# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0199 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0199

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the application of national road infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles /* COM/2012/0199 final */**

			*

			*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on the application of national road
infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.           Introduction

The general objective of the European
Union's Transport Policy presented in the White Paper on Transport[1] is "to help establish a
system that underpins European economic progress, enhances competitiveness and
offers high-quality mobility services while using resources more
efficiently". In practice, users of the transport system have, inter
alia, to make better use of the infrastructure and reduce its negative impact
on the environment. Correct pricing, applying the "user pays" and
"polluter pays" principle, is one of the ways of making users of the
transport network aware of the impact of their mobility choices. A modern road
pricing system, aiming to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the
White paper, is expected to:

–
contribute to fair competition between modes of
transport through fair and transparent mechanisms for charging infrastructure
costs to users ("user-pays" principle);

–
prevent any direct or indirect discrimination
among users depending on their nationality or place of residence;

–
promote the principles of sustainable
development by applying harmonised, transparent mechanisms for charging
external costs like emissions, noise, congestion, accidents, etc. which are
usually borne by the entire society, to users ("polluter-pays"
principle) and

–
contribute to financing high quality
infrastructure.

The White Paper outlines the Commission's
intention to propose mandatory measures to achieve the internalisation of the
main external costs of transport covering noise, local pollution and congestion
in 2020 horizon. This requires, inter alia, restructuring road charges which is
scheduled in two phases. In the first phase up to 2016, the phasing in of a
mandatory infrastructure charge for heavy goods vehicles is envisaged. The
mandatory infrastructure charge necessary for laying strong foundations for the
subsequent internalisation of external costs, has to be harmonised across the
EU regarding tariff structure, cost components, collection method and revenue
earmarking. Furthermore, the compatibility with the EU Treaties of existing
road charging schemes for cars has to be evaluated and the guidelines for the
application of internalisation of external costs to all vehicles developed. In
the second phase 2016 – 2020, the White Paper foresees full and mandatory
internalisation of external costs for heavy goods vehicles with the possibility
to extend it to all vehicles, on top of the mandatory recovery of
infrastructure (wear and tear) costs.

While there are
EU secondary rules concerning road charges levied on heavy goods vehicles with
total permissible mass of more than 3.5 tonnes[2],
the only rules concerning the charging of light private vehicles[3], light commercial vehicles with
total permissible mass of no more than 3.5 tonnes, buses and coaches stem
directly from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Member
States usually apply the same charging scheme with the same rates[4] to light commercial vehicles used
in transport for hire or reward, or for own account as for light private
vehicles, since there is no significant difference between these types of
vehicles as regards average infrastructure usage patterns and administrative
costs of operating the scheme. Although the present Communication can be
applied to light commercial vehicles, it does not pretend to cover all the
possible issues related to the levy of road charges on commercial transport. The
present Communication is not related to buses and coaches either. These
vehicles are normally covered by the same charging schemes as for heavy goods
vehicles.

The present
Communication, as a part of the broader strategy on road charging outlined in
the White Paper, aims to clarify the Commission's understanding of how the
general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality of the Treaty are
to be applied to a vignette system for light private vehicles. It also provides
guidance on the application of such vignette system.

The
Communication does not create new legislative rules. The binding interpretation
of EU law is ultimately the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

2.           Existing charging systems

In the absence
of any EU legislation in this field, the Member States are, in principle, free
to put in place a system of national road infrastructure charges levied on
light private vehicles (vignette system). They may namely lay down the rules
which govern the functioning of such a system provided that these national
measures respect the fundamental principles of the EU Treaties, in particular
the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the
principle of proportionality.

Several cases
referred to the Commission have shown, however, that these principles are not
always adhered to. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the
Commission is not considering putting forward any proposals for legislation in
this respect. On the other hand, it feels the time has come to set out and
clarify EU law as currently applicable pursuant to the TFUE and the case law of
the ECJ. It is for the Commission, in accordance with its duties and
responsibilities under article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union to ensure
that these principles are enforced for the benefit of Europe and of its
citizens.

