Explanatory Memorandum to 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 ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2023)126  |
| date | 01-03-2023 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
This explanatory memorandum accompanies the proposal for a directive amending Directive (EU) 2015/413 on facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences 1 (hereinafter “the CBE Directive”).
Road safety in the EU has improved quite significantly over the last 20 years. The number of road fatalities has gone down by 61.5% from around 51,400 in 2001 to around 19,800 in 2021. Nevertheless, the improvement in road safety has not been strong enough to meet the EU’s political ambition to decrease the number of road deaths by 50% between 2001 and 2010, and by additional 50% between 2011 and 2020 (i.e. by 75% between 2001 and 2020) stemming from a number of strategic documents issued by the Commission over the last two decades, such as the White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010 2 , or the Communication from the Commission on Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 3 . The reported number of some 18,800 road deaths in 2020 was still well above the target value, despite an impressive annual reduction of more than 17% below the corresponding number of road deaths for 2019 that was however heavily influenced by an unprecedented drop in road traffic volumes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic 4 .
In the years before 2020, there was hardly any drop in the number of road fatalities. This slowdown, that already appeared around 2014, prompted the transport ministers of the EU to issue a ministerial declaration on road safety at the informal transport Council in Valletta in March 2017 5 . In that declaration, the Member States called upon the Commission to explore the strengthening of the Union’s road safety legal framework to reverse that stagnating trend.
In June 2019, the Commission published the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Next steps towards “Vision Zero” 6 . In it, the Commission proposed new interim targets for reducing the number of road deaths and serious injuries by 50% between 2020 and 2030, as recommended in the Valletta Declaration. The Commission based that policy framework on the so-called “Safe System approach” that considers death and serious injury in road collisions as largely preventable, though collisions will continue to occur. The cross-border enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences is one of the main pillars of the system as it reduces the impunity of foreign drivers. The Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 7 of 2020 set the milestone of reducing the death toll for all modes of transport in the EU to close to zero by 2050 and announced the revision of the CBE Directive under Flagship 10 “Enhancing transport safety and security”. Subsequently, this initiative was inserted in Annex II to the Commission Work Programme 2022 (REFIT initiatives), under the heading ‘A New Push for European Democracy’ 8 .
Importantly, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 9 in October 2021. While the Parliament acknowledges the progress made, it called on the Commission to review the CBE Directive, as the existing framework “(…) does not adequately ensure investigation of the offences in order to enforce penalties (…)”.
This initiative builds on the current CBE Directive which has (1) established the electronic exchange of vehicle registration data between Member States through designated national contact points, which helps to identify the owner/holder of the vehicle registered abroad with which the offence has been committed; (2) specified the European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (Eucaris) as the preferred IT platform for the electronic exchange of vehicle registration data; (3) been predominantly applied in practice to cross-border cases where the offences are detected remotely with automatic or manual detection equipment, mostly cameras (i.e. without stopping the vehicle and/or identification of the driver on the spot); i covered eight road-safety-related traffic offences: speeding, failing to use a seat belt, failing to stop at a red traffic light, drink-driving, driving while under the influence of drugs, failing to wear a safety helmet, the use of a forbidden lane and illegally using a mobile phone or any other communication devices while driving; (5) determined the way in which the offence should be communicated to the person concerned, including the language regime – it also provided a (non-obligatory) template for the information letter to be sent; (6) raised the awareness of citizens by requiring Member States to inform the Commission of road safety traffic rules in force and make them available on a website in all official languages 10 .
The accompanying impact assessment 11 to the first proposal for the CBE Directive of 2008 estimated that non-resident drivers accounted for about 5% of road traffic in the EU (in terms of vehicle-km) but that they committed around 15% of speeding offences. Hence, they are relatively more likely to commit speeding offences than resident drivers. One of the identified reasons for that was that non-residents perceived that they were less likely to be sanctioned when driving in a Member State where they did not reside and that they were less likely to face judicial action if they did not pay fines imposed by foreign authorities. While the current CBE Directive contributed to removing the anonymity of foreign offenders by impressively increasing the number of investigated cross-border cases, it has also proven its limitations since its deterrent effect was not sufficient to remove the offenders’ impunity.
This initiative aims at further enhancing road safety by extending the scope of the CBE Directive to other road-safety-related traffic offences and streamlining (i.e. simplifying, digitising and refining) the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences committed abroad, thus facilitating the cross-border enforcement of sanctions. It also aims to improve the protection of fundamental rights of non-resident drivers. The objectives to unlock the full potential of the Directive are to:
1. Increase compliance of non-resident drivers with additional road-safety-related traffic rules: Dangerous behaviour plays a role in a high number of road fatalities and serious injuries. Preventing such dangerous behaviour through extending the scope of the CBE Directive to other road-safety-related offences and thus reducing impunity is key. When Member States cannot effectively penalise offenders from other Member States to ensure equal treatment of resident and non-resident drivers, this seriously reduces the credibility of the enforcement efforts.
