EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.1.2022 SWD(2022) 17 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



EVALUATION

of the Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences

















{SWD(2022) 18 final}



Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and scope of this evaluation 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 2.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives 2.2 Baseline and points of comparison 3. IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 3.1 The main novelties introduced by the directive 3.2 Infringements related to the implementation of Directive 2006/126/EC 3.3 Infringements related to the non-communication of the transposition of Directive 2006/126/EC and its amending acts. 3.4 Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union 4. METHOD 4.1 Methodology and sources of information 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings 5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 5.1 Effectiveness 5.1.1 General objectives 5.1.1.1 Enhancing road safety 5.1.1.2 Facilitating free movement for EU citizens

5.1.2 The specific objectives 5.1.2.1 Objective “Reducing administrative burden for drivers, administrations and enforcement authorities” 5.1.2.2 Objective “Establish uniform driving licence rules and requirements” 5.1.2.3 Objective “Reducing the possibilities of driving licence fraud and driving licence tourism” 5.1.2.4 Objective “Raising the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers” 5.1.2.5 Objective “Facilitate implementation and enforcement of driving licence rules” 5.1.2.6 Objective “Protect novice drivers” 5.1.2.7 Factors that contributed to or hindered the achievement of objectives 5.2 Efficiency 5.3. Relevance 5.4 Coherence 5.4.1 Internal coherence of the provisions of the directive 5.4.2 External coherence of the directive with other legislation 5.4.3 Coherence with international legislation 5.4.4 Coherence with other EU legislation in the area of road safety and transport 5.4.5 Coherence with vehicle type-approval legislation, the Digital Single Market and e-Government initiatives in relation to digitalisation 5.4.6 Impacts of observed inconsistencies / gaps / overlaps 5.5 EU Added Value 5.5.1 Benefits of intervening at EU level compared to acting at regional, national or international level 5.5.2 Added value created by the directive and results that could have been achieved without it

5.5.3 Would it have been possible to have the same results without the directive? 6. CONCLUSIONS  annexes Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methodology Annex 4: Intervention logic Annex 5: Tables and graphics Annex 6: REFIT costs and benefits



Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition ACEM Association des Constructeurs Européens de Motocycles (European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers) BVF Bundesvereinigung der Fahrlehrerverbände e.V. (Federal association of driving instructors’ associations (in Germany)) CIECA Commission Internationale des Examens de Conduite Automobile (International Commission for Driver Testing) EFA Europäische Fahrlehrer-Assoziation (European Driving School Association) EEA European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) EReg Association of European Vehicle and Driver Registration Authorities ETF European Transport Workers’ Federation ETSC European Transport Safety Council FEMA Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations FIA Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (International Automobile Federation) FIM Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (International Motorcycling Federation) GDLD Get Driving Licence Details (in RESPER) IFMC International Federation Motorhome Clubs IRU International Road Transport Union OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PTW powered two wheeler RESPER Réseau permis de conduire (EU driving licence network) STR Sveriges Trafikutbildares Riksförbund (Swedish National Association of Driver Educators) SWOV Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid ((Dutch) Institute for Road Safety Research) UETR Union Européenne des Transporteurs Routiers (European Road Haulers Association) 1.INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of the ex-post evaluation of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. The EU rules on driving licences were progressively set up through three directives. The first directive was introduced in December 1980, followed by the second directive of July 1991. Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences, also known as the third driving licence directive (hereafter ‘the directive’), was adopted in December 2006. It has meanwhile been amended ten times, mainly to take into account scientific and technical progress. The directive was gradually applicable over time with some provisions being applicable as per 19 January 2009, while the key provisions were only applicable after full transposition as per 19 January 2013. The directive aims at harmonising the rules on driving licences in order to improve road safety, to facilitate the freedom of movement for citizens moving inside the Union, and to reduce the possibility of fraud. 1.1Purpose and scope of this evaluation

As more than 12 years have passed since Member States started applying the provisions contained in the directive, it was considered timely to assess how well it has performed relative to original expectations. The purpose of the evaluation is an assessment of the performance of all substantive provisions (Articles 1 to 15) of the directive across the European Union. The evaluation period spans from 2006, when the current directive was adopted, until 2018. Furthermore, national authorities from Iceland and Norway also provided responses to the questionnaire. The evaluation follows the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines. Accordingly, the analysis is structured around the evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. •Effectiveness, i.e. the evaluation assesses the actual changes the directive has generated, particularly in view of its original objectives. In this context, the evaluation also examines how Member States have implemented the directive and how the situation has evolved since the adoption of the directive; •Efficiency, i.e. it assesses the actual costs and changes relative to the actual benefits the directive has generated. Any potential for simplification and reduction of unnecessary regulatory costs is identified; •Relevance, i.e. it assesses whether the objectives of the directive are still in line with the current needs or problems; how the situation/context as regards the provisions of the directive in the EU has evolved and whether the directive still matches current needs; whether its scope is still fit for purpose and sufficiently able to respond to the evolved needs, given technological developments; •Coherence, i.e. it assesses whether the directive is internally consistent and whether the legislation is consistent with other EU interventions (as well as e-governance initiatives); •EU added value, i.e. it assesses the added value delivered by, or associated with, the implementation of the directive, over and above what reasonably could have been expected from national and regional policies and their implementation.



2.BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION The first driving licence directive was introduced in December 1980 (Directive 80/1263/EEC). It established the Community model of driving licences and the principle of mutual recognition by Member States of national licences. It has also guaranteed the exchange of driving licences by holders transferring their place of normal residence or place of employment from one Member State to another. It introduced the general principle that driving licences should only be granted to applicants having passed a practical and theoretical test and meeting certain minimum medical standards. The second directive (91/739/EEC) was introduced in July 1991 and it further harmonised the categories of vehicles requiring different types of driving licences. It also subdivided some of the categories of driving licences in order to promote, in particular, access in gradual stages to the driving of certain vehicles in the interest of road safety. It also created specific provisions making it easier for physically disabled persons to drive. It provided for more detailed harmonisation of the standards for driving tests and licensing. It refined the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness. It has allowed Member States to apply their national provisions on the withdrawal, suspension and cancellation of driving licences to all licence holders having acquired normal residence in their territory. It has also introduced a standard definition of normal residence. The 2001 White Paper a 'European transport policy for 2010: ‘time to decide’placed users at the heart of transport policy, with the aim of improving road safety for road users. This White Paper acknowledged that, of all modes of transport, transport by road is the most dangerous and most costly in terms of human lives, and set the objective of reducing by 50% the number of deaths until 2010. The European Commission subsequently adopted in 2003 the Road Safety Action Programme (2003–2010) which confirmed the objective of halving the number of road accident victims in the EU by 2010 and proposed a series of measures to improve road user behaviour, addressing in particular data collection and analysis, educational and training aspects, infrastructure and vehicle safety (passive safety measures), post-accident care as well as enforcement. The third directive (2006/126/EC) was published in December 2006 and also had the clear objective of reducing road fatalities through a set of measures aimed at improving road safety and facilitating the freedom of movement for citizens moving inside the Union. In 2010, after the publication of the third driving licence directive, the Commission adopted the policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 that set a target of halving the number of road fatalities by 2020 (starting from 2010) and it included a mix of initiatives focusing on improving vehicle safety, the safety of infrastructure and the behaviour of road users. The 2011 White Paper 'Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system'further increased the level of ambition in regard to road safety and established that by 2050, the EU would move towards zero fatalities in road safety. It reiterated the objective of halving the number of road casualties by 2020, making the EU a world leader in safety and security in all modes of transport. Faced with stagnation in the reduction of EU-wide fatality figures in the second half of the last decade, the Commission received a strong mandate for a new road safety programme from the EU Transport Ministers in the “Valletta Declaration” of 2017.

