Annexes to COM(2020)107 - Application by MS of Directive on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of Commercial vehicles circulating in the EC Reporting period 2017-18 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2020)107 - Application by MS of Directive on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of Commercial vehicles circulating ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2020)107  |
| date | March 23, 2020 |
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 to that Member State.
3. DATA COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES
This is the seventh report on how Directive 2000/30/EC has been applied in Member States and covers the calendar years 2017-2018. It should be noted that Directive 2000/30/EC was repealed by Directive 2014/47/EU on 20 May 2018, however the first report based on Directive 2014/47/EU will only cover the years 2019-2020. This means that in the absence of transitional measures set out by Directive 2014/47/EU, Member States were encouraged to submit their report in line with the requirements of Directive 2000/30/EC also for the period between 20 May 2018 and 31 December 2018, in order to achieve the objective of Directive 2000/30/EC and Directive 2014/47/EU, which have not changed, although the inspections carried out and the data they collected had already been based on Directive 2014/47/EU. This legal vacuum caused significant practical problems for the Member States and resulted in some cases in erroneous reports and conclusions should be drawn with caution. The deadline for Member States to submit their data to the Commission for this reporting period was 31 March 2019.
In order to facilitate the reporting obligation, and in line with previous practice, the Commission sent out an information letter to Member States mid-February 2019. A pre-prepared template (developed together by the Commission and Member State experts) accompanied this letter, and Member States were encouraged to use it for making their returns electronically, i.e. to simplify the data processing task once all the information was received. A reminder communication was then issued in March 2019 advising Member States that the deadline for submitting their returns was fast approaching. A third reminder was sent out in May 2019 to those Member States which had not submitted their reports by the due date. Further specific exchanges between the Commission and particular Member States followed. All Member States made use of the pre-prepared template to submit their data electronically, something that was welcomed as it simplified the task of collating the data.
However not all Member States met the deadline for submitting their data. Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal and Sweden communicated the data on a timely basis before the deadline of March 31st, 2019. Some other Member States were marginally late (namely Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia and United Kingdom), whereas others (namely Malta, Hungary, France, Spain and Finland) did not submit their data until September 2019. During this period, no infringement proceedings were initiated against any Member State for not communicating the data to the Commission.
Seventeen Member States, namely Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden submitted data on vehicles registered outside the EU classified by the country of registration. Belgium, Italy and United Kingdom provided the total checks of the vehicles registered outside the EU without specifying which member states are referring to. Slovakia did not communicate detailed statistics for non-EU vehicles in a usable format, so the data had to be disregarded.
France, Spain and Greece did not communicate any information for third countries and Croatia; however Greece confirmed that it did not inspect any vehicles from these geographical areas. Cyprus did not provide any information for any other member states confirming that no checks besides vehicles registered in their territory were checked. Malta also did not provide any data from third countries confirming that no such checks were made. Furthermore, Malta and Austria also provided information for T5 categories, an obligation that falls into Directive 2014/47/EU.
Finally, twelve Member States, namely Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and the UK, provided 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, data collection based on Directive 2014/47/EU, the reorganisation or decentralisation of the competences and financial restrictions leading to staff shortages, limited amount of inspections and 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 of the 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 taken to a designated roadworthiness testing facility for a more detailed examination.
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 2015-2016 reporting period, 1.048.863 fewer vehicles were inspected in the 2017-2018 reporting period, which is a decrease of 20,9%.
It should be noted that in the period of 2015-2016 already 534.473 less checks have been carried out compared to 2013-2014. While in 2011-2012 6.016.947 vehicles were inspected, in 2017-2018 only 3.980.900, which means that the number of checks carried out was decreased by 1/3 from 2011 to 2018. In case the decrease of the amount of checks would be accompanied by higher prohibition rates indicating an advanced targeting system, the decrease of the check would not be alarming but as the figures show, this is not necessarily the case.