By publishing
this Communication, the Commission is conducting an exercise in transparency
and clarification of the EU rules which it is required to enforce. It is
proposing to all Member States concerned a reference instrument that spells out
the framework in which a vignette system would guarantee the respect of
fundamental principles of EU law.

Until now,
seven EU Member States have taken the advantage of the freedom to put in place
a vignette system for light private vehicles[5].
The current levies applied on light private vehicles reflect a wide variety of
approaches between Member States. Some countries rely on a mix of different
taxation instruments (fuel and vehicle taxes). In others, the mix of
instruments is more diverse and includes road user charges to recover
infrastructure costs from motorists using motorways. User charges take the form
of time-based charges (vignettes) often levied on the full primary network, or
distance-based charges (tolls) levied on individual road sections frequently
equipped by toll barriers.

National vignettes are paid by light
private vehicles in return for the right to use the main road network for a
certain period. Nevertheless, the numerous complaints that the Commission keeps
receiving show that the implementation of vignette systems for light private
vehicles, if not designed carefully, may raise practical problems by creating
hindrance to the free flow of traffic, especially in cross-border regions, and
lead to inadequate enforcement practices. It may also lead to risks of
potential discrimination of occasional users, mainly motorists coming from
other Member States, who may not be offered shorter-term vignettes or may be offered
shorter-term vignettes at an equivalent daily rate substantialy higher than the
rate applied to annual vignettes which are mainly used by resident users. This
may be seen as disproportionate.

The application of the vignette systems
varies between Member States and these variations may give rise to potential
shortcomings. On the other hand, tolling systems for light private vehicles do
not entail the same problems as vignette systems, as tolls are distance-based
charges, directly linked to the use of infrastructure and therefore less likely
to be discriminatory. Moreover, electronic tolling systems allow for the
free-flow of traffic, without users having to stop at toll barriers.

After a careful
analysis of the vignette systems applied to light private vehicles in the EU[6], the Commission has decided to
produce the present Communication to assist those Member States which intend to
introduce a new vignette system for light private vehicles or which wish to
further develop existing systems, in line with the EU principles.

3.           EU Treaty principles

The basic rules under EU law that are
particularly relevant are the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of
nationality and the principle of proportionality.

3.1.        Non-discrimination on
grounds of nationality

Although there is no EU legislation that
specifies rules for charging private vehicles, Member States have to respect
the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, when
introducing vignettes for such vehicles. Any discrimination of EU citizens on
grounds of nationality is prohibited by Article 18 of the Treaty which provides
that: "Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without
prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on
grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. The European Parliament and the
Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may
adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination". In accordance
with ECJ case-law[7],
Article 18 of the Treaty also prohibits unequal treatment which is not
explicitly tied to nationality but which, by the application of other criteria
of differentiation, leads in fact to the same result (indirect discrimination
on grounds of nationality). Since the Treaty does not contain any special
provisions concerning private transport, any vignette system for light private
vehicles should accordingly be assessed in the light of Article 18 of the
Treaty.

3.2.        Proportionality

Any vignette system applied by a Member
State would operate to the detriment of nationals of the other Member States,
if it penalised non-resident drivers who use its road network only on an
occasional basis, by failing to provide a charge for short-term usage or
transit of the road infrastructure.

A national measure that is equally
applicable to nationals or residents and non-nationals or non-residents may
also constitute a discriminatory measure (indirect discrimination). Such
discrimination might nevertheless be justified by an overriding reason of
general interest e.g. the improvement of traffic flows and/or reduction of
environmental costs/damage. However, it has to be emphasised that such measures
should constitute a proportionate means of achieving the objectives of
general interest, meaning in particular that the objective pursued by the
measure cannot be achieved by other measures that are less onerous. In other
words, the measures adopted in order to implement such objectives must satisfy
the proportionality test. A useful indication can be drawn from the situation
ECJ analysed in its judgment of case Cura Anlagen[8], in which the Court held that
even if there was no doubt that a consumption tax may be intended to serve the
general interest of discouraging the purchase or possession of vehicles with
heavy fuel consumption, the Court considered that such a tax was contrary to
the principle of proportionality in so far as the aim which it pursues might be
achieved by introducing a tax proportionate to the duration of the registration
of the vehicle in the State where it is used.