2.1Description of the initiative and its objectives The directive establishes a framework for harmonising the rules on driving licences in order to achieve two general objectives: to improve road safety; and to facilitate the freedom of movement for citizens moving inside the Union. To do so, it also established the following six specific objectives: ·Reduce, where possible, the administrative burden for drivers, administrations and enforcement authorities ·Establish uniform driving licence rules and requirements ·Reduce the possibilities of driving licence fraud and “driving licence tourism” ·Raise the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers ·Facilitate the implementation and enforcement of driving licence rules ·To protect novice drivers. And ten operational objectives: ·Establish a single EU driving licence model and ensure its mutual recognition by Member States ·Introduce the standard plastic card with a microchip ·Facilitate the issuance, renewal, exchange and replacement of driving licences when changing residence from one Member State to another ·Harmonise and limit the administrative validity for all new licences ·Harmonise the periodicity of medical checks for professional drivers ·Enhance the principle of progressive access as regards the most powerful motorcycles ·Harmonise the initial qualification and periodic training of driving examiners ·Establish the principle of a single driving licence per person (1 holder, 1 licence) ·Foster cooperation between Member States by establishing the EU driving licence network (RESPER)

·Introduce a driving licence category for mopeds. The key measures through which the directive aims to achieve its objectives are a number of provisions imposing obligations on Member States to implement the directive according to the specific provisions mentioned in Table 1 (given in Annex 5 below). · The intervention logic in Annex 4 summarises the links and causal relationships between the problems and needs. It takes into consideration external factors such as technological and policy developments, the general, specific and operational objectives that the legislative framework was designed to address, and the specific actions for addressing those problems and needs, as well as expected outputs, results and impacts. 2.2Baseline and points of comparison The baseline scenario is defined around the two general objectives of the directive – increasing road safety and the free movement of citizens – and is a projection of what would have happened without the adoption and implementation of any driving licence directive from 2006 until 2018 (the “no directive” scenario). To do so, the baseline represents – whenever data is available – the situation as it would have evolved from the period before the first driving licence directive was introduced in the Member States in 1983, until 2018. The reason to take into consideration the three directives is to allow the identification and quantification, wherever possible, of the full effects of the current directive compared to a scenario where no directives would have existed (baseline), rather than being compared to the period before the current directive’s immediate introduction (when the second directive was in force and whose effects would be mixed with those of the current third directive). This approach has been taken because each revision of the driving licence directive has kept at least some provisions from the previous legal framework. The baseline scenario includes the relevant legal and socio-economic developments from 2006 until 2018 (such as Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and period training of truck and bus drivers, which applied in full from September 2009, and Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management, as well as technological developments, demographic trends, shift in transport volumes, vehicle fleets and GDP). It is likely that in the absence the driving licence directives, Member States, besides being signatories of the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic and the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, would also have regulated driving licence rules at international level through Bilateral Agreements , Memoranda of Understanding or possibly regional agreements. Member States would also likely have further developed national rules with different levels of requirements and ambition, thereby possibly achieving a lesser level of integration in terms of free movement and road safety, due to a lack of harmonisation and more difficult and lengthy mutual recognition processes of driving licences. Driver behaviour would possibly not have been improved across the European Union to the same extent and pace without the directives, which introduced the principle of a single driving licence (reducing the possibilities of driving licence fraud and “driving licence tourism”). The same goes for skills. In particular, the provisions regarding the minimum standards for driving examiners, the minimum and harmonised training obligations for novice drivers and for riders of powered two-wheelers would not have been in place without a common EU framework, and the combined effect of a plethora of bilateral agreements and the scattered national legislative actions would probably not have reached the same level of results. Achieving similar results without the directives would have required significant coordination among Member States but most likely this would not have resulted in a single driving licence, hence this would have affected the free movement of people. Road safety In terms of road safety, the baseline scenario assumes that the trends in road accident fatalities prior to the introduction of the directives in each Member State would have continued had there been no directive in force. Based on this assumption, Member States that implemented the three driving licence directives from 1983 until 2018 (blue line given in Figure 1 in Annex 5) have experienced a more pronounced reduction in their road accident fatality figures than countries that had not implemented the directive (orange and yellow lines). According to the statistical analysis, the third driving licence directive may have had the direct effect of reducing by approximately 7% the number of road accident fatalities between 2013 and 2018. It is therefore concluded that in the absence of the third driving licence directive, it is likely that there would have been approximately 7% more road accident fatalities in the EU during this period. The same analysis indicates that without the second driving licence directive, fatality rates would have likely been higher by approximately 4% overall. Due to data limitations, the analysis was unable to establish the effect of the first directive, thus the baseline without any directive in place is restricted by this limitation. Free movement Free movement of persons is supported by several EU policies adopted gradually over several years, such as the Schengen agreements and Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and also several other EU sectoral policies. No data is available to develop an analysis of a baseline and therefore it is difficult to assess what would have happened if no driving licence directive had entered into force. In addition, the stakeholder consultation activities did not provide quantitative data to include in this analysis.

In the absence of a European framework, the UN conventions on road traffic would have applied for the mutual recognition of driving licences when a driver travelled for professional or recreational purposes. In that context, drivers would need to hold an International Driving Permit (Annex 7 to the Vienna Convention, Annex 10 to the Geneva Convention) in the event that the Member State of issuance has not used the harmonised template for a domestic driving licence (Annex 6 to the Vienna Convention, Annex 9 to the Geneva Convention). Although no data is available, it can be reasonably assumed that the administrative procedures required to obtain such a document would probably have resulted in some additional costs for the citizens travelling within the European Union. For citizens moving to other countries and taking up their normal residence there, it is reasonable to presume that, if no directive had been in place, Member States may well have entered into bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries, or countries from the same region, regarding the mutual recognition, exchange, renewal or replacement of driving licences. As a result, however, driving licence rules would likely not have been harmonised to the same extent and at the same pace, entailing a higher administrative burden and higher costs for citizens. The existence of a single Community Model of driving licence and the harmonised validity periods significantly facilitated the exchange, renewal and replacement of driving licences in the case of change of residence, compared to the situation before the directive, when more than 110 different driving licence models existed in Europe with different entitlements and validity periods, making the equivalence and recognition decisions more complex. Without the directive in place, different driving licence models would most likely have remained. The different legal regimes with different validity periods and requirements on medical checks would have likely created an obstacle to free movement. The administrative burden for Member States would be higher compared to the present conditions, as RESPER greatly facilitates the contacts between competent authorities in the cases of first issuance, renewal, and replacement. Drivers would have been impacted by the absence of RESPER, first because of the delays that would have resulted from bilateral inquiries among Member States. In addition, Member States could also have required citizens to prove directly their right to drive, for instance by requesting official certificates in the country of first issuance which would have had to be translated and officially recognised, tasks that can become extremely burdensome when the holder of the right to drive lives in a country other than the one of first issuance.



3.IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY Directive 2006/126/EC replaced and repealed Directive 91/439/EEC by incorporating in a single text both the substantive amendments and the unchanged provisions thereof. The transposition deadline of the directive was 19 January 2013 and all Member States transposed the directive into national legislation. However, the implementation of the directive by Member States has been subject to several infringement procedures (see section 3.2). The directive has been subject to 10 amendments after entry into force, mainly to take into account the scientific and technical progress. 3.1The main novelties introduced by the directive The main novelties introduced by the directive were the following: The Union model licence with advanced anti-forgery measures (Articles 1 and 3) The introduction of the new Union model licence was one of the changes brought about by the directive and was introduced by Article 1 of the directive (and Annex I thereto). The new Union model licence, based on an ISO standard, has been very quickly implemented by many Member States after the adoption of the directive and even before its entry into force. The new Union model did not bring about significant changes in the organisation of the licensing system. While most European citizens are required to visit a public administration office to apply for a driving licence, some Member States offer this service on a web platform. Modifications of driving licence categories (Articles 4 and 6) The directive introduced the EU category AM for mopeds. According to the implementation study, Member States used this introduction as an opportunity to strengthen their licensing requirements for riding a moped, some Member States introduced a practical test, others introduced theoretical training, or practical training on top of the mandatory theoretical test. One of the biggest changes introduced by the directive was the graduated access system for motorcycles, which was implemented by all Member States. The options provided by the directive led to a large variation in access requirements, more so than the minimum age. Harmonised administrative validity periods, the rule of one single driving licence per person and medical checks (Article 7) Another novelty, introduced by Article 7 of the directive, were the harmonised administrative validity periods for all driving licence categories. The introduction of harmonised administration validity periods aimed at reducing fraud by allowing regular updates of the security features, facilitate freedom of movement of EU citizens and improve road safety by introducing mandatory medical checks upon renewal for holders of licences C and D and allowing Member States to introduce regular medical checks for licences A and B. Article 7 also introduced the principle that one holder should not be allowed to have more than one driving licence. Finally it also introduced the obligation to issue driving licences only to those having passed a test of skill and behaviour and a theoretical test and having normal residence in the Member State that issues the driving licence.