Table 1: Inspection Volumes - Comparison between 2015-16 & 2017-18
| Reporting Member State (MS) | Vehicles Inspected in 2015-2016 Period | Vehicles Inspected in 2017-2018 Period | Difference Between 2015-2016 & 2017-2018 Periods | % Difference Between 2015-2016 & 2017-2018 Periods |
| Austria | 42.438 | 39.754 | -2.684 | -6,3% |
| Belgium | 9.693 | 11.282 | 1.589 | 16,4% |
| Bulgaria | 250.516 | 153.748 | -96.768 | -38,6% |
| Croatia | 39.204 | 22.169 | -17.035 | -43,5% |
| Cyprus | 6.214 | 5.984 | -230 | -3,7% |
| Czech Republic | 88.389 | 96.261 | 7872 | 8,9% |
| Denmark | 3.753 | 5.054 | 1.301 | 34,7% |
| Estonia | 2.768 | 2.281 | -487 | -17,6% |
| Finland | 8.390 | 12.060 | 3.670 | 43,7% |
| France | 996.892 | 612.476 | -384.416 | -38,6% |
| Germany | 1.620.465 | 1.247.506 | -372.959 | -23,0% |
| Greece | 5.395 | 360 | -5.035 | -93,3% |
| Hungary | 195.905 | 202.323 | 6.418 | 3,3% |
| Ireland | 29.840 | 27.501 | -2.339 | -4,5% |
| Italy | 5.514 | 5.446 | -68 | -1,2% |
| Latvia | 8.652 | 8.804 | 152 | 1,8% |
| Lithuania | 70.586 | 50.238 | -20.348 | -28,8% |
| Luxembourg | 398 | 2.107 | 1.709 | 429,4% |
| Malta | 6.943 | 6.305 | 3.172 | -9,2% |
| Netherlands | 6.709 | 10.989 | 1.004 | 63,8% |
| Poland | 627.384 | 758.414 | 131.030 | 20,9% |
| Portugal | 1.522 | 962 | -560 | -36,8% |
| Romania | 13.144 | 19.535 | 6.391 | 48,6% |
| Slovakia | 18.760 | 23.582 | 4.822 | 25,7% |
| Slovenia | 4.945 | 5.402 | 457 | 9,2% |
| Spain | 654.392 | 345.620 | -308.772 | -47,2% |
| Sweden | 45.417 | 44.711 | -706 | -1,6% |
| United Kingdom | 265.535 | 260.026 | -5.509 | -2,1% |
| Totals | 5.029.763 | 3.980.900 | -1.048.863 | -20,9% |
Sixteen Member States carried out less inspection during the 2017-2018 period compared to the 2015-2016 period.
Percentage reductions ranged from 1,2% in the case of Italy to a 93,3% reduction in the case of Greece. Other Member States that recorded significant reductions were Spain (47,2%), Croatia (43,5%), Bulgaria (38,6%), France (38,6%) and Portugal (36,8%). In terms of reasons for the reductions, other than Sweden which has clarified that it has applied a risk based approach as per the Directive 2014/47/EU, Member States explained that it is the combined result of reduced resources, reorganisation, changes of the national legislation and application of the rules.
On the other hand, twelve member States recorded increases in the number of inspections carried out during the 2017-2018 period. Percentage increases ranged from 1,8% in the case of Latvia to 48,6% on the case of Romania, 63,8% in the case of Netherlands and 429,4% in the case of Luxembourg.
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 twenty Member States also carried out checks on vehicles circulating within their territories that were registered outside the EU.
Some key points to note from the data displayed in Table 2 is that 57,7% of inspections carried out during the 2017-2018 period were on vehicles registered in the Member State where the inspection took place, 34,1% were on vehicles registered in another Member State and only 8,2% were on vehicles registered outside the EU.
Only 14,4% of the inspections carried out in Luxembourg were on vehicles registered there while 80,1% of their inspections concerned vehicles in another Member State. On the other hand, 49,4% and 63,4% of vehicles inspected by the Polish and Bulgarian authorities respectively were registered in these Member States, while they carried out a greater percentage of inspections on vehicles registered outside the EU compared to the checks from other Member States. The rationale behind these statistics presumably has to do with the geographical locations of these Member States with high transit traffic.