The Commission analysed in 1996 a proposal
for a vignette system envisaged by Austria. In its opinion[9], the Commission concluded that
in addition to initially envisaged yearly and bi-monthly vignettes, at least a
weekly vignette should also be offered in order not to discriminate tourists
and non-residents who are typical occasional users. Subsequently, most other
Member States followed the Austrian model with their vignette schemes with the
exception of Slovenia which introduced a very different vignette scheme in
2008. The Slovenian scheme proved to have some shortcomings that led to the
opening of an infringement procedure in October 2008. The Commission was of the
opinion that the Slovenian vignette system, as originally introduced, was
likely to operate to the detriment of nationals of Member
States other than Slovenia as it only made available annual and
half-year vignettes for passenger cars and
motorcycles for use of its motorway networks. The Commission assessed that this
was indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. Slovenia consequently
introduced weekly and monthly vignettes in July 2009 in addition to the annual
vignettes for passenger cars. Therefore, the Commission's initial concerns that
the system was indirectly discriminatory towards nationals of other Member
States using the Slovenian motorway network only occasionally were addressed
and the infringement case closed accordingly.

On the basis of the existing ECJ case-law
and the two cases mentioned above, the Commission considers that a vignette
system could for example provide for three or more types of vignettes –
"weekly" (7 – 14 days), "monthly" (30 – 60 days) and
"annual" (one calendar year), in order to be considered non-discriminatory.
Currently, all Member States which apply a vignette system to light private
vehicles provide these three types of vignettes, including short-term vignettes
which are valid for a period varying between 7 and 10 days.

4.           Guidance on the application of national vignette
systems

On the basis of the received complaints and
analytical studies, the Commission proposes the present guidance on the
following points:

–
the availability of proportionately-priced
vignettes;

–
proper access to information;

–
the collection of fees and their payment;

–
an appropriate enforcement practice;

which might be considered as relevant for
non-discriminatory application of vignette systems for light private vehicles.
The guidance is not based on any ECJ case-law and constitutes the Commission's
reflections on existing queries related to the application of the vignette
systems.

4.1.        Availability of
proportionately-priced vignettes

An objection could be made as a matter of
EU law that the price of a short-term vignette is set at such a high level
relative to a long-term (annual) vignette that it effectively penalises
non-resident drivers and could thus be indirectly discriminatory. In order to
help identify at what point a significant disproportion can be said to exist,
the price of vignettes may also be considered on an average daily basis, that
is, the price of the vignette divided by the number of days it offers access to
the vignette system. The lower is the ratio between average daily price for
short-term and long-term vignettes, the closer is the per diem value of a
short-term vignette to that of a long-term one, leading to a price that does
not discriminate indirectly against occasional users[10]. The table in Annex gives the
information about current vignette rates available in the Member States which
apply a vignette system for light private vehicles.

The Commission
however acknowledges that some difference between average daily price for
long-term and short-term vignettes could be justified mainly by the following:

–
the administrative costs of operating the vignette
system and processing each transaction, which also include the cost of
production, provision of user information, actual distribution and sale of the
vignettes and enforcement of the scheme. A vignette system should at least
generate sufficient revenue to cover these costs. If several categories of
vignettes are put into place, it is reasonable, as a consequence, to adapt
administrative costs accordingly;

–
the difference in usage of the vignette charged
road network. It seems to be reasonable to consider the prices for vignettes as
a form of proxy for infrastructure usage based on the average amount of road
use over the period of different vignettes. Whilst longer period vignettes
reflect greater total usage, it is not a linear relationship. For example, a
purchaser of an annual vignette who is a commuter may use the vignette as often
as 500 times a year, for relatively short trips, if using a motorway for the
commute (twice a day 250 times a year). However, a purchaser of an annual
vignette for regular leisure trips may use the network for far fewer trips than
the commuter, but for longer distances.