Harmonised rules on driving examiners (Article 10 and Annex IV) The directive introduced a set of standards for the training and education of driving examiners. Annex IV to the directive contains minimum standards for driving examiners, including on initial qualification and periodic training. According to the implementation study, prior to the directive, driving examiners in some EU countries had almost no specific education or did not even hold the driving licence for the category that they were examining. EU driving licence network (RESPER) (Article 15) The directive created an EU network for the exchange of driving licence information (RESPER). This network acts as an EU-wide hub for information exchange between the Members States’ driving licence issuing authorities. All Member States have connected to RESPER and are obliged to use it. The main goals of this platform are to ensure the ‘one person one licence’ principle, to ensure that drivers only drive vehicles in categories they are qualified for and to assist Member States in combating fraud by allowing them to verify the validity of licences issued by other countries. 3.2Infringements related to the implementation of Directive 2006/126/EC The implementation of the directive by Member States has been subject to twenty-four infringement procedures for bad application of EU law. Twenty two of those are closed and two are still open. There were eighteen infringement procedures due to non-conformity (all but one closed due to corrective measures undertaken by Members States) and one for bad application of EU law (that is still open). 3.3Infringements related to the non-communication of the transposition of Directive 2006/126/EC and its amending acts. Directive 2006/126/EC had twenty infringement cases related to non-communication that are all closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. Directive 2009/113/EC had sixteen infringement cases related to non-communication that are all closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. Directive 2011/94/EU had eleven infringement cases related to non-communication that are all closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. The Directive 2012/36/EU had eleven infringement cases related to non-communication that are all closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. The Directive 2014/85/EU has been subject to eleven infringements for late transposition, all currently closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. Directive (EU) 2015/653 has been subject to four infringements for late transposition also all currently closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. Directive (EU) 2016/1106 has been subject to seven infringements. Seven of those were closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States. One is still open. Directive (EU) 2018/645 amended directives 2003/59/EC (Article 1) and 2006/126/EC (Article 2). The deadline for transposition of most provisions, including all of Article 2, was 23 May 2020. It has been subject to sixteen infringements in relation to non-communication. Six infringement procedures are still open. Directive (EU) 2020/612 was to be transposed into national law by 1 November 2020. It has been subject to 5 infringements for non-communication (all currently closed due to appropriate action taken by Member States). 3.4Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union has given several judgments in direct relation to Directive 2006/126/EC, covering areas like for instance: the criteria for the establishment of normal residence, the mutual recognition of driving licences in relation to driving disqualifications and change of normal residence, the conformity of medical fitness standards with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the recognition of certificates not meeting the requirements of the Union model driving licence, the entitlement to drive granted before 19 January 2013, and failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations under the directive. The court rulings with particular importance from an evaluation perspective were those on normal residence (Article 12 of the directive) and on the cross-border effects of driving disqualifications, in particular the impact on mutual recognition of driving licences (Article 11 of the directive), because they show that those provisions are not optimal in terms of their coherence (as will be elaborated in more detail in Section 5 below). The evaluation has shown that the modalities of application of Article 12 of the directive need to be clarified, and that Article 11, in relation to the cross-border effects of driving disqualifications, lacks effectiveness.



4.METHOD 4.1Methodology and sources of information The evaluation started in August 2019 and followed the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines. An Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) provided advice and monitored the progress of the exercise. Being composed of members from different Commission services and having the necessary mix of knowledge and experience, the ISSG brought together a range of different perspectives and provided the necessary input, on road safety and free movement. A support study was carried out by an external contractor to provide input to this evaluation. In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the study was structured along seven tasks, as depicted in the Figure 2 of Annex 5. The methods and tools used for the evaluation are summarised in the following paragraphs. The analysis was structured according to an evaluation matrix, presented in Annex 4. This matrix operationalised a set of evaluation questions and sub-questions, indicators and judgement criteria that would be used to answer them. It was developed on the basis of an in-depth understanding of the directive’s intervention logic, taking in consideration what it aimed to achieve and how, as presented in Section 2.1 and in Annex 4. Review of legislative documents and reports In order to instruct the evaluation with factual information, desk research on several related issues was carried out. The aim of the desk research was to collect, organise and analyse relevant information from relevant secondary sources. This included statistical data, legislative documents, and relevant reports and studies, with the intention of collecting both quantitative and qualitative evidence to complement the primary evidence collected through field research. Field research The field research consisted of an open public consultation and a range of targeted consultation activities detailed in Annex 2. Nine stakeholder groups were consulted in the context of the study, by the following means: A targeted survey was launched on 31 August and was open until 11 December 2020. It was targeted to a range of different stakeholder groups, including national competent authorities, but also all different relevant industry sectors, associative stakeholders representing road safety and road users associations, drivers’ school associations, drivers’ associations, automotive and motorcycle federations, international road transport associations and vehicle manufacturer associations. The survey included questions on the effectiveness, relevance, and EU added value of Directive 2006/126/EC. The questionnaire for national authorities was answered by national authorities covering all Member States except one. Two national authorities from EEA countries and Switzerland also provided responses to the questionnaire. The questionnaire for non-governmental stakeholders was answered by 41 participants. Targeted interviews aimed to complement the questionnaires by collecting more details on why stakeholders hold certain opinions, as well as gathering additional evidence in relation to evaluation questions for which qualitative data was judged to be an important source. A total of 40 interviews were planned, out of which 29 were effectively carried out with a sample of key stakeholders per main stakeholder type. The interviews included 9 representatives of national authorities, 13 non-governmental stakeholders (associations and other organisations) and 2 representatives from the European Commission. A stakeholder workshop was organised with competent authorities on 16 October 2020, aimed at the validation and discussion of preliminary findings with the stakeholder community. 66 participants attended, including representatives from driving licence authorities, transport safety associations, road user associations, driving school associations, automotive associations and a motorcycle federation.

An open public consultation was held from 28 October 2020 until 20 January 2021. The consultation specifically related to the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency and EU added value of the directive. A total of 546 responses were received. Three case studies were carried out 1) on the methodology for establishing a link between the directive and its effects on road safety and free movement of citizens, and quantifying those effects 2) on digital driving licences and 3) on accompanied driving. The data collected was used to respond to the evaluation questions. All the analytical findings constitute the basis for the assessment on how the directive has scored on the evaluation criteria. Each of these criteria was addressed through evaluation questions, as presented in the evaluation question matrix presented in Annex 4. 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings Even though the evaluation was designed to ensure the robustness of the evidence supporting its findings, limitations to the robustness of certain conclusions were identified while conducting the analysis and are inherent to this type of exercise. Limitations related to the COVID-19 crisis From a process point of view, the implementation of the ex-post evaluation has been affected by COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, especially for what concerns the consultation of stakeholders. From a content point of view, the core analysis of the effect on road safety covers the period 2006 up to 2018. Thus, the study does not factor in recent socio-economic developments, specifically in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic that had an unprecedented impact on transport and mobility of European citizens, bringing travel largely to a standstill for several months. Unprecedented reductions in traffic volumes have been reported across Europe since confinement measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were introduced. This reduction did however not lead to a sustained reduction in road fatalities and, in some countries, no reductions at all because some drivers increased speed. Limitations concerning the stakeholder consultation A key source of information were stakeholder consultation activities. Several challenges were encountered in the collection of data from stakeholders, but mitigation actions were taken. Some key limitations related to the stakeholder consultation include the engagement of stakeholders, particularly due to the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Firstly, surveys collect self-reported information from stakeholders. Therefore, this information may be influenced by the interests of each stakeholder or group of stakeholders, or it may be inconsistently reported across different groups. To address these shortcomings, information was triangulated to the extent possible from different sources (consultation activities, data analysis, legal and literature research). For the targeted survey with the non-governmental authorities, 41 responses were received and covered several stakeholder groups. Given the relatively limited number of responses, the findings from the survey of non-governmental authorities are not considered representative enough of the full population of non-governmental stakeholders that are affected by the directive. For the open public consultation, a total of 546 responses were received, with a large proportion of these coming from the Netherlands (313). As presented in Annex 4, this is interpreted as a possible result of coordinated action of certain categories of stakeholders. To overcome this limitation, the evaluation presents in a transparent manner the data sources and the findings, and highlights questions where there was a high proportion of stakeholders answering in the same or similar manner. Limitations concerning data availability Firstly, it should be underlined that there is no obligation of reporting applicable to the Member States. In that context, unlike other policy areas subject to an obligation of reporting, there is no initial set of data available for the analysis. Therefore, most of the analysis in this evaluation is based on stakeholder-reported views. The evaluation takes place 40 years after the implementation of the first driving licence directive and 15 years after the current directive was adopted. This long timespan has important implications in terms of data availability for defining the baseline scenario, which gives rise to limitations in terms of the measurability of effects, outcomes, results, costs, and benefits arising from the directive. To overcome this lack of data, some assumptions had to be made, relying on desk research, consultation of stakeholders and results of statistical analysis of road safety trends, which strives to ensure that the results are as robust and credible as possible. Concerning the analysis of the effect of European driving licence rules on road safety (effectiveness), statistics on road accident fatalities are available from 1970 until the present but only as total figures. Although providing robust evidence, the statistical modelling has several limitations, since road safety can be affected by many factors beyond the driving licence directives (such as legislative, policy, technological and demographic factors). However, not all policies, programmes and actions can be included in statistical models, as they are not specific directives or guidelines that Member States would implement. In order to mitigate this limitation, the effects of such factors on road safety developments were taken into account and statistically estimated together with all other developments not included in the model as separate variables (e.g. vehicle technology, road infrastructure, legislative changes etc.). Concerning the contribution of the directive to facilitating free movement across EU for EU citizens (EQ 1), literature concerning the movement of persons across borders in relation to driving licence rules is very limited and mostly providing qualitative assessments of the extent to which the two are related. Similarly, statistical data on this is not available to monitor and assess the trends over time and the effect of the directive on free movement. This constitutes a key limitation of the analysis. To mitigate this limitation, qualitative evidence was collected through stakeholder consultation to ascertain the perceived effect that the directives had. Concerning the assessment of the impact of the directive on driving licence tourism and driving licence fraud (EQ 2.3), one key limitation is that there are no consistent statistics on driving licence fraud. The assessment made was essentially qualitative based on interviews and stakeholders’ answers to EQ 2.3 in the surveys with national authorities and non-governmental stakeholders. Concerning the analysis of the effect of the absence of a common framework on driving’ disqualifications on road safety (EQ 6), data on the frameworks in place in countries that mutually recognise disqualifications was not made available in the data collection processes. Nevertheless, the analysis is still robust to some extent, as it relies on evidence collected through desk research (e.g. analysis of Court of Justice rulings) as well as comprehensive consultation activities.