2. Streamline mutual assistance procedures between Member States in the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences: The evaluation of the CBE Directive of 2016 12 identified the following main reasons preventing justice from being applied to non-resident offenders: (1) around half of detected road traffic offences committed by non-residents was not investigated; (2) around half of the financial penalties for those road traffic offences that had been investigated were not successfully enforced; (3) almost all offences where offenders refused to pay financial penalties were not enforced - the successfully enforced penalties were essentially due to voluntary payments. The main reasons for the identified shortcomings were cumbersome, time consuming and therefore lacking mutual assistance and cooperation between Member States in investigating road-safety-related traffic offences and deficiencies in the enforcement of sanctions after exchanging vehicle registration data, especially where different legal liability regimes apply.
3. Strengthen the protection of fundamental rights of non-resident offenders, including alignment with new EU rules on personal data protection: The Commission received a number of citizens' complaints on the (lack of) respect of fundamental rights, especially as regards appeals against allegedly committed road traffic offences abroad (in particular arguing about missing or unclear information on appeal procedures), missing evidence, different deadlines for non-residents and residents regarding the delivery of penalty notices/information letters, inadequate service of documents, including missing translations and problems to access specific information regarding committed offences and ways to settle financial penalties. Last, but not least, the proposal ensures alignment with new EU law concerning personal data protection 13 , which was adopted in the meantime.
More detailed information on how the above objectives and related problems are addressed by the initiative is presented in Chapter 3 of this explanatory memorandum.
To ensure a consistent approach in cross-border enforcement of road traffic rules, a negotiating package is established, which consists of three initiatives – besides this proposal for a directive amending the CBE Directive, it also contains a proposal for a new driving licence directive (replacing Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences 14 (the ‘Driving Licence Directive’)) and a proposal for a new Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union-wide effect of certain driving disqualifications.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposed revision of the CBE Directive is consistent with other EU road safety legislation. It (1) refers to Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles 15 in what concerns the classification of vehicle registration data elements; (2) extends the scope of the CBE Directive to the offence of using an overloaded vehicle, therefore having a close link to the application of Council Directive 96/53/EC on maximum authorised weights and dimensions of certain vehicles 16 ; (3) complements the Driving Licence Directive by allowing the use of personal data from driving licence registers for the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences, informing offenders on applied sanctions affecting their right to drive and identifying the person liable for road-safety-related offences.
• Consistency with other Union policies
There is already a wider set of existing legal instruments and ongoing initiatives at Union level, especially in the field of police and justice cooperation, which have to be taken into account in relation to this initiative, such as existing cross-border investigation procedures under the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union 17 , the European Investigation Order 18 and the Prüm Decisions which are currently being revised 19 . However, this proposal provides for specific simplified and digitised procedures aimed at the identification of the person liable for a road-safety-related traffic offence and at procedures for service of documents, which derogate from the above mentioned legal acts in order to facilitate millions of automatically detected road-safety-related traffic offences often qualified as administrative. As the current version of the CBE Directive does, the proposal retains strong links with Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA 20 , namely in the case of non-payment of a financial penalty. It promotes an effective application of the Framework Decision by improving the identification of the persons liable for the road-safety-related traffic offences and the protection of the fundamental rights of non-resident drivers.
This proposal also refers to (1) Regulation (EU) 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions 21 to ensure the legal effect and admissibility of the information letter and of the follow-up documents sent and received by using an electronic registered delivery service; (2) Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings 22 to ensure standard quality of the translation of the information letter and of the follow-up documents and to ensure that criminal proceedings demanding for specific guarantees for the individuals concerned, the procedural safeguards for suspects and accused persons are not affected by the implementation of the revised CBE Directive; (3) Directive (EU) 2022/2555 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union 23 to ensure exchange of information on reported cybersecurity incidents where processed personal data are stored by using clouds or cloud-hosting services; i Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 on a single digital gateway 24 to ensure compatibility of the dedicated digital portal referred to in Chapter 4 of this explanatory memorandum and of the Your Europe Portal of the Commission; (5) Directives 2012/13/EU 25 , 2013/48/EU 26 , (EU) 2016/343 27 , (EU) 2016/800 28 , (EU) 2016/1919 29 of the European Parliament and of the Council to ensure that criminal proceedings demanding for specific guarantees for the individuals concerned and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions 30 , the procedural safeguards for suspects and accused persons are not affected by the implementation of the revised CBE Directive.