Table 2: Origin of vehicles checked
| Reporting Member State (MS) | Registered in the MS | Registered in another MS | Registered outside the EU | Total | Vehicles of the MS (%) |
| Austria | 16.667 | 21.399 | 1.688 | 39.754 | 41,9 % |
| Belgium | 3.825 | 7.118 | 339 | 11.282 | 33,9 % |
| Bulgaria | 97.469 | 14.782 | 41.497 | 153.748 | 63,4 % |
| Croatia | 18.418 | 3.751 | 0 | 22.169 | 83,1 % |
| Cyprus | 5.984 | 0 | 0 | 5.984 | 100,0 % |
| Czech Republic | 54.001 | 39.397 | 2.863 | 96.261 | 56,1 % |
| Denmark | 4.199 | 806 | 49 | 5.054 | 83,1 % |
| Estonia | 1.858 | 152 | 271 | 2.281 | 81,5 % |
| Finland | 7.408 | 2.102 | 2.550 | 12.060 | 61,4 % |
| France | 220.388 | 392.088 | 0 | 612.476 | 36,0 % |
| Germany | 735.289 | 475.644 | 36.573 | 1.247.506 | 58,9 % |
| Greece | 204 | 156 | 0 | 360 | 56,7 % |
| Hungary | 148.164 | 51.517 | 2.642 | 202.323 | 73,2 % |
| Ireland | 24.539 | 2.953 | 9 | 27.501 | 89,2 % |
| Italy | 4.480 | 954 | 12 | 5.446 | 82,3 % |
| Latvia | 5.491 | 2.908 | 405 | 8.804 | 62,4 % |
| Lithuania | 35.081 | 9.137 | 6.020 | 50.238 | 69,8 % |
| Luxembourg | 303 | 1.726 | 78 | 2.107 | 14,4 % |
| Malta | 6.277 | 28 | 0 | 6.305 | 99,6 % |
| Netherlands | 7.816 | 2.993 | 180 | 10.989 | 71,1 % |
| Poland | 374.840 | 158.367 | 225.207 | 758.414 | 49,4 % |
| Portugal | 935 | 27 | 0 | 962 | 97,2 % |
| Romania | 18.686 | 513 | 336 | 19.535 | 95,7 % |
| Slovakia | 14.923 | 8.659 | 0 | 23.582 | 63,3 % |
| Slovenia | 4.271 | 1.028 | 103 | 5.402 | 79,1 % |
| Spain | 316.637 | 28.983 | 0 | 345.620 | 91,6 % |
| Sweden | 37.658 | 6.727 | 326 | 44.711 | 84,2 % |
| United Kingdom | 131.402 | 122.409 | 6.215 | 260.026 | 50,5 % |
| Totals | 2.297.213 | 1.356.324 | 327.363 | 3.980.900 | 57,7% |
| Switzerland | 85.873 | 91.914 | 3.935 | 181.722 | 47,3 % |
| Totals | 2.383.086 | 1.448.238 | 331.298 | 4.162.622 | 57,2% |
5.3.Prohibition volumes
Compared to 2015-2016, 99.617 less vehicles were prohibited in the 2017-2018 reporting period, which is a decrease of 24,7%. Table 3 below provides a breakdown for each Member State. Considering that at the same time the number of checked vehicles also decreased by 20,9% compared to 2015-2016, this may indicate no improvement in better targeting method.
Table 3: Prohibitions - Comparison between 2015-16 & 2017-18
| Reporting Member State (MS) | Vehicles Prohibited in 2015-2016 Period | Vehicles Prohibited in 2017-2018 Period | Difference Between 2015-2016 & 2017-2018 Periods | % Difference Between 2015-2016 & 2017-2018 Periods |
| Austria | 24.194 | 25.180 | 986 | 4,1% |
| Belgium | 691 | 1.015 | 324 | 46,9% |
| Bulgaria | 1.646 | 1.720 | 74 | 4,5% |
| Croatia | 2.548 | 1.675 | -873 | -34,3% |
| Cyprus | 1.232 | 1.012 | -220 | -17,9% |
| Czech Republic | 375 | 7.620 | 7.245 | 1.932,0% |
| Denmark | 1.192 | 1.292 | 100 | 8,4% |
| Estonia | 2.636 | 2.067 | -569 | -21,6% |
| Finland | 163 | 5.384 | 5.221 | 3.203,1% |
| France | 103.720 | 49.592 | -54.128 | -52,2% |
| Germany | 26.768 | 26.912 | -469 | -1,7% |
| Greece | 71 | 12 | -59 | -83,1% |
| Hungary | 8.388 | 8.830 | 442 | 5,3% |
| Ireland | 1.909 | 1.420 | 930 | 189,8% |
| Italy | 2.923 | 2.864 | -59 | -2,0% |
| Latvia | 61 | 833 | 772 | 1.265,6% |
| Lithuania | 311 | 1.371 | 1.060 | 340,8% |
| Luxembourg | 12 | 34 | 22 | 183,3% |
| Malta | 3.674 | 3.172 | -502 | -13,7% |
| Netherlands | 172 | 1.004 | 832 | 483,7% |
| Poland | 38.374 | 34.017 | -4.357 | -11,4% |
| Portugal | 776 | 8 | -768 | -99,0% |
| Romania | 3.825 | 1.804 | -2.021 | -52,8% |
| Slovakia | 5.955 | 4.575 | -1.380 | -23,2% |
| Slovenia | 109 | 154 | 45 | 41,3% |
| Spain | 57.239 | 60.546 | 3.307 | 5,8% |
| Sweden | 42.087 | 1.827 | -40.260 | -95,7% |
| United Kingdom | 72.886 | 58.380 | -14.506 | -19,9% |
| Totals | 403.937 | 304.320 | -99.617 | -24,7% |
Fourteen Member States recorded an increase in the number of prohibitions during the 2017-18 reporting period in comparison to the 2015-2016 reporting period. Percentage increases ranged from 4,1% in the case of Austria to approximately 3,203% in the case of Finland, probably due to a more risk based approach. Other Member States that recorded notable increases were Czech Republic (1932,0%), Latvia (1265,6%), Netherlands (483,7%) and Lithuania (340,8%).