The analysis of efficiency (EQ 9 – 11) is relying on data collected via several data collection streams, including desk research and surveys of national authorities. Limitations concerning the analysis concern the lack of availability of data related to the precise costs and the administrative burden associated with the directive. The analysis is essentially quantitative with diverging views between national authorities who consider that the administrative burden and costs been reduced, while citizens do not seem to have perceived that reduction in the costs incurred by them.



5.ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS This section provides the analysis and the results for the five evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value. The findings presented are based on the results from desk research, as well as results obtained through stakeholder consultations. 5.1Effectiveness This subsection assesses whether the directive has been effective in achieving the intended objectives (as described in the intervention logic). When analysing the answers to the questions in this section, they were grouped under the heading of the objective to which they relate. 5.1.1 General objectives 5.1.1.1 Enhancing road safety Relevant questions to assess the effectiveness in reaching this objective: EQ 1 What have been the effects of the directive in terms of enhancing road safety? EQ 7 Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of objectives? The analysis suggests that the directive had a twofold impact on the reduction of road fatalities, a general one across all road users, and a more intense one in specific categories of road users as detailed below. The statistical analysis indicates that the (third) directive may have led to an overall reduction of approximately 7% in the number of fatalities compared to the baseline and to the effect of the first directive. There is however little evidence – most stakeholder views suggest that road safety has been positively affected by several factors such as protecting young drivers and improving the skills of non-professional drivers. The fulfilment of several operational objectives of the directive is also seen by some stakeholders to have made a positive contribution to road safety, such as the harmonisation of minimum standards for driving examiners including quality assurance and regular periodic training, minimum testing requirements for drivers, medical examinations for professional drivers, minimum age per category, and the progressive access to category A driving licences. On the other hand, the analysis suggests that road safety has been hindered by the absence of an EU framework for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. To answer these evaluation questions, we have based the analysis on road safety data that underwent a statistical analysis (as explained in Annex 3), and also information received from the targeted stakeholder consultation and the Open Public Consultation. The first key objective of the driving licence directives is to improve road safety, and the obligation to hold a driving licence is a key requirement of all safe road transport systems, implying that drivers acquire the ability and motivation to drive competently and unimpaired. The licensing system is the main method for jurisdictions to meet their obligations to ensure that all drivers are medically fit and able to drive independently, competently, and safely As mentioned in section 2.1 the directive has introduced several measures aimed at increasing road safety: For instance, professional drivers have to periodically prove compliance with minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving (first issuance and renewal of driving licences). The directive also harmonised administrative validity periods and introduced medical checks upon licence renewal for non-professional drivers reaching a certain age. The directive also enforced the principle of progressive access to the most powerful categories of two-wheeled vehicles and to vehicles used for the transport of passengers and goods. It has also introduced a driving licence category for mopeds targeting in particular the youngest drivers who, according to the statistics, are the most affected category by road accidents. It has harmonised the initial qualification and periodic training of driving examiners, which indirectly led also to an overall raise of the quality of training and knowledge of all drivers.

It has introduced the principle of a single driving licence per person and fostered cooperation between Member States by establishing the EU driving licence network (RESPER), allowing the reinforcement of the licensing system. The directive is also likely to have had a positive impact on elderly drivers’ and professional drivers' fatalities, due to harmonised administrative validity periods and the introduction of medical checks upon licence renewal for the elderly and also the harmonisation of the periodicity of medical checks and training for the professional drivers. The findings of the statistical analysis are reinforced by the findings from the targeted surveys and interviews, and the results of the open public consultation. The targeted survey with national authorities indicates that, in instances where authorities could make an assessment, the majority of the respondents assessed that the directive had a positive effect on reducing road accidents. 11 out of the 32 national authorities that provided an answer , and 30 out of 41 of the non-governmental stakeholders, positively assessed the contribution that the directive had on road safety. Furthermore, in the interviews, 9 out of the 9 national authorities and 7 out of 13 non-governmental stakeholders generally assessed the directive as having a positive effect on road safety. In the open public consultation 362 out of 546 stakeholders shared the same view. In the survey with national authorities, one third of national authoritiesclaimed that the contributed to road safety improvements, but it is not easy to calculate the precise contribution as other factors (other legislative actions, better enforcement, improvements on road infrastructure, education, standards of the roads, campaigns, more secure vehicles etc.) may also have had a substantive impact on improved road safety figures. The Swedish national authority highlighted that the increased age limit for category A could have affected the accident rates related to motorcycles with young drivers, which would then lead to a positive effect on road safety. Full details of the stakeholders’ positions are in detailed in Annex 2. 5.1.1.2 Facilitating free movement for EU citizens Relevant questions to assess this objective: EQ 1 What have been the effects of the directive in terms of facilitation free movement? EQ 7 Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of objectives? The analysis seems to indicate, mostly based on stakeholder views, that several of the directive's provisions had a positive effect on free movement. The provisions that have been particularly relevant are the mutual recognition of driving licences in the EU, the harmonisation of driving licence categories and vehicles definitions, the Union model driving licence, RESPER and the minimum age limits per category. On the other hand, the provisions on normal residence, the absence of a framework for a mutual recognition of driving licences issued in third countries, and the fact that the directive allowed for the very prolonged use of some old driving licence models (until 2033), were considered as factors responsible for hindering the objective of enhancing free movement. The facilitation of free movement of citizens inside the EU is the second general objective of the directive. It is difficult to isolate and determine the specific effects of the directive on the facilitation of free movement, from the effects emerging from other policies or measures also impacting free movement. After the full entry into force of the directive there was an increase in the number of citizens moving cross-border within the European Union but the relation between these movements and the driving licence framework cannot be established. Internal mobility in the EU is likely to have been influenced by factors other than the driving licence rules, although the simplification of certain rules related to driving licences introduced by the Third driving licence directive is likely to have contributed to increased movement of EU citizens. The analysis below provides a qualitative assessment of the extent to which the provisions of the directive could have contributed to the achievement of this objective. The implementation report found that the union model licence and the rules on mutual recognition of licences between Member States have simplified the complex framework that was in place prior to the introduction of the directive. Before the directive, there were more than 110 different driving licence models with different entitlements and validity periods in Europe. The directive simplified this patchwork and made the exchange of driving licences easier, thus facilitating the mobility of drivers. The same report also highlighted that the new model was considered more practical, durable, resistant, more convenient in terms of use, and it facilitates a greater freedom of movement for licence holders by improving the transnational acceptance of the driving licences. In the targeted survey, the majority of national authorities (21 Member States and 2 EEA countries) considered that the third driving licence directive and the former driving licence directives contributed to the free movement of citizens within the EU. Nevertheless, 9 national authorities mentioned they could not make an assessment and one mentioned that the system is increasingly complex due to many exceptions, acquired rights and usage of national codes. The targeted survey with non-governmental stakeholders also indicates that the directive contributed to the free movement of citizens. Especially the provisions on mutual recognition, harmonised driving licence rules and vehicle definitions (for 39 out of 41 respondents), the Community Model of driving licences (for 35 out of 41 respondents) and the minimum age categories (for 30 out of 41 respondents). In the Interviews, 8 out of 9 of the national authorities indicated that the directive facilitated the free movement of EU citizens. They mentioned that mutual recognition and harmonisation facilitated the usage and exchange of driving licences across the European Union. RESPER facilitated verification of validity, exchanges and enforcement.

