REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATES OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/50/EC ON UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR CHECKS ON THE TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATES OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/50/EC ON UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR CHECKS ON THE TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4

2........... Related EU legislation..................................................................................................... 4

3........... Application of Directive 95/50/EC.................................................................................. 5

4........... Reports from EU Member States and Norway................................................................ 5

5........... Recommendation on reporting of checks concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road 6

6........... Calculation of data.......................................................................................................... 6

7........... Evolution of checks and their outcomes........................................................................... 7

8........... Comparison of data........................................................................................................ 7

8.1........ Frequency of checks....................................................................................................... 8

8.2........ Breakdown of checks by place of origin.......................................................................... 8

8.3........ Proportion of non-conforming transport units................................................................... 8

8.4........ Breakdown of non-conforming transport units by place of origin...................................... 8

8.5........ Frequency of immobilisation of transport units.................................................................. 8

8.6........ Breakdown by risk categories......................................................................................... 9

8.7........ Types of penalties........................................................................................................... 9

9........... Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 9

Annex I Evolution of the number of checks, non-conformity and category I infringements.............. 11

Annex II Frequency of checks per million tonne-kilometre........................................................... 14

Annex III Breakdown of checks by place of origin....................................................................... 15

Annex IV Proportion of transport units not conforming to the provisions....................................... 16

Annex V Breakdown of transport units not conforming to the provisions by place of origin............ 17

Annex VI Frequency of immobilisation of transport units not conforming to the provisions............. 18

Annex VII Breakdown by risk categories.................................................................................... 19

Annex VIII Types of penalties per transport unit not conforming to the provisions......................... 20

Annex IX Annual road freight transport of dangerous goods in million tonne-kilometres................ 21

1. Introduction

Council Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road was adopted on 6 October 1995[1] and Member States had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it by 1 January 1997.

Directive 95/50/EC provides that each Member State has to send the Commission for each calendar year not later than twelve months after the end of that year a report on the application of the Directive[2]. The Directive also provides that the Commission has to send the European Parliament and the Council at least every three years a report on the application of the Directive by the Member States[3].

The report from the Commission is based on the annual reports received from the Member States. This is the fifth report on the application of Council Directive 95/50/EC in the Member States and it covers years 2008-2011. The first report[4] covered years 1997-1998, the second report[5] years 1999-2002, the third report[6] years 2003-2005 and the fourth report[7] years 2006-2007.

The conditions for safe transport of dangerous goods by road are not defined in Directive 95/50/EC but in related EU legislation, as described below.

2. Related EU legislation

The years covered by this report belong formally into two different legislative contexts but there is no practical impact for the interpretation of the results of this report.

Until 30 June 2009 Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road[8], as amended[9], applied. The annexes to Directive 94/55/EC were identical in terms of their content to the annexes to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (known also as the ADR)[10].

From 1 July 2009 Directive 94/55/EC was repealed and replaced by Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods[11] as amended[12]. Directive 2008/68/EC continues the approach of Directive 94/55/EC in applying identical technical and administrative provisions to those annexed to the international agreement for all transport on the EU territory.

3. Application of Directive 95/50/EC

Having adopted Directive 94/55/EC, and to further improve the level of safety in the transport of dangerous goods the Council adopted on 6 October 1995 Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road. This Directive includes a harmonised checklist to be used by Member States for such checks and guidelines for the classification of infringements. In 2004 the Annexes to the Directive were amended[13] and the infringement classification system was modified to have three risk categories as from 2005.

These uniform checks concern all road transport operations of dangerous goods on the territory of a Member State or entering it from third countries, irrespective of the country of registration of the transport unit. The Directive aims at ensuring that a representative proportion of consignments of dangerous goods transported by road is randomly checked, while at the same time covering an extensive portion of the road network.

As a preventive measure, or after having recorded infringements at the roadside which jeopardise safety, checks may be also carried out at the premises of undertakings[14]. There is, however, no reporting requirement on these checks in Directive 95/50/EC.

4. Reports from EU Member States and Norway

When making their reports, the Member States are requested to use the risk categories of Annex II to Directive 95/50/EC and to present the report in accordance with Annex III to the Directive. Norway has continued to submit its annual reports and the information is included also in this report to the European Parliament and the Council.

Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013 and it has not reported checks for the time period covered by this report. Other Member States and Norway have submitted their reports largely on time. Any delays relate to the administrative procedures for collecting, analysing and transmitting the information to the Commission, in particular when these procedures involve different public authorities. The situation has improved considerably since 2011. Reports for 2011 were received by February 2013.

For the first years covered by this report all the information has not been received in the correct format. Some Member States continued to use the codes of the old, repealed annexes to Directive 95/50/EC. However, since then major improvement has taken place.

The Commission has received reports from all Member States for the whole period. Some reports, however, are incomplete, leading to gaps in the tables presented in this report. These are indicated by the sign ‘#N/A’ (‘not available’). A summary of the reports from the Member States is presented in the annexes to this report.

When analysing the information in paragraph 7 of this report, it should be noted that until year 2008 the indicator for non-conformity in Spain is low due to a misinterpretation of the number of transport units not conforming to the provisions. This misinterpretation has been rectified in their later reports.

Several Member States have sent reports where the sum of infringements differs from the number of transport units not in compliance with the provisions. This should not be the case since only the most severe infringement category for each transport unit should be reported.

5. Recommendation on reporting of checks concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road

Earlier Commission reports noted certain systematic inconsistencies in the statistical reports by Member States. Since uniform reporting by Member States is crucial for the quality, comparability and reliability of the Commission reports, the Commission adopted in 2011 a recommendation[15] seeking to improve the quality of these reports.

After the publication of the recommendation the reports have improved substantially and only some occasional and minor inconsistencies have been noted.

Most of these inconsistencies relate to the number of infringements according to the risk category[16]. Paragraph 1.4 of the annex to the Commission recommendation underlines that only the most serious infringement should be reported even if several infringements are detected. Consequently, the sum of infringements by risk categories should be equal to the number of transport units not conforming to the provisions.

It appears this principle is not yet correctly applied in all Member States as several infringements per transport unit are still being reported.

Another major issue addressed by the recommendation was the concept of penalties imposed when an infringement is detected during a roadside check. Due to the differences in legal and administrative arrangements some Member States were unable to track the outcome of the juridical process following checks revealing suspected infringements. The recommendation proposed a common compromise that could be used in all Member States, namely recording the decision made by the enforcement official following the check on the spot.

6. Calculation of data

Member States are requested to provide, if possible, their estimate on the amount of annual transport of dangerous goods in tonnes or in tonnes-kilometres carried on their territory. For 2008 there were 13 Member States that provided an estimate. In 2011 only 9 Member States had such an estimate.

To allow an objective comparison between the Member States, the volume of dangerous goods transport is based on the information in the Eurostat database[17]. This information is used to estimate of the frequency of checks relative to the volume of transport.

There are no statistics at Eurostat for Malta, as derogation is granted to Malta regarding the application of Regulation (EU) No 70/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2012 on statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road[18]. The volume of dangerous goods transport in Malta is estimated based on the data provided by the Maltese competent authority.

The statistics from Eurostat are presented in Annex IX to this report.

7. Evolution of checks and their outcomes

Annex I presents the evolution of the number of checks registered by Member State, the proportion of transport units not conforming to the provisions and the proportion of infringements of risk category I.

At the end of the table there are averages for the European Union and the statistics from Norway.

It should be noted that data is missing concerning:

- the numbers of checks in 2006 and 2007 in Estonia;

- the share of transport units with infringements in 2006 in Germany, Estonia and Spain; for 2007 in Estonia and Spain;

- the share of risk category I infringements in 2006 in Bulgaria, Germany and Portugal.

The indicator on the share of risk category I infringements is particularly sensitive to correct reporting. If more than one infringement per transport unit has been recorded, the share of category I infringements is lower than the correct value. In 2006, this is the case in France, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal; in 2007 in Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Poland and in Portugal.

Some Member States have reported fewer total infringements than the number of non-conforming transport units. This is the case for Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Malta and Sweden. There are cases where the enforcement authorities report only that infringements were found, but did not provide any further information on the infringements or penalties. Although this leaves the statistics incomplete there is no systematic impact on the analysis. This issue is discussed in more detail in paragraph 8.6.

8. Comparison of data

The total number of checks declined by 33.8% over the four years, from 252 632 to 167 340. The largest annual decline, 12.6%, took place from 2011 to 2010. The national trends are not similar, as 11 Member States increased their checks over the period. Romania, Slovenia and Austria had the highest percentage increase of checks during the reporting period while Latvia, Bulgaria and Hungary had the highest reductions.