Comparing these increases to the corresponding change in inspection volumes for the Member States concerned, with the exception of Lithuania (who recorded a decrease of 28,8%), Finland, Czech Republic, Latvia and Netherlands recorded inspection volume increases of 43,7%, 8,9%, 1,8% and 63,8% and respectively. Therefore, it is evident that from the data, that Lithuania at least must have changed its inspection policy on a risk based approach leading higher prohibitions issued.
On the other hand, fourteen Member States recorded decreases in the number of prohibitions recorded, ranging from 1,7% in the case of Germany to 99,0% reduction in the case of Portugal which communicated just 8 prohibitions for the current reporting period compared to 776, during the 2015-2016 reporting period.
5.4.Origin of vehicles prohibited
Table 4 summarises the data submitted by Member States and indicates that the percentage of domestic vehicles prohibited ranges 0,9% in Portugal, 1,1% in Bulgaria, 1,3% in Germany and 2,3% in Slovenia to over 50,0% in Austria, Estonia, Italy and Malta. The percentage of EU prohibitions (excluding the reporting Member State) ranges from 1,4% in Luxembourg, 1,8% in Bulgaria, 2,1% in Poland to over 50,0% in Austria and Estonia. Of note, Estonia has prohibition rates of over 90,0% for domestic vehicles, the reason for that being the data collection methodology, whereas the overall prohibition rate for domestic vehicles across all Member States is 8,1%, a small increase from the 7,9% figure of the 2015-2016 reporting period.
When considering the differences in prohibition rates for domestic versus vehicles registered in another Member State, six Member States, namely Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and United Kingdom submitted data that would suggest that vehicles registered in another Member State meet higher roadworthiness standards as more prohibitions were reported. Member States that saw a prohibition rate difference of greater than 10% for domestic vehicles, were Denmark (13,7%), Estonia (23,9%), Italy (39,2%), Malta (36,2%) and Spain (13,0%). On the other hand, the only Member State to see a prohibition rate difference of around 10,0% for vehicles registered in another Member State is the UK (9,2%).
The average prohibition rate for EU (excluding domestic) vehicles across the 28 Member States is 7,6%, and this represents a decrease on the 9,0% figure quoted for the 2015-2016 reporting period.
Cyprus did not make any inspections to other EU vehicles, presumably due to its geographical position within the Union. Portugal did not also communicate any data for non-EU vehicles so the prohibition rate of 7,6% could be differentiated as it does not include data from one Member State.