As mentioned in the objectives of this initiative, the EU law concerning personal data protection has been reformed. In particular, Directive (EU) 2016/680 (the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive – LED) has been adopted and entered into force in May 2016. Article 62(6) of LED required the Commission to review, by 6 May 2019, other EU legal acts that regulate competent authorities’ personal data processing for law enforcement purposes, in order to assess the need to align them with the LED and, where appropriate, to make proposals for amending them to ensure consistency in the protection of personal data within the scope of the LED. In 2020, the Commission published the results of its review in a Communication 31 , which specifies ten legal acts, including the CBE Directive, that should be aligned with the LED and a timetable for doing so. This initiative, therefore, ensures alignment with the LED, notably by clarifying that the LED applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the CBE Directive.
Furthermore, the digitalisation of existing cross-border investigation procedures and the IT solutions provided in the proposal for a Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters 32 , which aims to facilitate the conduct of procedures and reduce practical difficulties concerning effective and transparent access of natural and legal persons to justice, have to be taken into account in the digitalisation of the follow-up procedures under this proposal through implementing acts to ensure the compatibility of the systems to be applied. The digital solutions to be established by the implementing acts under this proposal should also be aligned with the cross-border interoperability requirements for digital public services laid down in the proposal for an Interoperable Europe Act 33 enhancing cross-border interoperability in the public sector.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The CBE Directive was originally adopted on the legal basis of Article 87(2) TFEU 34 – the police cooperation legal basis that allowed the UK, Denmark and Ireland to opt out of applying the Directive. The Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 May 2014 in Case C-43/12 35 annulled this Directive, considering that it could not be adopted on the police cooperation legal basis, and that the Directive should rather have been adopted on the basis of Article 91(1)(c) TFEU, which is a transport legal basis, as originally proposed by the Commission. The new and current Directive was adopted on 11 March 2015 with the modified legal basis, without any amendments to the substance of the annulled Directive and covering all Member States.
This proposal maintains the prime objective of the CBE Directive to improve road safety. The content of the proposal does not contradict the above objective or go beyond facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences where they are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place. Therefore, the legal basis of the proposal remains Article 91(1)(c) TFEU, according to which "(...) the European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (…), lay down: (…) (c) measures to improve transport safety."
• Subsidiarity
Ending the impunity of non-resident offenders and ensuring equal treatment of all road users across the Union cannot be as effective if approached in a disparate manner through national or regional silos (multilateral or bilateral agreements). The evaluation of the functioning of the CBE Directive concluded that reaching the same results as with the Directive would require the adoption of more than 300 bilateral agreements, resulting in a non-transparent, complex, potentially inconsistent and cost-ineffective legal environment, ultimately leading to significant costs for national administrations. Without the intervention at EU level, there would be a patchwork of rules, which would not be as effective in putting an end to the impunity of non-resident offenders and inducing a behavioural change leading to improved road safety. The cross-border enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules would hardly be achievable, as Member States would not be able to ensure mutual assistance in cross-border investigation procedures.
Under the subsidiarity principle, the application of enforcement practices by Member States in their own territory is considered primarily within their own competence. This initiative does not seek to impose requirements for the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules as such. It focuses only on facilitating cross-border investigation procedures, which Member States cannot achieve on their own in a coherent way to ensure equal treatment of resident and non-resident drivers.
• Proportionality
In accordance with the principle of proportionality set out in Article 5 i of the Treaty on European Union, the measures in this proposal do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the Treaties - improving road safety (through better cross-border enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules).
The proposal addresses the existing barriers to effective cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences and the protection of fundamental rights of non-resident drivers in the investigation phase. The proposal sets out a legal and technical framework for cooperation between Member States to identify the person liable for a road-safety-related traffic offence committed abroad to ensure equal treatment of drivers. For this purpose, the scope of the initiative is extended to seven additional road-safety-related traffic offences which can be detected remotely, without stopping the vehicle and identification of the driver on the spot, and which are considered by the stakeholders as the most relevant ones to further improve road safety in the EU.
As the road-safety-related traffic offences may be classified as administrative or criminal, and therefore the authorities competent to pursue these offences differ as well as the purpose pursued, the personal data processing should comply with the GDPR or LED. In the short term, the Commission and Member States will incur costs related to developing and implementing IT solutions necessary not only for the exchange/sharing of information between enforcement authorities, but also for the exchange/sharing of information between these authorities and road users. However, these costs would be offset over the longer term by the benefits generated through the improved cooperation and communication. In order to minimise the burden of regulatory reporting, the monitoring of the application of the revised CBE Directive will build as much as possible on existing data reporting channels and infrastructure, and on automated data retrieval. For road users, represented by businesses and citizens, the proposal is expected to lead to a reduction in the costs of interacting with public administrations.