In terms of absolute number of checks in the EU Germany had the highest share in 2011 (34.8%) followed by Spain (11.8%) and Poland (9.8%), while Estonia (0.03%), Malta and Latvia (0.05%) had the lowest shares. Although this indicator is largely related to the size of the Member State, there have been notable changes over the reporting period. In 2008 the share of Germany was the highest (31.5%), Spain second (16.9%) but Bulgaria instead was the third (11.1%). The three Member States doing the fewest checks were Malta (0.03%), Estonia (0.08%) and Luxembourg (0.09%) in 2008.

8.1. Frequency of checks

Annex II presents an overview of the frequency of roadside checks in the Member States for 2010 and 2011. The frequency is calculated as the ratio of the number of checks per million tonne-kilometres of dangerous goods transported in each Member State.

In 2010, the average in the EU was 2.54 checks per million tonne-kilometres; in 2011, it declined to 2.14, implying an annual decrease of 15.7%. Bulgaria continued to have an exceptionally high frequency of checks in 2010, almost nine times the EU average. In 2011, Bulgaria, Austria and Romania had all some 10 checks per million tonne-kilometres, equal to about 4.5 times the EU average.

8.2. Breakdown of checks by place of origin

Annex III to this report shows the breakdown of checks by place of origin of the transport unit.

This indicator is affected not only by the decisions of the enforcement authorities but also the geography of the Member State; for example on islands there is less international transit by road. There are years when Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Portugal have not checked any transport units registered outside the EU.

The share of transport units checked in the country of registration has varied around 70% during the reporting period. The share of units checked coming from another EU countries increased from 20.5% to 25.7% from 2008 to 2011. In consequence, the share of units registered outside the EU decreased from 12.6% to 4.4%.

8.3. Proportion of non-conforming transport units

The share of transport units checked having at least one infringement is presented in Annex IV.

The proportion of non-conforming units increased from 13.7% in 2008 to 21.4% in 2011, with major increases notably in Spain, Latvia, Czech Republic and the Netherlands. However, there are 15 Member States where there was no increase in this proportion.

The share of non-conforming transport units varies considerably among Member States, reaching almost 70% in Malta while being less than 5% in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.

8.4. Breakdown of non-conforming transport units by place of origin

The graphs in Annex V show the distribution of transport units not conforming to the provisions according to the place of origin of the transport unit.

As pointed out previously in paragraph 8.2 the geography of the Member State affects considerably also this indicator.

8.5. Frequency of immobilisation of transport units

The graph in Annex VI illustrates the share of immobilised vehicles amongst those that were reported to have an infringement.

The earlier trend of decreasing share of immobilisations continued until 2009 when 24% of vehicles having an infringement were immobilised. However, the trend seems to have turned, in 2011 the proportion of vehicles being immobilised following their inspection had increased to 27%.

The highest frequencies of immobilisation in 2011 were recorded in Bulgaria (68%), Ireland (54%) and Romania (53%). In Norway 57% of infringements led to immobilisation in 2011.

Estonia, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta and Slovakia did not report any immobilisations in 2011.

8.6. Breakdown by risk categories

The graphs of Annex VII illustrate the distribution of severity of the infringements. Only the highest risk category detected during a check should be reported.

All Member States have reported at least one category of infringement per transport unit checked. Some Member States did not report data for some categories. In 2011 Cyprus and Slovakia did not report any infringements for the risk categories I and III. Luxembourg reported no infringements in risk category I. Furthermore, Latvia and Estonia reported no infringements in risk category III[19].

In the checks carried out in the EU in 2011 of some 44% of cases where infringements were detected the most serious one was classified in risk category I. Risk category I infringement implies a failure to comply with relevant safety provisions creating a high-level risk of death, serious personal injury or significant damage to the environment. These infringements call for immediate and appropriate corrective measures such as immobilisation of the vehicle.

Reported most serious infringements in risk category II represented 30% of checks where an infringement was detected. Risk category III covered the remaining 26%.

8.7. Types of penalties

The graphs in Annex VIII show the distribution of penalties by Member State.