The Commission therefore suggests that a
vignette system, in order to be proportionate, offer a short-term vignette at a
price proportionate to the annual vignette, taking into account differences in
administrative costs for each type of vignette (or flat administrative costs)
in combination with average infrastructure usage related to each type of
vignette[11].

The Commission in its opinion of 1996 to
Austria acknowledged that the handling of short-term vignettes might have
generated additional administrative costs. At the same time, it was underlined
that economies of scale would have allowed that short-term vignettes do not
need to be disproportionately expensive. Given an envisaged price for an annual
vignette of 42 ECU for vehicles below 3.5 tonnes, it was concluded that the
price for the weekly vignette had to be set at below 6 ECU to comply with the
requirement of proportionality. By taking into account the occurring
administrative costs, the price for the newly introduced Austrian 10 day
vignette was thus set at a value corresponding to approximately 5 ECU.

Furthermore, rules concerning the price
proportionality between short-term and long-term vignettes for heavy goods
vehicles already exist in Article 7a(1) of Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods
vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures[12] (the "Eurovignette"
Directive) which provides that "User charges shall be proportionate to
the duration of the use made of the infrastructure, not exceeding the values
stipulated in Annex II, and shall be valid for a day, week, month or a year.
The monthly rate shall be no more than 10% of the annual rate, the weekly rate
shall be no more than 5% of the annual rate and the daily rate shall be no more
than 2% of the annual rate..." Given that the vignette systems for both
heavy goods vehicles and light private vehicles are largely managed in the same
way and that there is practically no difference in the product, selling methods
and enforcement, one can assume that consequently there should be no
significant difference in administrative costs. Although there might be a
difference in average infrastructure usage patterns, Member States might
consider it appropriate to apply the same charging principles when setting
vignette rates for private vehicles as for heavy goods vehicles.

4.2.        Proper access to
information

In order to avoid possible discrimination
of non-resident occasional users, it is important that the latter are supplied
with sufficient information about the requirement to buy a vignette in advance
of accessing the road network subject to charges. The information concerning
the requirement to buy a vignette might thus be made available in tourist publicity
material, on easily accessible websites and any other spots which the Member
States may deem appropriate. In order to be helpful, this information would
explain this requirement, if need be in the languages of neighbouring Member
States and other main European languages, and present different options for
purchase of the relevant vignette.

Road signage is also an important element
providing the necessary information before the user enters the charged network,
increasing the transparency of the system. The signage should ideally be, in
addition to the national language(s), also in the language of the bordering
Member State(s) and in one or more widely used European languages. It would
indicate the price, means of payment and directions to the nearest retail
outlet for purchase, as well as information on penalties. This should be part
of an overall policy that focuses on encouraging motorists to purchase
vignettes, rather than subsequently catching and fining violators of the
system.

Similarly, in order to better inform
motorists seeking to purchase vignettes, information at retail outlets or
self-serve kiosks would indicate:

–
which types of vehicles are liable to purchase a
vignette;

–
the roads for which vignettes are compulsory ;

–
vignette options and prices;

–
how to purchase vignettes;

–
how to seek further information;

–
applicable penalties.

In order to avoid any confusion over the
definition of a week or a month, the signage would state clearly for how many
calendar days each vignette product is valid. Where a vignette sticker is
supplied, the expiry date of the vignette would be stated on that sticker to
ensure that the user knows exactly which days it is valid for.

4.3.        Collection of fees and
their payment

It is important that non-resident
occasional road users be provided with a wide range of options to pay for a
vignette in order to avoid discrimination. As regards vignette stickers, retail
outlets and self-service kiosks would be located near the roads that are to be
charged, including relevant border crossings. Most retail outlets would be
accessible as long as possible on a daily basis. Widely used debit and credit
cards would be acceptable, as well as cash in euro/the national currency and
neighbouring Member State's currency.