Table 4: Breakdown of Prohibitions – National versus EU
| National Prohibitions | EU Prohibitions (Excluding Reporting Member State) | |||||
| Reporting Member State | Number of National Vehicles Checked | Number of National Vehicle Prohibitions | National Vehicle Prohibition Ratio (%) | Number of EU Vehicles Checked | Number of EU Vehicle Prohibitions | EU Vehicle Prohibition Ratio (%) |
| Austria | 16.667 | 10.297 | 61,8 % | 21.399 | 13.627 | 63,7% |
| Belgium | 3.825 | 444 | 11,6 % | 7.118 | 542 | 7,6% |
| Bulgaria | 97.469 | 1.111 | 1,1 % | 14.782 | 263 | 1,8% |
| Croatia | 18.418 | 1.502 | 8,2 % | 3.751 | 173 | 4,6% |
| Cyprus | 5.984 | 1.012 | 16,9% | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Czech Republic | 54.001 | 5.126 | 9,5% | 39.397 | 2.362 | 6,0% |
| Denmark | 4.199 | 1.167 | 27,8% | 806 | 114 | 14,1% |
| Estonia | 1.858 | 1.715 | 92,3% | 152 | 104 | 68,4% |
| Finland | 7.408 | 3.385 | 45,7% | 2.102 | 730 | 34,7% |
| France | 220.388 | 23.915 | 10,9% | 392.088 | 25.677 | 6,5% |
| Germany | 735.289 | 9.914 | 1,3% | 475.644 | 15.796 | 3,3% |
| Greece | 204 | 5 | 2,5% | 156 | 7 | 4,5% |
| Hungary | 148.164 | 6.845 | 4,6% | 51.517 | 1.940 | 3,8% |
| Ireland | 24.539 | 1.253 | 5,1% | 2.953 | 166 | 5,6% |
| Italy | 4.480 | 2.668 | 59,6% | 954 | 195 | 20,4% |
| Latvia | 5.491 | 511 | 9,3% | 2.908 | 260 | 8,9% |
| Lithuania | 35.081 | 988 | 2,8% | 9.137 | 290 | 3,2% |
| Luxembourg | 303 | 9 | 3,0% | 1.726 | 25 | 1,4% |
| Malta | 6.277 | 3.168 | 50,5% | 28 | 4 | 14,3% |
| Netherlands | 7.816 | 562 | 7,2% | 2.993 | 405 | 13,5% |
| Poland | 374.840 | 20.588 | 5,5% | 158.367 | 3.378 | 2,1% |
| Portugal | 935 | 8 | 0,9% | 27 | 0 | N/A |
| Romania | 18.686 | 1.714 | 9,2% | 513 | 43 | 8,4% |
| Slovakia | 14.923 | 3.115 | 20,9% | 8.659 | 1.460 | 16,9% |
| Slovenia | 4.271 | 98 | 2,3% | 1.028 | 49 | 4,8% |
| Spain | 316.637 | 58.917 | 18,6% | 28.983 | 1.629 | 5,6% |
| Sweden | 37.658 | 1.622 | 4,3% | 6.727 | 190 | 2,8% |
| United Kingdom | 131.402 | 23.357 | 17,8% | 122.409 | 33.062 | 27,0% |
| Totals | 2.297.213 | 185.016 | 8,1 % | 1.356.324 | 102.491 | 7,6% |
| Switzerland | 85.873 | 3.436 | 4,0% | 91.914 | 8.492 | 9,2% |
| Totals | 2.383.086 | 188.452 | 7,9% | 1.448.238 | 110.983 | 7,7% |
As mentioned previously, twenty 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. 327.273 non-EU vehicles were checked leading to 16.813 prohibitions being issued, i.e. a prohibition ratio of 5.1%, which compares to a rate of 8.1% for domestic vehicles and 7.6% for EU (excluding domestic) vehicles. Prohibitions rates for non-EU vehicles compared to EU vehicles increased by more than 10,0% in Austria (10,7%), Estonia (23.1%) and Finland (15.1%) while in Italy a decrease of 12.1% was observed.
Data submitted by Member States on the number of inspections made on vehicles registered in non-EU countries are still not sufficient to draw significant conclusions as to their roadworthiness condition. However, 9 more Member States provided data for vehicles outside the EU compared to the 2015-2016 reporting period.
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 | 1.688 | 1256 | 74,4% |
| Belgium | 339 | 29 | 8,6% |
| Bulgaria | 41.497 | 346 | 0,8% |
| Croatia | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Cyprus | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Czech Republic | 2.863 | 132 | 4,6% |
| Denmark | 49 | 11 | 22,4% |
| Estonia | 271 | 248 | 91,5% |
| Finland | 2.550 | 1269 | 49,8% |
| France | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Germany | 36.573 | 1.202 | 3,3% |
| Greece | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Hungary | 2.642 | 45 | 1,7% |
| Ireland | 9 | 1 | 11,1% |
| Italy | 12 | 1 | 8,3% |
| Latvia | 405 | 62 | 15,3% |
| Lithuania | 6.020 | 93 | 1,5% |
| Luxembourg | 78 | 0 | 0% |
| Malta | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Netherlands | 180 | 37 | 20,6% |
| Poland | 225.207 | 10.051 | 4,5% |
| Portugal | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Romania | 336 | 47 | 14.0% |
| Slovakia | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Slovenia | 103 | 7 | 6,8% |
| Spain | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Sweden | 326 | 15 | 4,6% |
| United Kingdom | 6.125 | 1.961 | 31,6% |
| Totals | 327.273 | 16.813 | 5,1% |
| Switzerland | 3.935 | 530 | 13,5% |
| Totals | 331.208 | 17.343 | 5,2% |
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 7,9% with category N2 (vehicles exceeding 3.5 tones) being the vehicle type prohibited most often, i.e. a prohibition rate of 11,4%.