• Choice of the instrument
This proposal further streamlines the obligations imposed on Member States’ authorities regarding the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences and ensures a higher level of harmonisation thereof. At the same time, it aims at providing Member States with the flexibility needed to take into account national specificities (such as the possibility to identify additional essential or important entities or procedures going beyond the proposed measures). Taking this into account, and the fact that it consists of a number of amendments to the existing CBE Directive, the future legal instrument should therefore be a Directive, as it allows for targeted harmonisation as well as a certain degree of flexibility for competent authorities. As the amended Directive maintains its current structure and its substance is not affected, a recast is not required.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
In 2016, the Commission carried out an evaluation of the application of the CBE Directive by Member States 36 assessing its relevance, EU added value, coherence, effectiveness and efficiency. Subsequently, the Commission submitted an implementation report to the European Parliament and the Council 37 .
Contents
1. The scope of the CBE Directive was considered as adequate since it covers the most important road traffic offences, i.e. the cases in which the vehicle does not need to be stopped for the offence to be detected. The evaluation also concluded that it might be useful to consider including additional road-safety-related offences in the scope of the Directive that endanger road safety and for which automatic checking equipment is being increasingly used, such as not keeping a sufficient distance from the vehicle in front, dangerous overtaking and dangerous parking;
2. The electronic information system used for the exchange of vehicle registration data (Eucaris) provided for effective, expeditious, secure and confidential exchange of vehicle registration data and does not generate unnecessary administrative burden. However, the system has not been used to its full potential. In 2015, approximately 50% of detected road traffic offences which were committed by non-residents were not investigated;
3. It was not possible to establish a clear correlation between the CBE Directive and non-resident road users' compliance with road traffic rules in force, or to provide clear evidence of the Directive's positive impact on road safety;
4. As regards external coherence, the evaluation concluded that the CBE Directive contributed to a more consistent EU road safety legal framework by complementing other instruments, such as the Driving Licence Directive. The analysis of internal coherence found that the two specific objectives of the CBE Directive — to facilitate the enforcement of road traffic rules through the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data and to raise citizens’ awareness of road traffic rules in place — fully complement each other.
5. The potential of the CBE Directive to improve road safety could be further exploited. Approximately 50 % of investigated road traffic offences which are committed by non-residents were not successfully enforced. This was either due to a lack of mutual assistance and cooperation between Member States in investigating road traffic offences after exchanging vehicle registration data, or because decisions issued by Member States in cases of non-payment of a financial penalty for these offences often did not fall under Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA. Procedures that apply in cross-border cases of non-payment of a financial penalty did not appear to be adapted to the situation where millions of road traffic offences covered by the CBE Directive should have been detected each year.
• Collection and use of expertise
The Commission has contracted a consortium composed of the companies Ecorys, Wavestone and Grimaldi to support the Impact Assessment of the revision of the CBE Directive 38 . The contractor has reached out to the stakeholders directly affected by the Directive through targeted surveys and workshops. A wide range of experts was consulted not only in the field of transport, but also in other policy areas such as police and justice cooperation. The contractor also carried out a legal analysis concerning (1) mutual assistance and recognition procedures in the cross-border investigation of road traffic offences; (2) the use of Eucaris; (3) the cross-border enforcement of driving disqualifications; (3) the appropriate legal basis in light of a possible extension of the scope of the revised Directive to other road traffic offences, including violations of urban vehicle access regulations (UVARs); i personal data protection rules; (5) specific sanctions such as confiscation/detention of vehicles and application of collateral guarantees i.e. the practice of pledging collateral as security for repayment of a financial penalty imposed for a road traffic offence. A technical analysis was also performed on the digitalisation of EU justice systems and on adequate digital/IT solutions for the revised Directive.
• Stakeholder consultations
The objective of the consultations was to validate with stakeholders the Commission understanding of the issues at hand and in particular to collect views on draft policy measures. The consultations also gathered evidence on expected costs and benefits of the draft policy measures. They helped to identify gaps in the intervention logic or areas requiring further attention. The public consultation on the Inception Impact Assessment, the targeted consultations and the open public consultation were aimed at collecting information and opinions on the following elements of the impact assessment: (1) the problem definition, including respective problem drivers and policy objectives; (2) the scope of the revision; (3) possible policy measures and options and their likely impacts, including on subsidiarity and the EU dimension; i the scope for efficiency savings (particularly regulatory cost reduction) and simplification measures.