Before the publication of the Commission recommendation referred to in paragraph 5 of this report, fundamental difficulties existed in the collection of this information. After the recommendation the situation has improved dramatically and in 2011 only France and Slovakia did not report any statistics on penalties. Slovakia had, however, reported penalties for earlier years and in 2011 only one single infringement was detected during the checks.

During the inspections carried out in the EU in 2011 there were 7 892 cautions made; fines were imposed in 33 179 cases; and 3 527 cases led to other penalties, including legal and administrative juridical processes. Although in general terms three quarters of penalties in the EU are fines, there is large variation between Member States. For example the United Kingdom does not apply fines on the spot.

In 2011 there were some 4% penalties less in total than in 2008. While the number of cautions grew by 8% over the period and the number of fines by 1%, other penalties decreased by 42%.

9. Conclusions

Directive 95/50/EC has been in transposed in all Member States' national legislation since 1 January 1997. The details on reporting were amended in 2004 and the modified reporting provisions became applicable on 14 December 2005. Following certain systematic incoherencies in reporting the Commission published a recommendation on the matter in 2011.

All Member States carry out checks on vehicles carrying dangerous goods and report these checks accurately. Only some minor inconsistencies still exist and the Commission ensures each year that the reporting under Directive 95/50/EC is complied with and progressively improved. It can be concluded that Directive 95/50/EC is generally applied correctly.

However, the latest reports show clearly that the resources in Member States available for these checks are becoming increasingly scarce. From 2008 to 2011 the number of checks decreased by 34%.

The checks are detecting infringements more frequently. In 2011 one check out of five affirmed or suspected an infringement in the carriage of dangerous goods, while in 2008 it was one out of seven checks. There are two possible reasons for this development. The checks may be better targeted to identify infringing carriage or the carriers may be generally less compliant with the provisions.

The Commission will invite the authorities of the Member States to provide information on the expected developments of the checks and on factors affecting these developments, such as the availability of resources and targeting of the checks. Furthermore, clarifications regarding exceptionally high rates of non-conformity will be requested.

Where infringements were detected, in 44% of the cases these were of the most serious type. Consequently, some 9 600 vehicles were immobilised in 2011.

In the EU a common set of provisions is applied for the transport of dangerous goods. These provisions are used in an identical fashion also in many countries outside the EU. Nevertheless, almost 36 000 of the some 170 000 annual roadside checks result in the conclusion that the transport operation does not meet the compulsory safety requirements. Given the high danger involved in the transport of these substances and articles, targeted enforcement for this type of transport continues to be indispensable.

«-»

Annex I Evolution of the number of checks, non-conformity and category I infringements

Further information on this table is provided in paragraph 7 of the report.

COUNTRY || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

BE || No of Checks || 3977 || 4133 || 5178 || 6033 || 5464 || 4188

% Non-conform || 38.52% || 39.90% || 17.671% || 21.76% || 22.16% || 12.32%

% Risk Cat. I || 47.36% || 30.47% || 24.07% || 37.49% || 37.05% || 26.42%

BG || No of Checks || 19206 || 27996 || 28106 || 28455 || 7756 || 6203

% Non-conform || 2.49% || 1.24% || 0.71% || 4.85% || 0.81% || 1.00%

% Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 34.33% || 34.33% || 27.78% || 57.41% || 55.74%

CZ || No of Checks || 6694 || 7691 || 3977 || 3471 || 2816 || 2491

% Non-conform || 5.83% || 5.60% || 5.53% || 6.60% || 11.51% || 11.92%

% Risk Cat. I || 26.46% || 17.87% || 21.36% || 25.33% || 17.59% || 55.74%

DK || No of Checks || 889 || 646 || 755 || 721 || 604 || 646

% Non-conform || 55.46% || 52.79% || 58.15% || 61.44% || 57.12% || 58.98%

% Risk Cat. I || 34.08% || 40.76% || 38.27% || 35.21% || 38.26% || 35.43%

DE || No of Checks || 83760 || 86225 || 79664 || 62085 || 67356 || 58270

% Non-conform || #N/A || 20.18% || 22.69% || 23.64% || 21.69% || 27.02%

% Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 47.00% || 48.14% || 45.23% || 49.96% || 49.55%