Similarly, 8 out of 13 non-governmental stakeholders indicated in interviews that the directive has facilitated the free movement of EU citizens. In the Open Public Consultation, 69% of the respondents (i.e. 378 respondents) considered the directive to have been a relevant tool for the free movement of non-professional drivers, either to a great extent or somewhat; whereas 63% (i.e. 344 respondents) considered the directive to have been a relevant tool either to a great extent or somewhat when it comes to professional drivers. Despite this positive contribution, the implementation report and certain assessments from stakeholders showed that the rules on normal residence pose challenges together with the absence of a framework for the mutual recognition of third country driving licences. 5.1.2 The specific objectives 5.1.2.1 Objective “Reducing administrative burden for drivers, administrations and enforcement authorities” Relevant questions to assess this objective EQ 2.1 To what extent has the administrative burden for drivers and Member States been reduced? EQ 7 Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of objectives? The findings of the analysis are mixed when it comes to the reduction of the administrative burden. Based on stakeholder views, the administrative activity of issuing, renewing or replacing driving licences seems to not have been affected, or even become less labour intensive under the directive. Nevertheless some control activities that intervene at the moment of issuing, renewing or replacing of driving licences (like medical exams), or the introduction additional requirements (e.g; graduated access) and shorter validity periods are perceived by citizens as having increased their administrative burden. The directive introduced several provisions that can be associated with either an increase or decrease in the administrative burden of the relevant authorities and citizens. These include RESPER, the new EU driving licence model and mutual recognition of the common driving licence across Member States, the introduction of harmonised administrative validity periods and the introduction of progressive access to category A licences. The following sections present the key findings concerning the extent to which the provisions of the directive had a positive or negative impact on administrative burden for relevant stakeholders, compared to the situation prior to that (covering the second driving licence directive). The analysis indicates that the establishment of a network between Member States for the exchange of information on driving licences (RESPER) had a positive effect on the reduction of the administrative burden, as it is much easier and faster to exchange information between Member States and to verify the authenticity of driving licences when issuing, renewing or replacing driving licences. If this tool did not exist, the burden of proof would rely on citizens who would have to prove the existence of their rights to drive via alternative means. The common model of driving licences and the principle mutual recognition of driving licences are also perceived as reducing the administrative burden of citizens, when issuing, renewing or replacing of driving licences. The implementation study indicates that the administrative burden has gradually been reduced with the introduction of the common driving licence by the directive, as well as the principle of mutual recognition. The same study indicated a strong trend towards digitisation of data storage and transfer as well as a decrease in paperwork. According to this study, the assumption of the decrease of the administrative burden is supported by a decreasing number of employees occupied with processing driver licence applications by the issuance authorities. In the survey with national authorities 12 out of 20 indicated that the processing time for issuing, exchanging, replacing, and renewing driving licences remained the same, while 6 had the opposite view. Non-governmental stakeholders assessed that the procedures for non-professional driving licences have become less complex and costly as compared to the procedures for professional drivers. The results of the open public consultation indicate that the overall perception of stakeholders is that the directive has reduced the administrative burden for drivers when travelling by road through another Member State. The implementation study indicates that the shorter validity periods and additional requirements (e.g. medical checks for professional drivers) are associated with higher administrative burden for drivers.

Stakeholders consulted in the targeted consultation (7 out of 9 interviewed national authorities, 9 out of 13 interviewed non-governmental stakeholders), as well as in the open public consultation (196 out of 546 respondents) point to the fact that the rules on administrative validity periods have led to higher administrative burden, particularly for professional drivers. However, some stakeholders (5 out of 13 interviewed national authorities) have also acknowledged that the benefits of the harmonisation outweigh the additional burden. In the targeted survey with non-governmental stakeholders, 16 of 36 agreed or strongly agreed that graduated access may have increased the administrative burden for driving schools and instructors. 5 disagreed, and 14 could not make an assessment. In the interviews with national authorities, 5 out of 9 stated that graduated access resulted in higher waiting times for obtaining a licence. The interviews with the non-governmental stakeholders confirmed the same finding. On the other hand, some stakeholders perceived that the costs related to the progressive access to category A driving licence are justified due to the benefits for road safety. This point will be further developed in the efficiency section (5.2) 5.1.2.2 Objective “Establish uniform driving licence rules and requirements” Relevant questions to assess this objective: EQ 2.2 In which areas (e.g. validity periods, medical exams, training or testing) have uniform driving licence rules and requirements been established across MSs? In which areas are there still divergences? EQ 5 What has been the impact, if any, of differences across Member States regarding the recognition of driving licences issued by third countries, for example in relation to driver shortage for EU hauliers? EQ 7 Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of objectives? The analysis shows that several uniform rules and requirements were implemented in the Member States as a consequence of the directive, allowing for greater convergence and a greater degree of harmonisation. Harmonised requirements on mutual recognition of driving licences, administrative validity periods, competence of driving examiners and medical checks are perceived as particularly beneficial. However, some differences still exist, particularly when it comes to the application of exemptions for certain categories of drivers (novice and older drivers) and the issuance of driving licences upon expiry of administrative validity periods. Administrative validity periods The evaluation indicates that an increased harmonisation of administrative validity periods has been achieved as a result of the directive, but not a total harmonisation due to the flexibility given to Members States by certain provisions of the directive. Article 7 of the directive lays down the provisions for administrative validity periods. The directive stipulates that driving licences for categories A and B shall have an administrative validity period of 10 years, but Member States may choose to issue such licences with an administrative validity period of up to 15 years. The directive further stipulates that driving licences for categories C and D have an administrative validity period of 5 years. According to the directive, the renewal of a driving licence upon expiry of the administrative validity period is subject to: continuing compliance with the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving set out in Annex III and normal residence in the territory of a Member State issuing the licence. The directive lays down that when renewing driving licences in categories A and B, Member States may require an examination applying the minimum standards of physical and medical fitness set out in Annex III to the directive. The directive allows Member States to limit the administrative validity period when it comes to novice drivers and drivers that have reached the age of 50 with the aim of improving road safety. The implementation study, pointed to several differences still remaining particularly when it comes to the issuance of driving licences upon expiry of the administrative validity period, the application of exemptions for certain categories of drivers (novice and older drivers) and administrative validity periods of 10 and 15 years for driving licence categories A-B and of 5 years for driving licence categories C-D. According to the results of the above mentioned study and the survey results, most countries (19 out of 30) chose a validity period of 10 years for driving licences categories A-B. 11 countries have adopted an administrative validity period of 15 years for driving licence categories A-B. Another specificity is that some countries have limited administrative validity periods for novice drivers, while others do not have such limited validity periods. Some countries implement a sort of a probation/ trial period or a limited administrative period. For category A or B licences a limited period of 2 or 3 years is applied by some countries. Medical checks The information gathered in the desk review, the stakeholder survey and interviews indicates that there may be an increased harmonisation of medical checks since the entry into force of the directive, particularly when it comes to professional drivers, but that differences still remain due to the flexibility given to member states. Annex III to the directive sets out minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving. The directive requires that the minimum standards be checked by Member States when issuing a driving licence. Member States may impose stricter standards if deemed necessary. The directive allows Member States to apply increased frequency of medical checks for certain categories of drivers (novice and older drivers). The directive also requires that Member States check continued compliance with the minimum standards in Annex III when renewing driving licences in categories C and D. Member States may also apply an examination to check requirements with Annex III when renewing licences in categories A and B.