A broad range of stakeholders was consulted such as (1) central government authorities (ministries of transport, ministries of interior and justice, decentralised state agencies); (2) local government authorities (municipalities and their associations e.g. POLIS and EUROCITIES); (3) research organisations and road safety NGOs (e.g. VIAS institute, ETSC, FERSI/SWOV); i police network organisations (e.g. ROADPOL); (5) road user organisations, business and road transport associations (e.g. ADAC, FIA, IRU, UICR, TLN, CORTE, Leaseurope).
• Impact assessment
As outlined in the Inception Impact Assessment 39 , the following impacts of this initiative were analysed: (1) economic impacts – impacts on public administrations, private sector (e.g. leasing companies), SMEs, road users, the functioning of the internal market and competition; (2) social impacts - impacts on road safety and the protection of fundamental rights; (3) environmental impacts – impacts on compliance with road traffic rules in place, especially with applicable speed limits. The baseline (“do nothing”) scenario, against which the impacts of each identified policy option were assessed, is built on the EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020) as the starting point for the assessment, which takes into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the transport sector.
This proposal for an amendment of the CBE Directive is accompanied by an impact assessment report, a draft of which was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 22 June 2022. The RSB issued a positive opinion with reservations on 22 July 2022 40 . The impact assessment report was adjusted accordingly to address not only the reservations, but also more detailed comments of the RSB. The impact assessment report includes a detailed description of the policy options, included in Section 5, while a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of all options is presented in Section 6. The analysed policy options are summarised as follows:
1. Policy option 1: It is the basic policy option which contains 11 (out of the 16) retained policy measures, which are common to all policy options. The scope of the CBE Directive would be extended to include other road-safety-related traffic offences which can be detected remotely with automatic checking equipment such as not keeping sufficient distance from the vehicle in front, dangerous overtaking, dangerous parking, crossing white line(s), driving in the wrong way or not respecting the rules on the creation and use of emergency corridors, and using an overloaded vehicle. It would increase the effectiveness of the existing Directive by improving existing information exchange and addressing the issues related to the protection of fundamental rights of non-resident offenders in the investigation phase, including personal data protection, which is supported by all stakeholder groups. Under this option, the information in the national vehicle registers on the previous vehicle holder/user would have to be kept for a certain period of time and exchanged if available. In the case where a vehicle would have been leased (or subject to a long term rent), the information on the actual user of the vehicle would be exchanged if available in the national vehicle register. Enforcement authorities would be allowed to use not just the vehicle registers, but also other registers such as national driving licence registers, preferably through a single electronic system, where necessary for the identification of the person liable for a road-safety-related traffic offence.
2. Policy options 2 and 2A: These options include all elements of Policy option 1 and in addition foresee the establishment of tailored follow-up cross-border investigation procedures, including a dedicated IT portal 41 for communication between governmental authorities/organisations, businesses and citizens, and preferably decentralised 42 platform(s) to inter-connect national registers/back-end IT services in the cross-border exchange of information through designated contact points. A possibility of applying the duty of the vehicle owner/holder to cooperate with authorities in the identification of the liable person, in accordance with the national law of the Member State concerned, introduced in Policy option 2A, would simplify the cross-border investigation procedures and would be expected to increase the rate of successful investigations in Member States which apply driver legal liability regimes. Some Member States already use this approach, for example under the Salzburg Forum CBE Agreement 43 .
3. Policy options 3 and 3A: These options build on Policy option 2A and in addition would establish tailored follow-up procedures for the mutual recognition of (final) decisions on financial penalties issued in relation to the offences falling within the scope of the CBE Directive. Policy option 3 also provides specific procedural standards and guarantees to be met when financial penalties are enforced abroad. Policy option 3A is an extended version of Policy option 3 where the grounds for refusing to recognise and execute the decision related to a financial penalty issued by another Member State, as laid down in Article 7 of Framework Decision 2015/214/JHA, would be reduced.
As a whole, the analysis of the efficiency of the proposed measures suggests that the total benefits, which vary, depending on the policy option, from EUR 1 259.2 million to EUR 3 850.6 million, substantially outweigh the total costs which alter between EUR 72.8 million and EUR 150 million, in 2020 prices. While the improved investigation by Member States authorities incurs the highest cost, namely sending out information letters/penalty notices by registered mail, which has also a tight link with the protection of fundamental rights, the value of saved lives represents the main benefit – i.e. the (quantified) social impacts prevail over the economic ones in a positive way.