EE || No of Checks || #N/A || #N/A || 117 || 152 || 154 || 44

% Non-conform || #N/A || #N/A || 46.15% || 39.47% || 50.00% || 25.00%

% Risk Cat. I || 20.41% || 37.50% || 25.93% || 30.00% || 25.97% || 45.45%

IE || No of Checks || 630 || 731 || 783 || 892 || 751 || 674

% Non-conform || 32.54% || 44.60% || 38.19% || 28.36% || 26.23% || 24.93%

% Risk Cat. I || 34.15% || 24.54% || 13.71% || 25.20% || 33.33% || 12.64%

EL || No of Checks || 614 || 456 || 1202 || 413 || 1094 || 650

% Non-conform || 13.36% || 16.89% || 3.83% || 10.65% || 3.93% || 5.54%

% Risk Cat. I || 52.44% || 64.94% || 69.57% || 61.36% || 55.81% || 30.56%

ES || No of Checks || 40023 || 42787 || 42771 || 40782 || 36004 || 19707

% Non-conform || 0.25% || 0.19% || 0.27% || 10.63% || 11.44% || 29.60%

% Risk Cat. I || 67.90% || 66.69% || 63.64% || 65.28% || 64.82% || 75.63%

FR || No of Checks || 5566 || 6388 || 6572 || 5788 || 6178 || 6930

% Non-conform || 10.28% || 22.70% || 21.67% || 16.48% || 16.48% || 14.68%

% Risk Cat. I || 26.60% || 22.07% || 24.30% || 25.05% || 29.08% || 28.32%

|| No of Checks || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na

HR || % Non-conform || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na

|| % Risk Cat. I || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na

Annex I (continued)

IT || No of Checks || 4105 || 4515 || 4960 || 5180 || 6253 || 6260

% Non-conform || 32.35% || 34.55% || 16.73% || 16.16% || 13.58% || 11.04%

% Risk Cat. I || 72.82% || 69.90% || 17.33% || 15.85% || 14.65% || 14.18%

CY || No of Checks || 75 || 181 || 224 || 232 || 168 || 188

% Non-conform || 1.33% || 0.55% || 1.34% || 1.72% || 1.19% || 1.60%

% Risk Cat. I || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00%

LV || No of Checks || 823 || 1609 || 1230 || 996 || 703 || 89

% Non-conform || 11.42% || 10.19% || 7.15% || 10.14% || 8.25% || 15.73%

% Risk Cat. I || 25.53% || 29.27% || 56.82% || 59.41% || 55.17% || 78.57%

LT || No of Checks || 311 || 419 || 529 || 487 || 491 || 560

% Non-conform || 29.58% || 16.95% || 17.01% || 18.07% || 21.59% || 6.07%

% Risk Cat. I || 23.91% || 15.49% || 6.67% || 15.91% || 16.04% || 7.41%

LU || No of Checks || 190 || 182 || 210 || 293 || 233 || 341

% Non-conform || 64.21% || 68.13% || 59.05% || 50.51% || 48.50% || 57.77%

% Risk Cat. I || 15.75% || 49.19% || 44.35% || 6.08% || 5.31% || 0.00%

HU || No of Checks || 35555 || 25995 || 27225 || 15613 || 4158 || 1589

% Non-conform || 1.63% || 4.30% || 3.49% || 5.72% || 3.42% || 4.85%

% Risk Cat. I || 23.10% || 27.03% || 30.77% || 29.56% || 34.18% || 17.74%

MT || No of Checks || 33 || 75 || 81 || 76 || 79 || 78

% Non-conform || 51.52% || 76.00% || 54.32% || 67.11% || 63.29% || 69.23%

% Risk Cat. I || 23.53% || 34.09% || 25.00% || 21.57% || 42.00% || 24.07%

NL || No of Checks || 2750 || 7340 || 4820 || 5717 || 4068 || 5480

% Non-conform || 26.65% || 14.69% || 17.45% || 10.02% || 28.61% || 30.99%

% Risk Cat. I || 57.82% || 57.16% || 60.57% || 55.79% || 59.39% || 53.86%

AT || No of Checks || 7089 || 7580 || 6883 || 9824 || 10220 || 11300

% Non-conform || 36.49% || 36.00% || 35.70% || 30.99% || 28.72% || 32.50%

% Risk Cat. I || 24.62% || 24.55% || 23.40% || 20.70% || 21.87% || 20.40%

PL || No of Checks || 15840 || 39057 || 14438 || 19537 || 20324 || 16363

% Non-conform || 11.14% || 2.96% || 7.60% || 6.68% || 5.32% || 6.17%

% Risk Cat. I || 27.19% || 15.52% || 14.65% || 19.03% || 23.39% || 27.68%

PT || No of Checks || 235 || 137 || 425 || 566 || 1065 || 601

% Non-conform || 76.17% || 73.72% || 58.35% || 33.75% || 29.67% || 40.72%

% Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 42.50% || 50.81% || 41.88% || 41.14% || 41.11%