These standards are considered as one of the most relevant measures for road safety according to some stakeholders. One non-governmental stakeholder mentioned that maybe some more harmonisation should be considered in this area. Some differences between Member States still remain, particularly when it comes to the application of medical checks for persons with medical conditions and for older drivers as explained below. According to the implementation study there is a significant variation in medical checks when renewing non-professional driving licences (A and B). Two thirds of the Members States required no medical examination at renewal, while only one third required a medical examination. For professional driving licence categories (C-D), almost all countries ask for some sort of a medical examination upon renewal and in a few instances, a medical examination upon renewal was only required at a certain age of a driver. Two Member States indicated having a time limit for the renewal of professional driving licences. Training and testing requirements The analysis highlights that training and testing practices and requirements vary across Member States and the degree of harmonisation is low. The directive only provides minimum requirements and leaves it up to the Member States to establish specific requirements and procedures for training and testing. Annex II to the directive provides minimum requirements for driving tests, whereas Annex VI provides minimum requirements for driver training and testing for motorcycles within category A (progressive access). However, beyond providing minimum requirements, the directive leaves it up to the Member States to establish specific requirements and procedures for training and testing. As a result, training and testing practices and requirements vary across Member States. A first important variation is between the nature of the driver training which can be formal or informal. In most Member States, learner drivers can prepare for the practical driving test only by taking formal driving lessons from a professional driving instructor. Some Member States allow learner drivers to take only informal driving training in preparation for the driving test (typically with a parent). A few Member States have a dual licencing system, meaning that learner drivers take a combination of formal and informal training. In all cases where informal training is allowed, the appearance of electric vehicles can create problems as they all don’t have gears and therefore cannot be used to provide complete informal training. Informal on-road driver training is allowed in 12 Member States before the driving test, whereas in 2 Member States it is allowed after the driving test. Variations are also found in terms of mandatory or optional theoretical training and whether a fixed number of lessons is required prior to testing. According to the 2017 European Commission study on driver training, testing and medical fitness, theory training is mandatory in 18 Member States and optional in 9 Member States. The targeted survey, the interviews, and the 2017 European Commission study on driver training, testing and medical fitness showed that national curricula differ, including on the use of a multi-stage training and post-test courses. According to this study the majority of the countries imposes a mandatory and fixed number of theory training lessons and formal on-road driver training. The majority of countries have also mandatory formal on-road training. Only 2 Members States included hazard perception and risk-/ self-assessment skills in their curriculum. The stakeholder consultation showed that there are several national specific requirements related to training and testing of novice drivers (e.g. topics addressed in the exam, number of questions, regulation of price of training and theory courses). Stakeholder views vary concerning the need to harmonise training obligations. Some stakeholders indicate that the absence of a harmonised framework for training has implications on the skills of drivers and road safety, whereas other stakeholders point to the need to allow flexibility to Member States to accommodate their national specificities in defining training curricula. The results of the consultation activities indicate that approximately half of stakeholders consider the directive had a positive effect on the increase of driving skills, particularly when it comes to professional drivers. Requirements for obtaining category AM driving licence On the requirements for obtaining category AM driving licences, the directive seems to have brought a large degree of harmonisation, but not complete harmonisation. Concerning the requirements for obtaining a category AM driving licence, the directive introduced the category of mopeds and an obligation to pass a theoretical test. Member States have the option to also require a test of skills and behaviour and a medical examination for this category, but it is not mandatory. Although the directive only requires that applicants pass a theoretical test, the vast majority of Member States have implemented theoretical and practical tests and practical training, but not all Members States did so. There are still specific national requirements in place for this category. Requirements for obtaining a category A driving licence

On the requirements for obtaining a category A driving licence, the directive seems to have effected a large degree of harmonisation but not complete harmonisation. The directive has set that the minimum age to accede to a category A driving licence at 20 years old provided the applicant has held for at least two years an A2 driving licence (a licence for less powerful motorcycles). This staging requirement may be waived if the candidate is at least 24 years old. The category A driving licence can be obtained through direct access in most countries but not all. Practical testing requirements are now demanded by 26 national authorities compared to 23 prior to the implementation of the directive. Theoretical training is currently implemented by 18 surveyed countries, since the implementation of the directive. Theoretical and practical testing are in force in all the countries. 3 Members States have introduced practical tests with the implementation of the directive. Requirements for obtaining group category B driving licence The directive seems to have brought a large degree of harmonisation but not total harmonisation of the requirements for obtaining group a category B driving licences. The general rule for categories B, C and D is that that applicants need to pass a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test and meet some medical standards, in accordance with Annexes II and III to the directive: Practical testing requirements are in force in 27 countries. Both practical and theoretical testing requirements have been implemented in all surveyed countries after the directive’s implementation. Practical training is implemented in 22 Member States. Health examinations are an obligation in 20 of the surveyed Member States and one EEA country. Requirements for obtaining a group category C driving licence The directive seems to have effected a high degree of harmonisation of the requirements for obtaining group category C driving licences. Regarding national requirements for obtaining a C, C1, C1E and CE driving licence, after the implementation, all countries imposed a theoretical and practical test for citizens to obtain this type of driving licence. Since implementation, the total number of surveyed Member Sates imposing practical training increased to 19 with 2 additional Member State having implemented it Iceland and Norway also impose practical training. There are still several national specific requirements. Requirements for obtaining group category D driving licence The analysis points out to a high level of harmonisation of the requirements for obtaining group category D driving licence already existing prior to the directive’s implementation. Regarding the national requirements for obtaining a D, D1, D1E and DE licence, these have not changed significantly across countries before and after the implementation of the directive. As reported by the national authorities, even prior to the implementation, all countries except one had imposed theoretical and practical test requirements for citizens to obtain this type of driving licence. Today all countries require both tests but additional national requirements are still in place. During the interviews with national authorities, several respondents confirmed that training requirements vary among the Member States, however, they mostly stated that there is no need for harmonisation of training requirements as long as there are harmonised standards for driving examination. Minimum standards for driving examiners

The analysis indicates that Member States have fully implemented the new minimum requirements concerning initial qualifications of driving examiners. However, there are differences across the countries in their implementation. The analysis also highlighted that Member States consider that the current quality assurance and periodic training requirements are sufficient. Article 10 of and Annex IV to the third driving licence directive set out minimum standards for driving examiners concerning quality assurance and regular periodic training measures. According to the implementation study, all Member States fully implemented the requirements concerning initial qualifications of driving examiners. Regarding the implementation of quality assurance requirements, 17 out of 20 Member States indicated full implementation. The targeted survey with national authorities highlighted some variation in terms of the requirements for driving examiners. The majority of countries (25 out of 30) have implemented the supervision of examiners at work and periodic training and accreditation. Several countries (21 out of 30) have implemented periodic review of outcomes of driving tests. Member States consider that the current quality assurance and periodic training requirements are sufficient. Exchange of driving licences between Member States The directive seems to have effected a substantial degree of harmonisation of the exchange of driving licences in application of the principle of mutual recognition, despite the fact that in some cases the exchange has to go through an administrative verification process and is not always automatic. Article 2 of the directive stipulates that driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised. The implementation study and the targeted consultations show that only around one third of the Member States automatically recognise driving licences issued in another Member State/EEA country. A considerable share of the Member States (12 out 21) does not recognise licences in certain situations, e.g. when the minimum age is different than what it is allowed according to national requirements, or the proof of normal residence is not established. The conditions for exchange of driving licences are also not uniform. For instance some countries only require a simple check of validity in RESPER, some require a formal proof of normal residence, while others require the request to be made in person to the national driving licence authority. Exchange of driving licences between Member States following a prior recognition of a third country driver licence in another Member State The analysis seems to show, based on stakeholder views, that although Member States are not obliged to recognise the licences issued by a third country and already recognised in another Member State, the majority recognise those driving licences. Article 11(6) of the directive gives Member States the possibility to exchange a driving licence issued by a third country for a Community model driving licence. Nevertheless, if the holder of this licence transfers his normal residence to another Member State, the latter Member States need not apply the principle of mutual recognition set out in Article 2. The directive does not establish a uniform framework for the recognition of driving licences, leaving the possible recognition to be a matter for each Member State. The desk reviewand stakeholder consultations show that 18 Members States recognise those driving licences automatically, while 8 require a conformity check. There are nevertheless differences in the conditions of those exchanges. For instance, some national authorities do not recognise third country licences if they do not have the prior existence of a mutual recognition agreement with that third country, some require a minimum residence of one year in the country, while others only exchange it if the road safety conditions and requirements related to a driving licence of the third country are comparable to the national ones.Impact of differences in recognition of driving licences issued in third countries The analysis, is based mostly on Member States authorities views that have the sole competence to recognise and exchange driving licences and seems to indicate that the lack of a uniform framework for the recognition of driving licences issued in third countries may have led to an increased complexity and administrative burden for national authorities (too many and too diverse bilateral agreements and Memoranda of Understanding). However, the latter could not be quantified during the data collection activities and lies solely on a qualitative assessment. In the survey with national authorities, two national authorities mentioned that the definitions of driving licence categories in third countries are not always clear and that the access to information from the third countries is difficult, thus rendering the recognition to be difficult. Another obstacle for the recognition is that in many instances, third countries have less demanding standards of road safety when exchanging licences. Nevertheless, 4 national authorities’ representatives identified no challenges related to the absence of a uniform framework for the recognition of driving licences.