The Impact Assessment concludes that the preferred option is Policy option 2A, which is considered as effective in reaching the intended policy objectives, presenting high net benefits, being internally coherent, proportionate as regards the objectives of the initiative, taking into account Member States rules and procedures, and overall best in terms of political and legal feasibility. Policy option 2A can also significantly facilitate cross-border investigation procedures (and consequently the cross-border enforcement of financial penalties) that would offset the potential issues with the external coherence. This policy option will push the EU legislative boundaries ahead with a moderate ambition, paving the way to a generally acceptable and very effective legal liability regime applicable to road-safety-related traffic offences.
The main societal impacts of the preferred Policy option 2A are due to the deterrence effect of the CBE Directive through a better enforcement of road safety-related traffic rules, and they were assessed in terms of impacts on road safety (specifically in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided). Under Policy option 2A, 384 lives are estimated to be saved and 21,789 injuries avoided over the 2025-2050 period, relative to the baseline. In monetary terms, the reduction in the external costs of accidents is estimated at around EUR 2.8 billion, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period relative to the baseline. In addition, leasing companies can expect annual savings of around EUR 7 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over the assessment period 2025-2050, as they will be faced with less administrative burden when the identity of the vehicle keeper (the lessee) can be directly retrieved from the vehicle registration data.
Policy option 2A is expected to be effective in increasing the share of successfully investigated offences and it should lead to higher enforcement costs due to the higher number of penalty notices issued. Additional enforcement costs for Member States authorities are estimated at EUR 136.8 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period. This includes one-off adjustment costs of EUR 4.6 million for Member States administrations (e.g. to adapt IT systems). It is expected that these relatively low additional costs would be outweighed by additional revenues from the payment of the penalties, although such impacts could not be assessed. In addition, adjustment costs for the European Commission (mainly to update the information portal) are estimated at EUR 1.5 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period.
The environmental impact of the preferred policy option should be a slightly positive one. The removal of impunity of non-resident offenders is expected to lead to a more law-abiding behaviour by non-residents which, when it comes to speeding (which represents the vast majority of offences committed with foreign vehicles), manifests itself in a lower average speed which in turn lowers fuel consumption and hence pollutant and CO2 emissions. Over time, as the share of zero- or low-emission vehicles in the fleet increases, the environmental improvement from a lower average speed is expected to reduce in significance. Overall, the positive impact on the environment is not expected to be significant but, at the same time, no harm is expected on the environment.
The initiative directly contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal #11 “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” and in particular to target 11.2 “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons”. 44 By improving the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences committed with foreign-registered vehicles, the deterrent effect of the CBE Directive will be reinforced. As a result, EU roads are expected to become safer for all road users. The enforcement of legislation on behavioural risks is a core element of the “Safe System approach” and a core principle of the 2020 United Nations “Stockholm Declaration on road safety” 45 .
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
As part of the Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT) 46 , this proposal is intended to reduce enforcement costs for Member States authorities incurred by the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences. The proposed measures should lead to decreasing investigation time and related costs per offence that is to be achieved by (1) improving the exchange of information between authorities, including access and content of the registers; (2) creating a tailored cross-border investigation mechanism to better establish who is personally liable for the offence, including a duty to cooperate with enforcement authorities in the identification of the actual offender, where this is possible. The proposal should result in a reduction of hassle costs for road users due to improved content of information letters/penalty notices and of the follow-up communication with offenders (better protection of fundamental rights). Furthermore, a reduction of administrative costs for car leasing and rental companies is envisaged, since the cross-border exchange of information on the actual user of the vehicle (the lessee) will be allowed.
The initiative encompasses the “digital by default” principle 47 as it fosters digital transformation, where possible. For example, it proposes digitised follow-up procedures related to the cross-border enforcement of sanctions for the offences covered by the CBE Directive, including introducing standardised digital forms translated in all official EU languages which would simplify their exchange.
• Application of the “one in, one out” approach
The “one-in, one-out” approach consists of offsetting any new burden for citizens and businesses resulting from the Commission proposals by removing an equivalent existing burden in the same policy area. As explained in the paragraph above, this proposal should result in the reduction of administrative costs for the private sector - car leasing and car rental companies that is estimated at EUR 0.435 million in 2030 and EUR 0.275 million in 2050, relative to the baseline scenario. The administrative cost savings per company are accounted for at approximately EUR 202 in 2030 and EUR 128 in 2050. Expressed as present value, between 2025 and 2050 the administrative cost savings are estimated at around EUR 7 million in total.
