# EUR-Lex - 52011PC0533 - EN

*|*

# 52011PC0533

**OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 294(7)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the European Parliament's amendment[s] to the Council's position regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety /* COM/2011/0533 final - 2008/0062 (COD) */**

			*

			*

2008/0062 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 294(7)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
on the European Parliament's amendment[s]
to the Council's position regarding the
proposal for a

Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road
safety

1.           BACKGROUND

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council COM(2008) 151 final – 2008/0062(COD) || 19/03/2008

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: || 17/09/2008

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament at first reading: || 17/12/2008

Date of the Council's political agreement at first reading (unanimity): || 02/12/2010

Date of formal adoption of the Council’s position at first reading (unanimity) || 17/03/2011

Date of Parliament’s opinion at second reading || 6/07/2011

2.           OBJECTIVE OF THE
COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The
Commission proposal aims at improving road safety by establishing a system of
information exchange between the State of offence and the State of registration
on the most serious road safety infringements. It serves to identify the
vehicle owner who has committed an offence in a Member State other than the one
where his vehicle is registered; the Member State of offence would then be in a
position to prosecute and sanction him.

The offences
covered by the Commission proposal are speeding, non-use of a seatbelt, failing
to stop at a red traffic light and drink-driving. These traffic offences are
responsible for the greatest number of road accidents and fatalities.

The
text also defines the exchange procedures (data, responsible authorities and
network) and provides for a model of notification letter that will be sent to
the holder of the registration certificate.

3.           COMMISSION’S OPINION ON
THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY PARLIAMENT

3.1         General comments

On the basis of the recommendation voted by
the Committee on Transport and Tourism on 24 April 2011 concerning the
Council’s first-reading position, a number of
informal contacts took place between the Council, the European Parliament and
the Commission with a view to reaching an agreement on this dossier at second
reading. Following these contacts, an overall compromise amendment was presented by the TRAN Committee and subsequently voted by
the plenary on 6 July 2011. The Commission endorses this compromise
amendment on substance, while recalling its position already expressed at first
reading concerning the choice of the “police cooperation” legal basis by both
co-legislators on the one hand and the absence of correlation tables in the
text on the other hand (see point 4).

3.2         Amendments of the European
Parliament at second reading

Apart from the legal basis issue, the
Council's position at first reading has already been supported by the
Commission as far as its substance is concerned (see the Commission’s opinion
on the Council’s position[1]).
The most important changes introduced by the amendments of the European
Parliament to the Council's position are as follows:

(1)
Information letter: clarification that, when the
Member State of offence decides to initiate a follow-up procedure, an
information letter to the offender is obligatory.

(2)
Strengthening of the provisions on data
protection in order to avoid the possible misuse of personal data.

(3)
Introduction of a new provision on delegated
acts in order to enable the modification of the technical annex regarding the
data set for the information exchange.

(4)
Strengthened revision clause in order for the
Commission to assess whether new legislative proposals are needed on the
development of common standards for automatic checking equipment, on the
harmonisation of traffic rules as well as on the establishment of common
criteria regarding the follow-up procedures. It also includes a Commission statement
that it will examine the need to develop guidelines at EU level in order to
ensure greater convergence in the enforcement of road traffic rules by Member
States.

3.3       Statement on the legal basis

With
regard to the choice of the legal basis, the Commission considers that from a
legal and institutional perspective the “police cooperation” legal basis
(Article 87 paragraph 2), which was retained by the Council at first reading
and not challenged by the European Parliament at second reading, does not
constitute the appropriate legal basis for this Directive. Against this
background, the Commission entered a statement to the Council minutes reserving
its right to use all legal means at its disposal (see Commission’s statement under point 4).

3.4       Statement on the correlation
table

The agreement does not foresee any
obligation for Member States to transmit to the Commission a correlation table,
in spite of the general line usually taken by the European Parliament on the
matter. Considering the particularities of the file (unanimity rule in Council,
2nd reading agreement), co-legislators agreed on a solution concerning
correlation tables that would not affect on-going inter-institutional
discussion on this matter.

Council and European Parliament issued a joint
statement underlining that the adoption of this Directive does not prejudge the
outcome of inter-institutional negotiations on correlation tables.

In addition, the Commission issued a
statement which regrets the absence of correlation tables in the main body of
the text and confirms the commitment of the Commission towards ensuring that
Member States establish correlation tables linking the transposition measures
they adopt with the Directive. In a spirit of compromise however and in order
to facilitate the immediate adoption of this proposal, the Commission also
indicated that it can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on
correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital encouraging
Member States to follow this practice, but stressed that its position followed
in this file shall not be considered as a precedent (see point 4)

4.           CONCLUSIONS/GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS

The European Parliament adopted its second reading
amendments on 6 July 2011 following informal contacts with the Council and the
Commission.

While the Commission confirms that it endorses the overall
compromise amendment voted as it reflects the main objectives of its proposal, the change of the legal
basis however has led the Commission to confirm the following statement:

"The
Commission notes that both Council and European Parliament agree on the
replacement of the legal basis proposed by the Commission, namely Article 91,
paragraph 1c, TFEU by Article 87, paragraph 2, TFEU. While the Commission
shares the view of both co-legislators about the importance of pursuing the
aims of the proposed Directive to improve road safety , it considers however
from a legal and institutional perspective that Article 87, paragraph 2, TFEU
does not constitute the appropriate legal basis and therefore reserves its
right to use all legal means at its disposal. "

Concerning the revision clause and further
steps to be undertaken by the Commission for road safety, the Commission issued
the following statement:

"The
Commission will examine the need to develop guidelines at EU level in order to
ensure greater convergence in the enforcement of road traffic rules by Member
States through comparable methods, practices, standards and frequency of
controls, in particular in relation to speeding, drink-driving, non-use of
seatbelts and failing to stop at a red traffic light".

On the correlation tables’ issue, while the Commission accepts the substitution of the obligatory
provision on correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital
encouraging Member States to follow this practice, it however made the
following statement to recall its position on this horizontal question.

“The Commission recalls its
commitment towards ensuring that Member States establish correlation tables
linking the transposition measures they adopt with the EU directive and
communicate them to the Commission in the framework of transposing EU
legislation, in the interest of citizens, better-law making and increasing
legal transparency and to assist the examination of the conformity of national
rules with EU provisions.

The
Commission regrets the lack of support for the provision included in the
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety, which aimed
at rendering the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.

The
Commission, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate
adoption of that proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory
provision on correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital
encouraging Member States to follow this practice.

However,
the position followed by the Commission in this file shall not be considered as
a precedent. The Commission will continue its efforts with a view to finding
together with the European Parliament and the Council an appropriate solution
to this horizontal institutional issue".

[1]               COM (2011) 148