Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A. On 11 March 1998 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a Directive on the roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community (COM(98)0117-C4-0346/98-98/0097(SYN).

On 29 July 1998 the Economic and Social Committee gave a favourable opinion.

On 17 February 1999 the European Parliament gave an opinion on the proposal at the first reading.

Although the Parliament was generally supportive of the proposal it adopted seventeen amendments.

The amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17 are acceptable to the Commission as they clarify procedures for the application of the Directive and do not impose any undue problems for the authorities.

The Parliament's main concern lies in the application of the Directive in that they fear that Member States may not apply it evenly. The proposed amendments 2, 12 and 13 would have examiner training, infringement penalties and technical and human resources harmonised as a condition of the Directive's implementation. Consequently, these amendments are not acceptable because such harmonisation between Member States of their vehicle examiners training (amendment 2 and 13), the level of penalties for defective vehicles (amendment 12 and 13) and the availability of technical and human resources (amendment 13) would not be feasible in the short term.

The Commission's review of the Directive's implementation will include an assessment of the proportion of vehicles that are inspected by each Member State, the types of vehicles that are inspected, their pass/failure rate and a breakdown of where the vehicles were registered. Once done then the Commission will review whether further harmonisation is necessary. It would be impractical and politically unfeasible to harmonise these measures as a condition of the Directive's implementation.

Amendments 8 and 16 are both unacceptable, as they do not add anything to the efficiency of the proposed measures. Vehicles should either pass or fail the roadside inspection. Where there is doubt, then the vehicle can be tested at a testing station. Having to tow defective vehicles to a testing station would not add any benefit and would be needlessly time consuming.

Amendment 14 would have 'vehicles for animal transportation' specifically included as a vehicle group. This is not acceptable as the proposal's vehicle categorisation is by type of vehicle (truck, bus, etc.) and not by the nature of the goods transported.

B. The Commission therefore modifies its proposal as follows:

Amendment 1 replaces the word 'operators' with 'undertaking' and is therefore more comprehensive.

Amendment 3 requires the format of the inspection forms to be standardised to reduce language difficulties, as information of a certain kind will then always be found at the same place, even when it is in another language and is therefore a procedural improvement.

Amendment 4 recognises that the roadworthiness inspections can be combined with other statutory inspections and is acceptable.

Amendments 5 and 6 are procedural, the former requires Member States to notify the Commission on the format of roadside inspections, and the latter requires the Commission to notify the Parliament of the results of the programme's two year assessment. Both are acceptable.

Amendment 7 clarifies the action to be taken where a vehicle has recently undergone an inspection and is acceptable.

Amendment 9 is a new clause that requires that a statistical record be made of vehicles that successfully pass the inspection and that they be delayed for the minimum time possible. This is acceptable.

Amendment 10 requires that details of the office which carries out the checks and contact persons are provided between relevant Authorities. This provision is envisaged on the 'check list' at Annex 1 and is therefore acceptable.

Amendment 11 establishes that prosecution for defective vehicles will be carried out according to the law of the Member State that carried out the inspection. As this is the general practice in all forms of law, the amendment is obviously acceptable.

Amendment 15 and 17 introduce evidence of diesel fuel and/or oil spillage as a reason for failure. This simple adaptation comes from the motorcycle lobby who are anxious to reduce the real hazard of fuel spillage to motor cyclists. The amendment is acceptable.

98/0097 (COD)

Amended proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community

The Commission proposal in document COM(98)0117 final - SYN 98/0097 is amended as follows :

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>