the information letter should be the first document the owner, holder or end user of the vehicle or any other presumed liable person receives, it should contain the information under Article 13 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council 63 , which, pursuant to Article 13(2)(d) should include information from which source the personal data originate, and Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council 64 . This information should be provided in the information letter either directly or by way of reference to the place where it is made available.
(18) When non-resident persons are checked on the spot in a road control, and such action leads to the initiation of follow-up proceedings in relation to the commission of a road-safety-related traffic offence, the information letter should contain only certain essential elements, and be given to the person concerned directly as part of the road control procedures.
(19) In order to ensure that the presumed liable person is the one that actually receives the information letter and any follow-up documents, and to avoid the erroneous involvement of non-concerned third parties, rules on service of documents should be laid down.
(20) In the case where it is not possible to deliver documents through registered delivery or electronic means of equal value, the Member State of the offence should be allowed to rely on the Member State of registration or of residence to service the documents and communications to the person concerned under their own national legislation governing the service of documents.
(21) Both the information letter and any follow-up documents should be sent in the language of the registration document of the vehicle or, if such information is not available or if necessary for the protection of fundamental rights, in the appropriate official language or languages of the Member State of registration or of residence. However, since some Member States have more than one official language, that obligation can lead to information letters and other follow-up communications being sent out in a language the recipient does not understand. In order for the appropriate language of the information letter to be determined, Member States should indicate to the Commission their preferred language, by territorial sub-divisions if deemed necessary. The Commission should publish the indicated language preferences. This should be without prejudice to the application of Directive 2010/64/EU, in accordance with its Article 1(3).
(22) The Member State of the offence should allow the person presumed to be liable for a road-safety-related traffic offence to communicate, until the stage of appeal before a court, in any of the languages communicated by the Member State of registration, the Member State of residence, or the Member State of the offence to the Commission, or, if the concerned person has insufficient knowledge of those languages, in a language that the person speaks or understands, so as to facilitate the exercise of their procedural rights.
(23) Effective legal review should be provided in case the authorities of the Member State of the offence do not comply with the language standards and rules on the service of documents and their respective national laws.
(24) To ensure transparent and proportional application of financial penalties to road-safety-related traffic offences, which are subject to public law, presumed liable persons should not be forced to pay legal and administrative expenses related to the administration of the penalties where such administration is outsourced to private or public entities. Nevertheless, the authorities of Member States should be allowed to charge proportionate administrative fees.
(25) The scope of the information that Member States report to the Commission should be extended to include elements closely related to the objective of improving road safety, in order to enable the Commission to better analyse the state of play in the Member States and to propose initiatives on a sound factual basis. To offset the additional administrative burden on Member States authorities and to align reporting with the Commission’s evaluation calendar the reporting period should be extended. A transitional period should be granted so that the ongoing two-year reporting period may end seamlessly.
(26) As data relating to the identification of an offender constitutes personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive (EU) 2016/680, and the Union legal framework on handling personal data has been amended significantly since the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/413, the provisions on the processing of personal data should be aligned with the new legal framework.
(27) Pursuant to Article 62(6) of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the Commission is to review other acts of Union law which regulate processing of personal data by the competent authorities for the purposes set out in Article 1(1) of that Directive, in order to assess the need to align those acts with that Directive and to make, where appropriate, the necessary proposals to amend these acts to ensure a consistent approach to the protection of personal data within the scope of that Directive. That review 65 has led to the identification of Directive (EU) 2015/413 as one of those other acts to be amended. It should therefore be clarified that processing of personal data should also comply with Directive (EU) 2016/680, where the processing falls within its material and personal scope.
(28) Any processing of personal data under Directive (EU) 2015/413 should comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 66 within their respective scope of application.
(29) The legal basis for the processing activities necessary to establish the identity of the liable person and deliver the information letter and the follow-up documents to the presumed liable persons, is laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/413, in line with Article 6(1)(e) and, where applicable, Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. In line with same rules, this Directive lays down the legal basis for the Member States’ obligation to process personal data for the purpose of providing mutual assistance to each other in identifying the persons liable for the road-safety-related traffic offences listed in this Directive.
(30) In some Member States, the personal data of non-residents presumed to be liable or liable for a road-safety-related traffic offence are stored in a network of servers (“cloud”). Without prejudice to the rules on personal data breach laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive (EU) 2016/680, and on personal data breach and security incidents laid down in Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council 67 , Member States should ensure that they inform each other on cybersecurity incidents related to those data.
(31) An online portal (the “CBE Portal”) should be established to provide road users in the Union with comprehensive information on road-safety-related traffic rules in place in Member States and allow road users to communicate with Member State authorities in an effective and secure manner. The portal should also facilitate communication between Member States’ authorities on various issues related to the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences, such as for the verification of the authenticity of information letters and follow-up documents to eliminate the possibility of fraud. The exchanged personal data should be limited to what is necessary for the cross-border investigations and enforcement of sanctions, particularly the payment of financial penalties. The CBE Portal should be able to connect to other relevant portals, networks, websites or platforms to facilitate the exchange of information related to the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules. The Commission should be the controller of the CBE Portal, in accordance with Regulation 2018/1725.
(32) The Commission should provide proportionate financial support to initiatives which improve the cross-border cooperation in the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules in the Union.
(33) In order to take into account relevant technical progress or changes to relevant legal acts of the Union, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in order to update the Annex to this Directive by amending it. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 68 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.
(34) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Directive (EU) 2015/413, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to specify the procedures and technical specifications, including cybersecurity measures, for the automated searches to be conducted in relation to the investigation of the road-safety-related traffic offences, the content of the standard electronic form for the request and the means of transmission of the information relating to the request for mutual assistance in identifying the liable person, the content of electronic forms for the request for mutual assistance for the service of the information letter and of the follow-up documents and of the respective certificate and the use and maintenance of the CBE Portal. The technical solutions should be aligned with the European Interoperability Framework and the relevant Interoperable Europe solutions referred to in the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (Interoperable Europe Act) 69 .The implementing powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council 70 .
(35) Directive (EU) 2015/413 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(36) Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union and equal treatment of drivers by streamlining mutual assistance procedures between Member States in the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences and by strengthening the protection of fundamental rights of non-residents where the offences are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State in which the offence took place, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of this Directive, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(37) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council 71 and delivered an opinion on [DD/MM/YYYY].
(38) In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents 72 , Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified,