COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 13.07.1998 
COM(1998) 427 final 
96/0182(SYN) 
Amended proposal for a 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of 
certain infrastructures. 
(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 189 a (2) 
of the EC-Treaty) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. On 10.7.1996 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on the 
charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures1 
[COM(96)331 final, 96/0182(SYN)]. 
On 13.11.1996 this proposal was transmitted to the Council. 
On 28.1.1997 the Council consulted the Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee. 
On 23.4.1997 the Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion2 which was 
overall supportive of the Commission's proposal. 
On 17.7.1997 at its plenary session, the European Parliament approved subject to 26 
amendments the proposal, on first reading according to the Co-operation procedure. 
2. The Commission cannot accept 16 amendments proposed by the Parliament, namely 
amendments 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26, for the 
following reasons: 
Amendments 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 delete all provisions relating to 
external costs and sensitive routes. These are issues to which the Commission 
attaches great importance in view of establishing a more differentiated charging 
system. 
Amendment 7 introduces the concept of sensitive areas which the Commission finds 
impractical. 
Amendment 6 modifies recitals 11 and 12 in a way that does no longer correspond to 
the provisions in Article 6 to which they relate and which remain unchanged. 
Amendment 1 suggests that substantial differentiation of charges according to 
infrastructure damage and air pollution may be undertaken initially only through 
user charges. This claim is not shared by the Commisssion and contradicts the gist of 
the Parliament's opinion (and particularly amendment 24). 
1 O.J. C59, 26.2.1997 
2 CES 458/97. 
Amendment 4 does not lead to any specific legal provision in the Directive. 
Amendments 16 and 25 proposes a differentiation of user charges according to two 
classes based on the number of the vehicle's axles1, this is. clearly less accurate and 
fair îhan the user charge structure proposed by the Commission. According to this 
structure user charges vary following the degree of damage tli£t vehicles cause to the 
;:cad. The latter depends on the vehicle weight and the number and configuration of 
îbe axles. These factors determine the three different damage classes in which the 
Commission proposes to classify vehicles. 
Amendment 24 modifies unnecessarily the existing structure for the minimum 
vehicle taxes. There is no need for such a simplification, the proposed by the 
Commission structure of the minimum vehicle taxes is the same as in the existing 
Directive and no complaints have been made by Member States on it. The proposed 
by the Parliament simplification will not solve any problems but on the contrary is 
likely to create new ones. 
Amendment 26 proposes levels for the annual user charges that are unacceptably 
high. 
3. The Commission accepts 10 of the Parliament's amendments, namely amendments 
2, 3, 5, 8, 10,11,12,13,15 and 23, for the following reasons: 
Amendment 2 modifies recital 3 by deleting reference to maximum levels for the 
vehicle taxes. This recital refers to the provision in Article 6.1,1st sub-paragraph, 
modified according to Amendment 11.. 
Amendment 5 deletes recital 9, which refers to the provision in Article 6.1, 2nd sub­
paragraph allowing minimum rates of vehicle taxes not to apply when a user charge 
system is in operation. 
Amendment 11 modifies Article 6.1,1st sub-paragraph by deleting the requirement 
that vehicle taxes should not go beyond a certain ceiling proposed by the 
Commission. 
Amendment 12 deletes Article 6.1, 2nd sub-paragraph, which allows minimum rates 
of vehicle taxes not to be complied with when a user charge system is in operation. 
The objective of the Commission in setting maximum levels for vehicle taxes whilst 
allowing Member States to apply vehicle taxes that are lower than the minimum 
levels if they operate a user charge system (as provided for in Article 6.1 1st and 2nd 
sub-paragraphs) is to ensure that existing differences in transport related levies 
across the Community will not increase any further. However, this is not the most 
fundamental element of the proposal; amendments 2, 5, 11 and 12 are therefore 
accepted at this stage in view of concentrating on the more important aspects of the 
proposed Directive. 
Amendment 3 introduces a new recital 3a making reference to the Alpine 
Convention. Although this new recital does not correspond to any specific provision 
in the Commission's modified proposal, it is nevertheless consistent with the 
original Commission proposal which introduced the concept of sensitive routes 
(among ^vhieh it included certainly the Alpine zone). Tthis amendment is acceptable. 
Amendment 8 modifies recital 16 by calling for differentiation in user charge rates 
instead of the "limited" differentiation that the Commission proposed, thereby 
somewhat improving the clarity of the text. 
Amendment 10 modifies recital 18 by adding reference to the territoriality principle. 
Although this additional reference is not strictly speaking necessary it nevertheless 
adds a useful element. 
Amendment 13 introduces a new Article 6.1a which calls for a regular review of the 
vehicle taxes. This provision is almost superfluous given the review foreseen for the 
whole Directive but it is not harmful either. 
Amendment 15 introduces a new Article 7.2, sub-paragraph la which asks for a 50% 
reduction of user charge rates for vehicles from peripheral regions. Given that user 
charge reductions have been applied so far to certain peripheral Member States, this 
amendment can provide an acceptable arrangement for them, provided it refers to 
"Member States" and not to "regions" and it is limited in time. 