Vehicles in the “Other” unspecified vehicle category had a prohibition rate of 9,4%. 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.
In terms of analysis, the data shows that vehicles from Austria and Malta were prohibited more frequently with prohibition rates of 37,5% and 31,9% respectively. On the other hand, German and Luxembourgish vehicles were prohibited least often with prohibition rates of 1,7% and 2,6% respectively.
The differences in these prohibition rates may be explained by the application of different selection and inspection methods and categorisation of defects amongst the Member States.
Germany, United Kingdom, France and Sweden checked in their territories 94,1%, 93,4%, 93% and 85,8% respectively of the total vehicles with their national number of registration. Over 50% figure was observed for Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Croatia, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Spain and Cyprus. As expected, this indicates that in the majority of cases vehicles are inspected on domestic journeys.
There are a few exceptions to this however. For example, the national authorities in Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and Greece inspected less than 10% of the total vehicles inspected that were registered in their respective Member States.
In addition, Annex 2 shows the details for prohibitions per vehicle category per Member State of the inspection. The greatest prohibition rates were observed in Estonia (90,6%), in Austria (63,3%), in Italy (52,6%) and in Malta (50,3%) while the lower prohibition rates were observed in Portugal (0,8%), Bulgaria (1,1%), Luxembourg (1,6%) and Germany (2,2%). The average prohibition rate for all EU Member State is 7,6%, a figure than remains about the same with the 2015-2016 reporting period. As expected, the inspecting Member States with the higher prohibition ratios are also the Member States with the highest prohibition ratios for vehicles registered on their own territory (Table 4).
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 2017-2018 reporting period.
During this reporting period, the most frequent deficiencies detected during inspections concerned the roadworthiness condition of:
- lighting equipment and electric systems (26,4% of total defects recorded);
- axles, wheels, tyres, suspension (16,5% of total defects recorded);
- braking equipment (15,1% of total defects recorded) and
- chassis and chassis attachment (12,3%)
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 64,9% of the total reported defects during the reporting period, whereas defects in this area only accounted for 0,8% of the total found in the United Kingdom. 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 20 May 2018, the Directive 2014/47/EU introduces 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 decreases concerns the “axles, wheels, tyres and suspension” test area, from 21,8% in the previous reporting period to16,5% in the current reporting, as well as in the “other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device” test area from 15,5% in the previous reporting period to 11,5% in the current one. However, deficiencies pertaining to the “lighting equipment and electrical system” area are still the most common, experiencing a rise to 26,4% (up 3,4% from 23% 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 four out of the nine inspection areas, namely “identification’”, “visibility”, “lighting equipment and electric system” and “other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device”‘, the rates are decreasing compared to the previous reporting period. The rates for “steering” remain the same, at 2,3%. In fact, those areas that did see slight increases over the previous reporting period, namely “breaking equipment”, “lighting equipment and electric system”, “chassis and chassis attachments”, and “nuisance including emissions and spillage of fuel and/or oil”, all were below a 5% increase.
Also “lighting equipment and electric system” is the predominant deficiency as it has the greatest rate in twelve Member States while deficiencies on “identification”, “steering” and “nuisance including emissions and spillage of fuel and/or oil” tend to be below 10% in most Member States, with the exception of France where the rate of the last mentioned category reaches to 25%, most probably indicating a stricter approach to the vehicle environmental performance. For deficiencies relating to “nuisance including emissions and leakages” which, in addition to being a road safety hazard, also have an impact on the environment; after a decrease in the previous period by 0,8% (from 4,1 % to 3,3 %), an increase of 3,0% from 3,3% to 6,3% was observed.