• Fundamental rights
One of the specific objectives of this proposal is to improve the protection of fundamental rights of non-resident drivers. Improved enforcement, as a result of the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, will ensure equal treatment of resident and non-resident drivers and their effective exercise of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and right of defence. This should be achieved by (1) enabling the verification of the authenticity of information letters and of the follow-up documents; (2) establishing harmonised time limits for sending the information letters and the follow-up documents; (3) establishing mandatory minimum requirements for the information to be shared with presumed liable persons; i ensuring a consistent language regime until the stage of appeal before a court; and (5) ensuring that citizens receive more information in the information letters/penalty notices e.g. on applicable appeal procedures and methods of payments of fines.
This proposal also envisages the alignment of the CBE Directive with the new rules on personal data protection. Therefore, appropriate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the Directive fully respects Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the applicable legal framework on the protection of personal data. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) will be consulted.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of the proposal requires the establishment and maintenance of a new IT system. This system should connect existing networks of national IT systems and interoperable access points, operating under the individual responsibility and management of each Member State, to ensure a secure and reliable cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences. The Commission will define appropriate IT solutions in implementing acts, including the design/architecture and technical specifications for a dedicated digital portal and electronic systems (interface platform(s)) to inter-connect national systems to exchange the information, which Member States can choose to use. It will ensure that all proposed solutions will undergo an interoperability assessment based on the requirements set out in Article 3 of the proposal for an Interoperable Europe Act. The implementing acts should reflect on the following:
1. technical specifications defining the methods of communication by electronic means, including communication protocols;
2. information security targets and relevant measures ensuring minimum information security standards and a high level of cybersecurity for the processing and communication of information;
3. minimum availability targets and related technical requirements for the provided services.
The one-off costs in 2025 and ongoing adjustment costs of the Commission until 2050 mainly related to the establishment of the IT system to support interactions between governmental authorities/organisations, natural and legal persons in cross-border administrative and criminal proceedings are estimated at EUR 1.531 million. The costs for Member States are considered as rather limited. It is expected that Member States bear these costs from their national budgets; they may also apply for EU financial support under the relevant financing programmes, such as the Justice programme 48 and the cohesion policy instruments.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation, monitoring program and targeted review
Established monitoring instruments continue to apply to follow the share of successfully investigated road-safety-related traffic offences over time. The reporting includes the number of automated outgoing/inbound requests conducted by the Member State in which the offence was committed and addressed to the Member State where the vehicle is registered, together with the type of offences for which the requests will be made and the number of failed requests. Moreover, additional quantitative indicators are to be provided by the Member States, for example on registered road-safety-related traffic offences which are detected automatically or without the identification of the liable person on the spot and committed with vehicles registered in a Member State other than the Member State in which the offence took place, or on the number of voluntarily paid financial penalties by non-residents.
The new reporting period of Member States is extended from currently two years to four years aligning it with the Commission’s evaluation calendar and reducing the administrative burden on national authorities. The Commission will inform the Member States on the content of the submitted reports once they are assessed. The IT platform(s) are intended to facilitate the automatic compilation of data by specific reporting features. The Commission will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the application of this initiative through a number of actions and a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) measuring progress towards achieving the operational objectives. Five years after the date of entry into force of the legislation, the Commission services will carry out an evaluation to verify to what extent the objectives of the initiative have been reached.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The proposal for the revised CBE Directive is structured around the three main policy objectives referred to in Chapter 1 of this explanatory memorandum, which are inter-related and serve the purpose of improving road safety in the Union. The main provisions which substantially change the Directive or add new elements are the following:
Article 1(1) amends Article 2 of the CBE Directive by extending the scope of the Directive to other road-safety-related traffic offences, namely: (1) not keeping sufficient distance from the vehicle in front; (2) dangerous overtaking; (3) dangerous parking; i crossing one or more solid white lines; (5) wrong-way driving; (6) not respecting the rules on the creation and use of emergency corridors; and (7) use of an overloaded vehicle. It also clarifies the relationship between the CBE Directive and the already existing EU legal framework on certain rights and obligations of Member States, such as Directive 2014/41/EU, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA and the legislation on the rights of suspects and accused persons.
Article 1(2) amends Article 3 of the CBE Directive by further clarifying existing definitions and adding definitions of the newly included road-safety-related traffic offences.
Article 1(3) inserts a new Article 3a on responsibilities and competences of national contact points. The national contact points of Member States are required to cooperate with other authorities involved in the investigation of the road-safety-related traffic offences which fall under the scope of the CBE Directive, regardless of the nature of the offence or the legal status of the authority. Thus, Member States are encouraged to exchange the information under the Directive through a single system.