Amendment 23 modifies Article 13.1, 2nd sub-paragraph by asking that information 
to be forwarded to the Commission should also specify the degree to which road 
traffic costs are covered, by category of vehicle and road. The Commission agrees 
that the information called for in this amendment can be very useful. 
The Commission proposal [COM(96)331 final, 96/0182(SYN)] is therefore amended 
as follows. 
Amended proposal for a 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. 
The Commission proposal [COM(96)331 final, 96/0182(SYN)] is therefore amended as 
follows. 
Initial Commission proposal Amended proposal 
(Amendment 2) 
Recital 3 
Whereas Member States should ensure the Whereas Member States should ensure the 
functioning of the internal market and avoid functioning of the internal market and avoid 
obstacles to the free movement of goods or obstacles to the free movement of goods or 
services within the Community; whereas the services within the Community; whereas the 
proper functioning of the internal market in proper functioning of the internal market in 
transport calls for the reduction of the transport calls for a harmonization of the 
differences in the conditions of competition conditions of competition in goods road 
in goods road transport due to unjustifiable transport marked by unjustifiable 
divergences in the levels of transport related divergences in the levels of transport related 
charges, including taxes and other relevant charges, including taxes and other relevant 
levies; whereas, therefore, vehicle taxes and levies; whereas, therefore, vehicle taxes 
user charge rates should be set within a should not be set below a minimum level 
maximum and a minimum level; and user charge rates should be set within a 
maximum and a minimum level; 
(Amendment 3) 
Recital 3a (new) 
Whereas on 7 November 1991 the 
Convention on the Protection of the Alps 
(Alpine Convention)3 was concluded in 
Salzburg; 
(Amendment 5) 
Recital 9 
Whereas minimum rates for vehicle taxes Deleted 
need not apply in Member States where a 
user charge system is in operation; 
3 OJC 278, 5.10.1994, p.8 
Initial Commission proposal Amended proposal 
(Amendment 
Recital 16 
Whereas the rates of user charges should be 
based on the duration of the use made of the 
infrastructure in question and be as close to 
the real costs caused by the road vehicles as 
possible; whereas this should be pursued in 
the short term through the introduction of 
limited differentiation of the rates according 
to the damage caused to the infrastructure 
and the environment; Whereas the rates of user charges should be 
based on the duration of the use made of the 
infrastructure in question and be as close to 
the real costs caused by the road vehicles as 
possible; whereas this should be pursued in 
the short term through the introduction of 
differentiation of the rates according to the 
damage caused to the infrastructure and the 
environment; 
Recital 16 a (new) 
Whereas reduced rates of user charges may 
be applied temporarily for vehicles 
registered in peripheral Member States to 
account for difficulties due to their 
geopolitical position. 
(Amendment 10) 
Recital 18 
Whereas two or more Member States may 
cooperate for the purpose of introducing a 
common system of user charges, subject to 
compliance with some additional conditions; Whereas the principle of territoriality 
should be applied; whereas two or more 
Member States may cooperate for the 
purpose of introducing a common system of 
user charges, subject to compliance with 
some additional conditions; 
(Amendment 11) 
Article 6.1, first subparagraph 
1. Whatever the structure of the taxes 
referred to in Article 3, Member States shall 
set the rates so as to ensure that the tax rate 
for each vehicle category or subcategory 
referred to in Annex 1 is not lower than the 
minimum and not higher than the maximum 
laid down in that Annex. 1. Whatever the structure of the taxes 
referred to in Article 3, Member States shall 
set the rates so as to ensure that the tax rate 
for each vehicle category or subcategory 
referred to in Annex 1 is not lower than the 
minimum laid down in that Annex. 
(Amendment 12) 
Article 6.1, second sub-paragraph 
However, Member States may levy vehicle 
taxes below these minimum rates provided 
they are applying a user charge system in 
accordance with this Directive. Deleted. 
The remainder of the text is unchanged. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
7 Initial Commission proposal Amended proposal 
(Amendment 13) 
Article 6.1a (mew) 
i la. The minimum rates and the tas rates | 
: f.e(rasll.y adopted shall be reviewed on 1 
i Jaauairy 2001 $MÛ g'ver/ second year 
1 thereafter. With a view t© greater 
, hKrmoEisstion and the reduction or 
I abolition of vehicle excise duties, the j 
C®msasi33ion shall propose the 
adjustments th&t are necessary for 
adoption by the council under the 
| procedure laid down in the treaty. 
(Amendment 15) 
Article 7.2, first subparagraph a (new) 
User charges shall be reduced by 50% 
for vehicles registered in peripheral 
Member States until 31.12.2000. 
(Amendment 23) 
Article 13.1, second subparagraph 
Member States shall forward the necessary 
information to the Commission no later than 
1 June 1999 in order to enable the 
Commission to draw up the above report. Member States shall forward the necessary 
information to the Commission no later than 
1 June 1999 in order to enable the 
Commission to draw up the above report. 
This information shall also specify the 
degree to which road traffic costs are 
covered, by category of vehicle and road. 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 427 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 07 06 09 14 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-437-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-37943-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
r