RO || No of Checks || 2914 || 4517 || 5257 || 5969 || 7352 || 11525

% Non-conform || 9.37% || 5.58% || 4.13% || 2.31% || 3.99% || 3.64%

% Risk Cat. I || 69.60% || 64.77% || 32.82% || 25.16% || 29.69% || 29.36%

SI || No of Checks || 1621 || 1041 || 291 || 315 || 253 || 601

% Non-conform || 17.89% || 19.50% || 48.11% || 46.03% || 39.53% || 5.99%

% Risk Cat. I || 42.76% || 39.41% || 28.57% || 38.62% || 36.00% || 38.89%

Annex I (continued)

SK || No of Checks || 247 || 300 || 351 || 572 || 561 || 194

% Non-conform || 0.00% || 0.67% || 2.28% || 12.41% || 16.40% || 0.52%

% Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 0.00% || 75.00% || 4.23% || 4.35% || 0.00%

FI || No of Checks || 2530 || 3025 || 3353 || 3589 || 3273 || 3100

% Non-conform || 36.56% || 33.92% || 41.10% || 34.35% || 32.26% || 30.03%

% Risk Cat. I || 31.35% || 18.62% || 12.48% || 12.09% || 10.21% || 11.08%

SE || No of Checks || 4182 || 4219 || 4049 || 3733 || 4076 || 4929

% Non-conform || 29.60% || 20.27% || 20.87% || 16.98% || 18.84% || 20.15%

% Risk Cat. I || 22.08% || 24.04% || 21.42% || 19.24% || 22.01% || 17.15%

UK || No of Checks || 4851 || 8221 || 9181 || 7251 || 8427 || 4277

% Non-conform || 13.69% || 30.76% || 36.99% || 41.26% || 22.99% || 38.23%

% Risk Cat. I || 19.13% || 30.01% || 29.68% || 17.88% || 19.05% || 16.64%

|| || || || || || ||

EU || No of Checks || 244710 || 285466 || 252632 || 228742 || 199881 || 167340

% Non-conform || 12.11% || 14.44% || 13.67% || 15.80% || 16.54% || 21.39%

% Risk Cat. I || 40.57% || 41.06% || 40.29% || 37.16% || 42.10% || 44.04%

|| || || || || || ||

NO || No of Checks || 632 || 417 || 712 || 767 || 515 || 617

% Non-conform || 34.65% || 34.53% || 25.70% || 22.16% || 20.97% || 25.12%

% Risk Cat. I || 21.27% || 15.97% || 19.13% || 17.65% || 29.63% || 31.21%

Annex II Frequency of checks per million tonne-kilometre

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.1 of the report.

Annex III Breakdown of checks by place of origin

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.2 of the report.

Annex IV Proportion of transport units not conforming to provisions

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.3 of the report.

Annex V Breakdown of transport units not conforming to the provisions by place of origin

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.4 of the report.

Annex VI Frequency of immobilisation of transport units not conforming to provisions

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.5 of the report.

Annex VII Breakdown by risk categories

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.6 of the report.

Annex VIII Types of penalties per transport unit not conforming to provisions

Further information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.7 of the report.

Annex IX Annual road freight transport of dangerous goods in million tonne-kilometres

Further information on this table is provided in paragraph 6 of the report.