Article 1 i replaces Article 4 of the CBE Directive. It lays down that the exchange of vehicle registration data (‘VRD’) should be carried out through a single electronic system – the European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (Eucaris) – so as to ensure the expeditious, cost-efficient, secure and reliable exchange of specific VRD between Member States. It also sets out that Member States are allowed to conduct automated searches in vehicle registers in accordance with the existing procedures, including the use of the software application, until an implementing act laying down procedures for such searches is adopted by the Commission. Member States are also required to keep certain VRD available and up-to-date. In the cases where a vehicle has been leased (or subject to a long-term rental arrangement), Member States are allowed to conduct automated searches in vehicle registers to retrieve the data on end users of vehicles where available. A data retention period is 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 of the offences.
·a new Article 4a on mutual assistance procedures between Member States in cross-border investigations of road-safety-related traffic offences. It lays down that Member States are required to provide mutual assistance to each other in the cases where, based on the results of the conducted automated search, the Member State in which the offence was committed cannot properly identify the person liable for a road-safety-related traffic offence. The mutual assistance procedures will be digitised in accordance with an implementing act. 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 are also identified, in particular to avoid revealing the identity of protected persons;
·a new Article 4b on the application of national measures facilitating the identification of the liable person. It sets out that Member States are allowed to apply their national measures to non-residents, particularly the duty of presumed liable persons to cooperate with their authorities in the identification of the liable person; and
·a new Article 4c on the use of other databases in the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences. It establishes that Member States’ enforcement authorities are allowed to use not just the vehicle registers, but also other registers such as national driving licence registers or population registers, insofar as such use is explicitly allowed under Union legislation.
Article 1(6) replaces Article 5 of the CBE Directive. It specifies the minimum content of the information letter, which has to include, in particular, the information on the committed offence, sanctions imposed, appeal procedures, payment of financial penalties – including mitigating measures –, the applicable data protection rules, and if applicable, information on the entity empowered by a Member State to collect financial penalties which sent the information letter.
·a new Article 5a on the service of the information letter and the follow-up documents. It lays down the language regime for the communication between persons presumed to be liable and Member States’ authorities, to be applied until the stage of appeal before a court, as well as harmonised time limits for sending these documents. If it is not possible to deliver the documents through registered delivery or electronic means of equal value, specific mutual assistance procedures for cross-border service of the documents are established. The procedures will be digitised in accordance with an implementing act;
·a new Article 5b regarding financial claims of private or public entities empowered by Member States to administer the follow-up proceedings. It sets out that the presumed liable persons are not required to pay the legal and administrative expenses related to the administration of the penalties where such administration is outsourced to debt collectors. Nevertheless, Member States authorities are allowed to charge proportionate administrative fees.
·Article 6 of the CBE Directive. It extends the reporting period for Member States to four years, aligning it with the Commission’s evaluation calendar. Member States are required to provide additional quantitative indicators, such as on registered road-safety-related traffic offences which are committed with vehicles registered in a Member State other than the Member State in which the offence took place, or on the number of voluntarily paid financial penalties by non-residents. The Commission is required to inform the Member States on the content of the submitted reports once they are assessed;
Article 7 of the CBE Directive. Member States are required to inform each other on cybersecurity incidents related to data stored in clouds;
·Article 8 of the CBE Directive. It lays down the obligation for the Commission to establish a dedicated IT portal to facilitate exchanging information between national contact points, other relevant authorities of Member States, and road users, e.g. on road-safety-related traffic rules in force in Member States, appeal procedures and applied sanctions. The portal will also facilitate the verification of the authenticity of information letters and follow-up documents. The exchanged information may include vehicle registration data and the data on persons presumed to be liable or liable for road-safety-related offences.
Article 1(9) inserts a new Article 8a on financial support to promote cross-border cooperation in the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules in the EU. A legal basis is established for EU funding of activities aimed at exchanging best enforcement practices, the application of smart enforcement methodologies and techniques in Member States, increasing the capacity building of enforcement authorities and awareness raising campaigns.
Article 1(10) replaces Article 9 of the CBE Directive, by empowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts to update the new Annex in the light of technical progress.
Article 1(11) inserts a new Article 10a, regarding a committee to be established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Article 1(12) replaces Article 11 of the CBE Directive. It requires the Commission to submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of the Directive.
Article 1(13) replaces Annex I to Directive (EU) 2015/413 by the Annex to the amended Directive.
Article 1(14) repeals Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/413.
Article 2 specifies the deadline for the transposition of the amended Directive by Member States.
Article 3 sets out the date of entry into force of the amended Directive, on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 4 addresses the amended Directive to Member States.