In the survey with non-governmental stakeholders, the highest share of respondents (16 out of 41) have indicated that there were no challenges related to the absence of a uniform framework for the recognition of driving licences issued by third countries, while approximately one quarter indicated that there were challenges (10 out of 41). The remaining respondents could not make an assessment. Non-governmental stakeholders also suggested that the provision has less impact on road safety than on free movement of citizens. One non-governmental stakeholder said that different rules regarding the recognition of driving licences from third countries represent an obstacle for third country nationals to moving into the EU, since their driving licence - once exchanged by a Member State - might not be recognised across the whole EU. In relation to the professional driver shortage, several interviewees mentioned that the lack of harmonisation could prevent third country nationals from driving for EU hauliers, but that a driver shortage in the EU should not lead to loosened conditions and requirements for professional drivers coming from third countries. Another non-governmental stakeholder suggested that all third country professional drivers driving in the EU should have the same training and testing requirements as the EU nationals. The same respondent indicated that sometimes the certificates of professional competence are obtained too easily by third country professional drivers, and the requirements are less strictly applied due to the shortage of professional drivers in the EU. Also, the non-EU drivers are more easily hired in certain Member States due to the low costs for drivers' attestation, which presents disadvantages for EU-national professional drivers compared to non-EU professional drivers. A non-governmental stakeholder suggested that there should be mandatory training and examination for all third-country nationals. During the interviews one national authority referred to the negative impact related to driving licence shopping that results from the lack of harmonisation of the requirements and stated that some holders of a third country driving licence, which would not be recognised in the Netherlands, would ‘shop’ for a more favourable Member State to recognise their driving licence, and then use it in the Netherlands. 5.1.2.3 Objective “Reducing the possibilities of driving licence fraud and driving licence tourism” Relevant questions to assess this objective: EQ 2.3 To what extent have the possibilities of driving licence fraud and “driving license tourism” been reduced? EQ 2.2 In which areas have uniform driving licence rules and requirements been established across MSs? In which areas are there still divergences The analysis seems to indicate, based on stakeholder views, that the new Community Model of driving licence may have improved document security against driving licence fraud and that driving licence tourism may have been reduced, but some challenges still remain including: the provision on normal residence, outdated national registers, and a lack of harmonisation in relation to the recognition of driving licences issued by third countries. However, there are no official statistics on driving licence fraud and driving licence tourism across the EU Member States that allow for a quantitative assessment. Article 3 of the directive requires Member States to take necessary steps to avoid the forgery of driving licences, including that of the model driving licences issued before the entry into force of the directive. Annex I to the directive lays down a series of provisions concerning the community model driving licence including security features to prevent the risk of forgery and fraud. Stakeholders that were consulted generally agree that the number of instances of driving licence fraud and driving licence tourism have been reduced due to the directive Overall national authorities had difficulties in providing an assessment of the extent to which the directives had contributed to decreases in the numbers of fraud compared to the period prior to their first implementation. Amongst countries that made an assessment, the proportion of national authorities that considered the directives to have made a contribution to the reduction of fraud was relatively higher. Specifically, as shown the (Table 4 in Annex V), 11 national authorities found that the directives helped decrease the number of forged driving licences detected per year, 10 national authorities assessed that the driving licence directive contributed to reducing driving licence fraud involving citizens from other EU countries and, finally, 6 national authorities considered the driving licence directives to have helped reduce fraud involving citizens of third countries as compared to 1983. In two Member States (BG and LU) different authorities within the same country had diverging opinions. The feedback from the targeted consultation seems to indicate that driving licence fraud has been reduced. In this regard, the consulted national authorities highlighted the importance of RESPER to reduce fraud, since it facilitates an easier exchange of information and detects at an early stage whether a driving licence is not valid. However, the targeted survey with national authorities broadly confirmed that there may be a negative impact on road safety and driving licence tourism resulting from the absence of an EU framework for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, but that this impact is difficult to assess. 9 respondents suggested that the absence of an EU framework for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications has a negative impact on road safety and driving licence tourism, and provided examples. More than half of the surveyed non-governmental stakeholders (22 out of 41) perceived that the directive has led to lesser instances of driving licence tourism and fraud, around 20% of the respondents (8 out 41) claimed that opposite, and the remaining one quarter of the respondents (11 out 41) could not provide an assessment. In the open public consultation, opinions were split when it comes to the directive's role in the reduction of driving licence fraud and driving licence tourism. Around 40% agreed or strongly agreed that the directive is effective in this regard, whereas 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Some of the remaining challenges that were noted by stakeholders include the fact that the implementation of counter-falsification measures varies significantly across Europe. In the Stakeholders workshop it was stated that document security features are not sufficiently adapted to evolving counter-falsification risks, and there is a need to further coordinate the implementation of minimum data protection safeguards across Member States, as measures to protect against document fraud. The implementation study recommended the intensification of the work on counter-falsification technologies (including false identities), given that more and more cases of lookalike attacks take place, and it has been shown that the improved security features of the European driving licences provide an increased level of security for the document itself.

Other remaining challenges noted by stakeholders included the lack of clarity of the provision on normal residence, the fact that some national registers are outdated, and the lack of harmonisation in relation to the recognition of driving licences issued by third countries. 5.1.2.4 Objective “Raising the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers” Relevant questions to assess this objective: EQ 2.4 To what extent have the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers been raised? EQ 4. To what extent the possible differences between Member States resulting from the lack of minimum and/or harmonised training obligations for learner drivers have had an impact on road safety? EQ 2.5 To what extent have the provisions on the qualification of driving examiners contributed to safe driving? Is the relevant monitoring framework fit for that purpose? The analysis indicates that the directive did not harmonise training requirements, although this was not one of its objectives, and there is limited evidence, based on stakeholder views, that the driving skills of professional and non-professional drivers have been substantially increased. The only exception are users of powered two-wheelers, where the introduction of graduated access to motorcycle licences seems to have improved the driver skills, according to stakeholder views. The directive, despite including minimum requirements for driver training and testing (Annex V and VI), does not introduce harmonised training obligations and there is a wide variety of approaches in terms of training requirements across Member States . The evaluation has attempted to determine if this non-harmonised approach has raised the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers. A large proportion of the surveyed national authorities couldn’t provide any assessment on these matters. Nevertheless, several national authorities indicated during the interviews that the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers have not been significantly raised. The survey with non-governmental stakeholders indicates that drivers have now better driving skills and improved behaviour, but that it was difficult to determine whether the results could be attributed to the directive, since several Member State already had very high standards in terms of education and testing before the implementation of the directive. In the targeted survey with non-governmental organisations, more than half of the 41 stakeholders considered that the directive led to improved driving skills of professional and non-professional drivers. Around 20% (8 out of 41) perceived that the directive has not led to improved driving skills of professional drivers, and slightly more respondents (11 out of 41) indicated that the driving skills of non-professional drivers have not been improved as a result of the directive. The results from the interview analysis showed that there was only a limited increase in the driving skills of non-professional and professional drivers. In the open public consultation, 56% of the stakeholders considered that drivers who had succeeded in the examination were better qualified than before. To what extent have the possible differences between Member States resulting from the lack of minimum and/or harmonised training obligations for learner drivers had an impact on road safety? The results of the analysis are mixed on this point. Most of the authorities were of the opinion that the lack of minimum and/or harmonised training obligations has had no impact on road safety. On the other hand, non-governmental stakeholders consider that training requirements should be further harmonised across the EU. The directive, despite including minimum requirements for driver training and testing (Annex V and VI), does not introduce harmonised training obligations and there is a wide variety of approaches in terms of training requirements across Member States . The literature assessing the effects of an absence of a harmonised framework for training requirements in the driving licence directive is rather scarce, therefore the conclusions mostly rely on the results provided during the stakeholder consultations. The survey of national authorities provided mixed views. 11 out of 29 Member States considered that there are no challenges in terms of road safety with the current harmonisation of practical training requirements, and 11 respondents could not assess the matter. The remaining 7 surveyed national authorities believed that there are some challenges resulting from the current level of harmonisation. During the interviews with national authorities, none of the national authorities explicitly assessed that the discrepancies in training obligations for learner drivers across Member States affected road safety in the EU in any way. As regards theoretical training, 12 out 29 governmental authorities consider that there are no specific challenges, while 11 remained undecided. 6 surveyed national authorities believed that there are some challenges resulting from the current level of harmonisation. Only one respondent explicitly suggested that the challenges relate to road safety. Several indicated that no further harmonisation is needed since the directive stipulates minimum requirements for driving examinations, which are sufficient. In the interviews with non-governmental organisations, the respondents listed several negative consequences for road safety arising from the lack of harmonisation. For example, some indicated that the Member States do not focus enough on training requirements , that they do not require lifelong learning, and that are no training obligations for motorcycles in the directive.

