# SWD_2017_0026_FIN.ENG.xhtml.1_EN_resume_impact_assessment_part1_v2.docx

european flagEUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.2.2017

SWD(2017) 26 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences

{COM(2017) 47 final}{SWD(2017) 27 final}

Executive Summary Sheet

| Executive Summary Sheet |
| --- |
| Impact assessment on a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences |
| A. Need for action |
| What’s the problem? |
| Main problems:


  1)difficulties with mutual recognition of training


  2)training content not fully relevant to drivers’ needs


  3)difficulties and legal uncertainties in the interpretation of exemptions


  4)inconsistencies in minimum age requirements between Directive on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers (Directive) and Directive on driving licences (DLD) |
| What is this initiative expected to achieve? |
| General objective: contributing to road safety and free movement of professional drivers


  Specific objectives (SO):


  1) streamline administrative practices for mutual recognition in Member States


  2) training content to encompass ICT, road safety and fuel efficiency


  3) improvement of legal clarity and consistency with other EU legislation |
| What is the value added of action at EU level? |
| Efficient solutions for transnational problems


  Improved training systems


  Level playing field for road transport operators in terms of road safety standards |

Impact assessment on a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences

A. Need for action

What’s the problem?

Main problems:

1)difficulties with mutual recognition of training

2)training content not fully relevant to drivers’ needs

3)difficulties and legal uncertainties in the interpretation of exemptions

4)inconsistencies in minimum age requirements between Directive on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers (Directive) and Directive on driving licences (DLD)

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

General objective: contributing to road safety and free movement of professional drivers

Specific objectives (SO):

1) streamline administrative practices for mutual recognition in Member States

2) training content to encompass ICT, road safety and fuel efficiency

3) improvement of legal clarity and consistency with other EU legislation

What is the value added of action at EU level?

Efficient solutions for transnational problems

Improved training systems

Level playing field for road transport operators in terms of road safety standards

B. Solutions

| B. Solutions |
| --- |
| What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? |
| Legislative policy options SO1:



  a) obligatory recognition of CPCs (certificates of professional competence) between Member States


  b) requirement to issue Driving Qualification Cards (DQC) if code 95 cannot be indicated in the driving licence


  c) extending the information system for driving licences (RESPER) to cover CPC training



  Alternative measures concerning non-EU drivers:


  1) recognising driver attestations even if code 95 is not indicated or


  2) marking code 95 on the driver attestation



  Concerning SO2  and SO3:


  improving training relevance, clearly stating the possibility to use e-learning and blended training


  clarifying the scope of exemptions


  aligning minimal age requirements with DLD



  Preferred choice: SO1 (b) plus alternative measure (1). |
| Who supports which option? |
| Stakeholders supported all policy options, in principle.


  The International Road Transport Union (IRU) supported improving the current training system and adapting it to current needs


  Member States were concerned that issuing DQCs could be burdensome |
| C. Impacts of the preferred option |
| What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? |
| Resolving mutual recognition issues and costs savings of €2.30 million for businesses and €6.7 million for drivers (2018-2030)


  Improved training system efficiency


  Improved clarity and consistency of the Directive with other relevant EU legal acts |

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Legislative policy options SO1:

a) obligatory recognition of CPCs (certificates of professional competence) between Member States

b) requirement to issue Driving Qualification Cards (DQC) if code 95 cannot be indicated in the driving licence

c) extending the information system for driving licences (RESPER) to cover CPC training

Alternative measures concerning non-EU drivers:

1) recognising driver attestations even if code 95 is not indicated or

2) marking code 95 on the driver attestation

Concerning SO2  and SO3:

improving training relevance, clearly stating the possibility to use e-learning and blended training

clarifying the scope of exemptions

aligning minimal age requirements with DLD

Preferred choice: SO1 (b) plus alternative measure (1).

Who supports which option?

Stakeholders supported all policy options, in principle.

The International Road Transport Union (IRU) supported improving the current training system and adapting it to current needs

Member States were concerned that issuing DQCs could be burdensome

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

Resolving mutual recognition issues and costs savings of €2.30 million for businesses and €6.7 million for drivers (2018-2030)

Improved training system efficiency

Improved clarity and consistency of the Directive with other relevant EU legal acts

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

| What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? |
| --- |
| Estimated costs (2018-2030):


  regulatory costs: €6.3 million


  transitional costs (over four years) for changes to training content: up to €14.1 million |
| How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? |
| Transport SMEs expected to benefit from increased labour supply and reduced costs


  Possible costs from reviewing the training content not expected to exceed 5 % |
| Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? |
| None except regulatory costs |
| Will there be other significant impacts? |
| No |
| D. Follow up |
| When will the policy be reviewed? |
| The Commission will monitor effects of the new policy cooperating with Member States and relevant stakeholders |

Estimated costs (2018-2030):

regulatory costs: €6.3 million

transitional costs (over four years) for changes to training content: up to €14.1 million

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?

Transport SMEs expected to benefit from increased labour supply and reduced costs

Possible costs from reviewing the training content not expected to exceed 5 %

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

None except regulatory costs

Will there be other significant impacts?

No

D. Follow up

When will the policy be reviewed?

The Commission will monitor effects of the new policy cooperating with Member States and relevant stakeholders