The application of an electronic vignette
system does not require stickers to prove compliance and enables occasional
users to pre-pay for a vignette before starting a trip, without the need to divert
a trip via a retail outlet before entering a vignette charged route[13]. Options to purchase by phone
(via SMS or calls) or through the internet would offer added value for users
because there are no limits by location or opening hours for purchase.

For users transiting more than one Member
State with a vignette system, there would be a value added in having a vignette
that covers more Member States. An example can be the "Eurovignette"
for heavy goods vehicles[14]
which offers this level of interoperability, since it gives the access to the
road infrastructure of five EU Member States. A similar product for the light
private vehicles could be particularly convenient for international users,
especially between neighbouring Member States with high volumes of
international traffic.

4.4.        Appropriate enforcement
practice

Enforcement of rules on the vignette
systems falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. However
these rules should be non-discriminatory and proportionate to the infringements
committed, and enable citizens to effectively implement their procedural
rights. In particular, enforcement practices which could give rise to indirect
discrimination against non-resident occasional users must be avoided.

Enforcement should not be based primarily
on maximising the number of offenders apprehended, but on promoting understanding
of the system to encourage user compliance with the system. Enforcement
officers should therefore be given enough discretion to direct users to buy a
vignette immediately so as to avoid a penalty, if it is reasonable to believe
that a mistake was made. This can help ensure that efforts on enforcement are
focused on frequent offenders and not mainly on non-residents, who are often
first time offenders. If checkpoints, cameras and their signage, as well as
other means of enforcement, were clearly visible, this might encourage
compliance by users with the system and significantly lower actual enforcement
activity.

Users need to perceive that there is a
lower risk and cost in purchasing a vignette compared to being caught evading
it. Notably, non-resident occasional users receiving penalties would be given
clear information in one or more widely used European language about options to
pay and how to appeal the penalty if it is considered to be mistaken or
unreasonable. It would be advisable that:

–
the laws and regulations defining the vignette,
offences, penalties and procedures would be published, in accordance with
national procedures, and if possible the key provisions summarised for the sake
of transparency;

–
enforcement is focused on locations where non-compliance
with rules is relatively high, not simply on border locations, so that both
residents and non-residents are treated equally (inspections should ideally be
carried out when vehicles leave a Member State).

Co-ordination and co-operation among Member
States would help substantially in ensuring that fines can be enforced across
borders.

Penalties also need to be proportionate -
the sanction should be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement
committed. Rules concerning penalties for heavy goods vehicles already exist in
Article 9a of the abovementioned "Eurovignette" Directive which provides that "Member States shall establish
appropriate controls and determine the system of penalties applicable to
infringements of the national provisions adopted under this Directive. They
shall take all necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented. The
penalties established shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive". Member
States are encouraged to apply the same principles for light private vehicles.

5.           Conclusion

In order to provide for a
non-discriminatory vignette system for light private vehicles, the Commission
suggests that Member States establish vignette systems that offer, in addition
to annual and monthly vignettes, a weekly (or shorter period) vignette.

Furthermore, it would be advisable that:

–
short-term and long-term vignettes are provided
at a proportionate price;

–
non-resident occasional users have proper access
to information concerning vehicles subject to charging, road infrastructure
subject to charging, types of vignettes, their validity and the rates, sales
points and penalties applied;

–
non-resident occasional road users are provided
with a wide range of options to pay for a vignette;

–
enforcement is focussed on locations where the
likeliness of non-compliance with rules is relatively high and not mainly at
border locations on non-residents who are often first time offenders, so that
both residents and non-residents are treated equally;

–
penalties are proportionate to other traffic
offenses and reasonably reflect the sanction element.

As vignette
systems mainly implement the "user-pays" principle[15], the Commission advocates a transparent use of their revenue which
would ideally be applied only on roads for which a proper maintenance programme
exists, in order to offer users a minimum level of service in return of their
payment.