Finally, as outlined in Table 2, twenty Member States carried out inspections on vehicles registered outside the EU. However, as the total number of these inspections equates to only approximately 8% 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 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 8 . 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 2017-2018 reporting period.
7.1 Inspections
Compared to 2015-2016, 1.048.863 fewer vehicles were inspected in the 2017-2018 reporting period, which is a decrease of 20,9%. According to the explanations provided by the Member States, it is the combined result of reduced resources, reorganisation, changes of the national legislation and application of the rules.
In any event, sixteen Member States carried out fewer inspections with percentage reductions ranging from 1,2% in the case of Italy to a 93,3% reduction in the case of Greece. On the other hand, twelve member States recorded increases in the number of inspections carried out with percentage increases ranging from 1.8% in the case of Latvia to 429,4 % in the case of Luxembourg.
57,7% of inspections carried out during the reporting period were on vehicles registered in the Member State where the inspection took place, 34,1% were on vehicles registered in another Member State and 8,2% were on vehicles registered outside the EU.
The proportion of domestic vehicles out of the total number of vehicles checked also varies substantially. In Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and marginally in Poland, where the proportion of checks on domestic vehicles is below 50 %, efforts should be made to ensure a more balanced rate of checks, more in line with those in other Member States with significant transit traffic.
7.2 Prohibitions
Compared to the previous period, 99.617 less vehicles were prohibited which is a decrease of 24,7%.
Fourteen Member States recorded an increase in the number of prohibitions issued with increases ranging from 4,1% in the case of Austria to 3,203% in the case of Finland. On the other hand, fourteen Member States recorded decreases in the number of prohibitions issued ranging from 1,7% in the case of Germany to a 99,0% reduction in the case of Portugal. With the exception of Cyprus, France and Slovakia, prohibiton figures generally increased or decreased in line with inspection volumes which would indicate a change in policy being implemented in these Member States.
In terms of the origin of vehicles prohibited, the overall prohibition rate for domestic vehicles was 8,1%; 7,6% for EU (excluding domestic) vehicles and 5,1% for vehicles registered outside the EU. This would indicate that, the standards are generally being universally applied for EU vehicles irrespective of the country of origin of the vehicle. Perhaps the reason the prohibition rate for non-EU vehicles is lower is 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. The lower prohibition rate indicates the that the use of a more targeted approach is not spread out, however, this is hopefully expected to change with the enforcement of Directive 2014/47/EU that requires Member States to adjust their inspection systems.
Finally, the average prohibition rate for EU registered vehicles across all Member States was 7,9%. Category N2 (or Heavy Goods Vehicles) were the vehicle type prohibited most often, i.e. a prohibition rate of 11.4%. Swedish and Maltese registered vehicles were prohibited more frequently with prohibition rates of 37,5% and 31,9% respectively. On the other hand, German and Luxembourgish vehicles were prohibited least often with prohibition rates of 1,7% and 2,6% respectively. The reasons for the differences in these prohibition rates are unknown to the Commission, so it has be assumed that it must be arising from the application of different inspection methods and categorisation of defects amongst the Member States.
7.3 Defects
The two most frequent types of deficiencies detected during inspections carried out during the reporting period related to the “lighting equipment and elctrical systems” and ‘axles, wheels tyres and suspension’ inspection areas. These accounted for 26,4% and 16,5% respectively of total defects recorded. “Other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device” accounted for 11,5% of the total recorded across all Member States, down from 15,5% for the previous reporting period. It is noteworthy that checks for “nuissance including emisions and spillage of fuel and/or oil” have almost doubled from 3,3% in the 2015-2016 reporting period to 6,3% in the current one, indicating a positive sign towards vehicle environmental checks.
However significant deifferences in prohibition rates per test area continue to exists amongst the Member States. For example, in Spain defects in the ‘other equipment including tachograph and speed limitation device’ inspection area accounted for 64,9% of the total defects recorded during the reporting period, whereas defects in this area only accounted for 0,8% 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. However, it is expected these differences will reduce from 20th May 2018 once the Directive 2014/47/EU takes effect, i.e. it will introduce greater harmonisation in testing methods, assessment of deficiencies and use of test equipment.
(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 will see the introduced a mandatory risk rating system across all Member States from 20th May 2019. Poor performance at roadside checks concerning the number and severity of deficiencies identified both during roadworthiness and load security inspections will lead to operators receiving a higher risk rating. Member State competent authorities will then use this information to check operators 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) 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.