|| 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

EU-27 (1) || 81,855 || 81,814 || 84,685 || 77,688 || 78,625 || 78,066

BE || 2,203 || 2,191 || 1,904 || 1,832 || 1,853 || 1,973

BG || 438 || 491 || 694 || 735 || 347 || 665

CZ || 1,875 || 1,376 || 1,140 || 1,050 || 1,669 || 1,787

DK || 933 || 620 || 1,256 || 1,015 || 772 || 730

DE || 13,717 || 12,834 || 13,616 || 12,961 || 12,853 || 13,028

EE || 193 || 276 || 189 || 82 || 171 || 189

IE || 1,340 || 1,291 || 1,351 || 530 || 379 || 419

EL (2) || 3,085 || 2,228 || 3,144 || 3,283 || 2,708 || 2,708

ES || 12,700 || 12,671 || 12,605 || 11,253 || 11,643 || 11,908

FR || 9,456 || 9,755 || 9,441 || 7,755 || 7,325 || 7,776

IT || 10,777 || 11,392 || 11,151 || 11,270 || 11,342 || 9,561

CY || 166 || 224 || 181 || 169 || 184 || 194

LV || 154 || 162 || 185 || 215 || 114 || 234

LT || 461 || 461 || 384 || 308 || 283 || 324

LU || 445 || 468 || 337 || 359 || 413 || 482

HU || : || 1,217 || 1,348 || 1,241 || 1,049 || 1,032

MT(3) || || || || || ||

NL || 2,390 || 2,098 || 2,554 || 2,408 || 3,432 || 2,540

AT || 1,122 || 1,054 || 1,175 || 1,082 || 1,083 || 1,144

PL || 3,267 || 4,708 || 5,380 || 5,697 || 5,880 || 6,848

PT || 2,046 || 1,979 || 1,846 || 1,480 || 938 || 1,143

RO || 2,559 || 2,057 || 1,782 || 2,250 || 1,369 || 1,182

SI || 571 || 631 || 662 || 668 || 607 || 842

SK || 517 || 562 || 281 || 278 || 498 || 361

FI || 2,317 || 1,847 || 1,585 || 1,640 || 2,169 || 1,535

SE || 1,743 || 1,409 || 1,265 || 1,162 || 1,387 || 1,304

UK (2) || 7,380 || 7,812 || 9,229 || 6,965 || 8,157 || 8,157

HR || : || : || 668 || 493 || 481 || 533

NO || 931 || 1,454 || 1,018 || 976 || 1,321 || 778

(1) EU-27: provisional data for reference year 2011 and does not include Hungary for reference year 2006.

(2) Greece and the United Kingdom: 2010 data was used for reference year 2011.

(3) Malta: derogation under Regulation (EU) No 70/2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: road_go_ta_dg)

[1] OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35, as amended by Commission Directive 2004/112/EC of 13 December 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 95/50/EC (OJ L 367, 14.12.2004, p. 23)

[2] Article 9(1) thereof

[3] Article 9(2) thereof

[4] COM(2000) 517 final, 6.9.2000

[5] COM(2005) 430 final, 15.9.2005

[6] COM(2007) 795 final, 13.12.2007

[7] COM(2010) 364 final, 7.7.2010

[8] OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 7

[9] Amended by Commission Directive 2004/111/EC of 9 December 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 94/55/EC (OJ No L 365, 10.12.2004, p. 25)

[10] European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road concluded at Geneva on 30 September 1957, as amended, under the auspices of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE).

[11] OJ L 260, 30.09.2008, p. 13

[12] Last amended by Commission Directive 2012/45/EU of 3 December 2012 adapting for the second time the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress (OJ No L 332, 4.12.2012, p. 18)

[13] Commission Directive 2004/112/EC of 13 December 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 95/50/EC (OJ No L 367, 14.12.2004, p. 23)

[14] Sweden has indicated that they perform a substantial number of checks and audits at terminals, companies and harbours. The Netherlands has indicated that they additionally visit transport companies to do checks, audits and to distribute information. Belgium has indicated that besides inspections at the premises of companies, the safety advisors report the results of checks done in the company to the competent authorities.

[15] Commission recommendation of 21.2.2011 on reporting of checks concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road, C(2011) 909 final

[16] The definition of risk categories and guidelines of infringements belonging to these categories are provided in Annex II of Directive 95/50/EC as amended by Directive 2004/112/EC.

[17] Eurostat table "DS-073082": Annual road freight transport of dangerous goods, by type of dangerous goods and broken down by activity

[18] OJ L 32, 3.2.2012, p. 1

[19] Risk category I infringement implies a high-level risk of death, serious personal injury or significant damage to the environment, necessitating immediate and appropriate corrective measures. Risk category II infringement creates a risk of personal injury or damage to the environment, necessitating corrective measures at the completion of the current transport movement at the latest. Risk category III infringements result in a low level of risk of personal injury or damage to the environment. Corrective measures can be addressed at a later date at the undertaking.