The Commission invites Member States which have
a vignette system for light private vehicles, or intend to introduce such a system,
to assess their systems in the light of this Communication.

In the light of the experience, the
Commission may consider an initiative to further clarify the rules applicable
to road charges applied to light private vehicles.

Annex

Road
user charges (vignettes) for vehicles ≤ 3.5 t in the EU[16]

2012

Austria

week (10 days) || 2 months || year

8 € || 23.40 € || 77.80 €

Bulgaria

week (7 days) || month || year

5 € || 13 € || 34 €

Czech Republic

week (10 days) || month || year

12.40 € || 17.60 € || 59.90 €

Hungary (electronic vignette system)

week (10 days) || month || year

10.30 € || 16.60 € || 148.90 €

Slovakia

week (10 days) || month || year

10 € || 14 € || 50 €

Slovenia

week (7 days) || month || year

15 € || 30 € || 95 €

Romania (electronic vignette system) Light private vehicles and light commercial vehicles used for passenger transport

week (7 days) || month || 3 months || year

3 € || 7 € || 13 € || 28 €

Light commercial vehicles used for transport of goods

week (7 days) || month || 3 months || year

6 € || 16 € || 36 € || 96 €

Currency exchange
rates of 27 February 2012

[1]               White Paper on transport "Roadmap to a Single
European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource-Efficient
Transport System", COM (2011)144

[2]               Directive 1999/62/EC on charging of heavy goods
vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended; known as the
"Eurovignette" Directive

[3]               Passenger cars, motorcycles and other motor vehicles with
total permissible mass of no more than 3.5 tonnes predominantly used for
private purposes

[4]               The only exception is Romania which applies different
vignette rates to light goods vehicles.

[5]               Vignette systems for light passenger vehicles are
currently applied in seven EU Member States - Austria, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. Other Member States (e.g.
Belgium) are planning to implement such systems

[6]               See also the Study "Assessment
of Vignette Systems for Private Vehicles applied in Member States" (Booz & Co 2010) and
"Study on Impacts of application of the
Vignette systems to Private Vehicles" (Booz
& Co 2012) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/road_charging/charging_private_vehicles_en.htm

[7]               C-398/92 Mund & Fester v.
Hatrex International Transport, 1994 ECR 467, especially paragraph 14

[8]               Judgment of the Court of 21
March 2002, Case C-451/99, Cura Anlagen GmbH v Auto Service Leasing GmbH (ASL), ECR 2002 Page I-03193.

[9]               K(96) 2166 of 30 July 1996

[10]             For example, the average daily price of the shortest
period vignette (10 day vignette) for Austria is 0.8 € (i.e. 8 € divided by 10
days); the average daily price of the longest period vignette (annual vignette)
for Austria is 0.21 € (i.e. 77.80 € divided by 365 days). Consequently, the ratio
between average daily price for short-term and long-term vignettes is 0.8/0.21
= 3.8. See also Table 5-4 on page 24 in the study "Assessment of
Vignette Systems for Private Vehicles applied in Member States" (Booz
& Co 2010)

[11]             An example of the methodology for the calculation of
proportionate vignette prices is described in "Study
on Impacts of application of the Vignette systems to Private Vehicles"
(Booz & Co 2012)

[12]             OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42, as amended by Directive
2006/38/EC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 8) and Directive 2011/76/EU (OJ L 269, 14.10.2011,
p. 1)

[13]             It would also avoid vignette stickers being affixed on
the front windscreen of motor vehicles (next to the A-pillar) that might reduce
the driver’s field of vision with negative impact on the safety of vulnerable
road users, e. g. pedestrians.

[14]             Common vignette system of five Member States (Belgium,
the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden) established by Agreement on
the collection of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy goods vehicles
of 4 February 1994.

[15]             There is no Member State applying differentiation of
vignette rates according to environmental standards of light private vehicles.
Moreover, vignettes do not seem to be the appropriate tool to combat congestion
which is often related to very specific time and place.

[16]             Table does not contain the vignette rates for
motorcycles and light trailers.