Effect of the directive on the qualifications of driving examiners The analysis suggests that the harmonised rules on driving examiners had a positive impact on road safety and that the current level of harmonisation is broadly sufficient. The directive (in article 10) has harmonised the initial qualification and periodic training of driving examiners requiring that they meet minimum standards for their work, including quality assurance and regular periodic training. The responses to the survey with non-governmental stakeholders indicated that the minimum standards for driving examiners are one of the most important provisions for improving road safety. This finding is also supported by the results of the targeted survey and the interviews with national authorities. Desk research reveals that Member States considered that the level of requirements for both quality assurance and periodic training as of 2017 to be broadly sufficient (19 out of 20 Member States). In that study, stakeholders also indicated that periodical training should focus on quality rather than intensity. Although being broadly sufficient both the desk research and the targeted surveys with national authorities and non-governmental stakeholders point out that the qualifications of driving examiners should be updated with new skills such as: ·knowledge on examination design, test execution and training ·psychological knowledge and better communication skills ·knowledge on new technologies, advanced driver assistance and energy efficiency increasing systems and semi-autonomous driving ·continuous training on lighter categories of vehicles.

· 5.1.2.5 Objective “Facilitate implementation and enforcement of driving licence rules” Relevant questions to assess this objective EQ 2.7 To what extent has the application and the enforcement of driving licence rules by Member States been facilitated? EQ 3 To what extent has RESPER facilitated the objectives of the directive and what are its shortcomings, if any? EQ 6 What has been the impact, if any, of the absence of an EU framework for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications on road safety in general and on driving license tourism in particular? EQ 9 Has the directive resulted in any excessive costs / negative impacts? To what extent has the enforcement of driving licence rules by Member States been facilitated? The analysis seems to indicate that the enforcement of driving licence rules was somewhat facilitated by the directive, although it is difficult to draw definite conclusions solely based on stakeholder views. The qualitative findings from desk research, targeted surveys and interviews are mixed, and there are no official statistics on enforcement across the EU Member States. Article 15 of the directive states that Member States should assist each other in the implementation of the directive and exchange information on the licences they have issued, exchanged, replaced, renewed or revoked. RESPER is the network that operationalises the information exchange between driving licence authorities in the Member States.

All Member States are obliged to connect to and use the RESPER network. The main objective of the platform is to ensure the 'one person, one licence' principle, which ensures that drivers are qualified for driving and to verify possible instances of driving licence fraud by verifying the validity of licences issued by other countries. In the targeted survey with national authorities, findings were mixed; 14 national authorities considered that the directive facilitated the enforcement of driving licence rules, referring in particular the provisions on the harmonised driving licence model, the RESPER network and the Commission's decision on equivalences as factors leading to enforcement and reduction in fraud instances. Nevertheless, 4 national authorities stated that the directive has not facilitated the enforcement of driving licence rules, and 13 national authorities could not make an assessment. During interviews, 5 out of 8 interviewed national authorities indicated that the enforcement has been facilitated to a high extent, and the other three interviewees gave a slightly less positive assessment. All eight interviewed national authorities considered that the main factors that contributed to the facilitation of the application and the enforcement of driving licence rules were the harmonisation of requirements, the uniform driving licence model and RESPER. Non-governmental stakeholders replying agreed that the directive somewhat facilitated the enforcement of driving licence rules. Effectiveness and shortcomings of RESPER in facilitating the objectives of the directive The analysis seems to suggest, based on stakeholder views, that overall RESPER is an effective tool for the exchange of information between national authorities and has contributed to facilitating free movement. The advantages of RESPER identified by stakeholders are: the fast exchange of driving licence information; access to relevant information on validity of driving licences; possibility to prevent driving licence fraud and accelerate the procedures related to the exchange and renewal of driving licences; and facilitation of the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences. The evidence is less conclusive on whether RESPER helped reducing the administrative burden by reducing processing times for driving licences. The disadvantages relate both to the system's quality (query errors, incomplete information) as well as limited uses (RESPER is not being utilised when it comes to exchange of driving information for enforcement purposes, exchange of information on demerit points, exchange of information on national codes, and normal residence). The implementation study found that RESPER had contributed to the free movement of persons through the simplification of administrative procedures, which allowed for quicker exchange and replacement of driving licences. It also found that RESPER had facilitated the implementation of the 'one person, one driving licence' principle as a result of the swift and simultaneous checks of the driving licence information which enables the detection of cases where one person has more than one driving licence in different countries. RESPER has also helped to fight against fraud in the instance of exchange requests of driving licence for vehicle categories for which drivers are not qualified and/or authorised in a Member state other than the one of their normal residence. In terms of reduction in the administrative burden, the study was less conclusive. Only half of the Member States considered that RESPER had reduced the administrative burden in the exchanges and renewals of driving licences. In the case of first issuance of driving licences, approximately one third of the Member States considered RESPER to have had no effect. In the evaluation’s survey with the national authorities, 22 out of 28 authorities indicated that RESPER helped identifying licence fraud and driving licence tourism. The majority of the authorities found that processing times had remained the same after the implementation of the directive. Advantages of RESPER: ·Fast exchange of driving licence information (according to 15 out of 22 national authorities) ·Access to relevant information on validity of driving licences ·Possibility to prevent driving licence fraud and accelerate the procedures related to exchange and renewal of driving licences; the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences ·Reduction fraud ·Using the information for enforcement purposes ·Using the information in the process of exchanging driving licences Disadvantages of RESPER ·Information made available should be more accurate and comprehensive system regarding withdrawn driving licences)

·In the case of exchange of driving licences, Code 70 is not always displayed even if it is imprinted on the driving licences ·Different interpretation of driving licence status across countries ·Not all Member States systematically make use of RESPER ·Lack of user-friendliness ·Limitations in terms of the connection of RESPER to other systems such as TACHOnet



What has been the impact, if any, of the absence of an EU framework for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications on road safety in general and on driving license tourism in particular? The evaluation indicates that the absence of a common framework for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications poses challenges when it comes to preventing abuse by drivers that commit offences on the territory of one Member State but then can drive in another Member State with impunity for those offences. The problem was raised also at the level of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has shown several challenges when it comes to the recognition of the cross-border effects of a decision on the withdrawal of the right to drive in another Member State, in particular when the decision is taken in the country of first issuance and there is a request for exchange of the driving licence in the new country of residence. In the absence of a clear EU framework, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued several clarifying rulings on the subject. For instance, in the recent Case C‑112/19 – Kreis Heisenberg the Court ruled that the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a withdrawal of the authorisation to drive from the holder of a driving licence in a Member State, prior to the exchange of that driving licence in another Member State in accordance with Article 11(1) of the directive, the former may still refuse to recognise the driving licence which was the subject of the exchange. The targeted survey with national authorities broadly confirmed that there is a negative impact on road safety and driving licence tourism resulting from the absence of an EU framework for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, and that this impact is difficult to assess 9 respondents suggested that the absence of an EU framework for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications has a negative impact on road safety and driving licence tourism, and provided examples. The negative impact on road safety and driving licence tourism was suggested also by participants in interviews with national authorities and non-governmental stakeholders. One national authority stressed the problem of non-harmonised procedures in the case of driving bans imposed on non-residents. In interviews, three non-governmental stakeholders indicated that a better exchange of information on driving offences is needed, for instance, by establishing an EU-wide database. This would be especially useful for professional drivers, and a good example i