proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures
Date: 1996-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, tax harmonisation, toll, vehicle tax

COMMISSION  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  10.07.1996 
COM(96)331  final 

96/0182 (SYN) 

Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 

on the charging  of heavy  goods  vehicles  for the use of 
certain  infrastructures 

(presented  by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  This proposal  is for  a Council Directive to replace Directive  93/89/EEC which  was 
annulled by the European Court of Justice on 5 July  1995 on grounds of  procedural 
irregularities.  To  avoid  a  legal  vacuum,  the  effects  of  the  Directive  were  to  be 
maintained  until  the  Council  had  adopted  new  legislation. 

1.2.  In  addition,  Article  7(f)  of  the  Directive  requires  that  on  1 January  1997  the 
maximum  rate of user charges  set in that Article  shall be reviewed  and the Council 
shall  make the  necessary  adjustments. 

1.3.  To  fulfil  these  legal  obligations,  the  Commission  is  now  bringing  forward  this 
proposal.  In  so  doing,  it  is  taking  the  opportunity  to  propose  a  further  step  in 
developing  Community  policy  on fair  and  efficient  pricing  in  transport. 

2.  THE  BACKGROUND  TO  THE  PROPOSAL 

2.1.  The  legal  background 

2.1.1. 

2.1.2. 

The  realization  of  the  importance  of  vehicle  taxation  for  the  road 
transport  market  in  the  Community  dates  back  many  years.  Already  in 
the  1960s a large  scale investigation  took  place  of the various  aspects of 
charging for  the use of infrastructure  and  in  1968 the Commission  made 
a  proposal  on  a  taxation  system  for  commercial  vehicles.  In  June  1978 
the  Council  agreed  in  principle  to  the  draft  Directive  but  it  was  never 
formally  adopted. 

In  January  1988  a  new  proposal  on  the  charging  of  road  infrastructure 
costs to heavy  goods vehicles1 was put forward,  in which the principle of 
territoriality  was  introduced.  This  proposal  was  modified  by  the 
Commission  proposal  of  February  1991  and  September  19922  and  was 
finally  adopted  as  Directive  93/89/EEC3.  The  objective  of  the  Directive 
was  to  contribute  towards  the  elimination  of  distortions  of  competition 
between  transport  undertakings  in  the  Member  States  by  harmonising 
levy systems and  establishing fair mechanisms for charging  infrastructure 
costs  to  hauliers.  The  text  which  was  adopted  in  October  1993  set,  for 
goods  vehicles  over  12 tonnes  throughout  the  Community,  minimum 
levels  of vehicle taxes, the conditions  under which Member  States could 
introduce  "road  user  charges"  for  the  use  of  their  primary  roads, 
maximum  levels of user charges and restricted  toll  levels to the  coverage 
of  infrastructure  costs. 

2.1.3. 

In October  1992 Council  Directive  92/82/EEC4 on the approximation  of 
the rates  of  excise  duties  on  mineral  oils  set minimum  levels  for  diesel 
fuel.  This  is  the  fuel  used  by  virtually  all  heavy  goods  vehicles  in 
the  Community. 

1 
2 

3 

COM(87)  716  final;  OJ No  C  79,  26.3.1988,  p.  8. 
COM(90)  540  final;  OJ No  C  75, 20.3.1991, and  COM(92) 405  final. 
O J N oL  279,  12.11.1993,  p. 32. 
O J N oL  316,  31.10.1992,  p.  19. 

2.1.4. 

2.1.5. 

2.1.6. 

2.1.7. 

Further  to  these  legal  acts  the  Commission  has  published:  in  1992,  the 
White  Paper on the future  development of the common  transport policy5, 
and  in  1995,  the  Green  Paper  "Towards  Fair  and  EfficieflT~Pricing  in 
Transport"6  and  a report  reviewing  the  minimum  rates  of  excise  duty7. 

The  White  Paper  on  the  future  development  of  the  common  transport 
policy  acknowledged  that  there  was  an  urgent  need  to  adopt  a  more 
comprehensive  transport  strategy.  It  argued  that  there  was  a  growing 
realization that the road transport sector was showing unsustainable trends 
with  increasing  levels  of  pollution  and  congestion,  and  suggested  that 
pricing instruments would  need to be used more intensively  than  before, 
as part  of  an  overall  transport  strategy,  to  influence  this  sector. 

In its Green Paper  "Towards Fair and Efficient  Pricing in Transport",  the 
Commission  developed  further  these ideas. This wide ranging  discussion 
document  sought to  stimulate  debate  on ways in which  fair  and  efficient 
pricing  can  contribute  towards  redressing  the  unsustainable  trends  of 
transport  in the  European  Community  and  on  how  external  costs  might 
be internalized,  particularly  for  road transport.  The paper recognized  that 
there was widespread  acceptance  of the problem  of the external  costs of 
transport  and  need  for  action,  but  that  it  was  less  clear  how  these  costs 
should  be taken  into  account. 

In its report reviewing the minimum rates of excise duty, the Commission 
recognized  that  national  rates  on  motor  fuels  are generally  significantly 
higher  than  the  minimum  rates  and  that  the  latter  need  to  be  increased 
meaningfully  if they  are to fulfil  their purpose of assisting in the  process 
of  rate  approximation.  A  new  (second)  report  is  due  before  the  end  of 
1996.  The  Commission  is  also  carrying  out  an  extensive  review  of 
vehicle  related  taxes  in  the  Member  States.  Finally,  following  its 
discussions  on  the  Commission's  carbon/energy  tax  proposals8,  the 
ECOFIN  Council  of  11  March  1996  invited  the  Commission  to  bring 
forward  new  proposals  for  a  global  approach  to  the  taxation  of  energy 
products. This approach is likely to incorporate the existing excise system 
for  mineral  oils,  and  establish  minimum  levels  of taxation  necessary  for 
both  internal  market and environmental  policy reasons. The next  review 
of  minimum  rates  will  be  an  integral  part  of  the  preparation  of  these 
new  proposals. 

2.1.8. 

Furthermore,  with  the  aim  of  establishing  a  balanced  and  efficient 
transport  system,  the  Community 
is  developing  instruments  of  a 
regulatory,  technical  or organizational  nature to promote the use of  other 
inland  transport  modes:  rail  (opening  up  of  the  market),  combined 
transport  (Pilot  Actions  in relation  to Combined  Transport  - PACT),  and 
inland waterway  transport  (market restructuring).  These instruments aim 
at  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  transport  modes  other  than  road,  by 
concentrating  on  improving  a  number  of  vital  determinants  of  modal 
choice,  such  as  for  example  the  quality  of  service. 

5 
6 
7 
8 

Bulletin  of  the  European  Communities,  Supplement  3/93. 
COM(95)  691  final. 
COM(95)  285. 
COM(92)  226  final  of  27  May  1992  and  COM(95)  172  final  of  10 May  1995. 

2.2.  The  current  situation 

The instruments for imposing charges on heavy  goods vehicles appliecTcûrrently in 
the Community  are:  vehicle taxes,  fuel  excise duties,  road tolls  and  user  charges 
such as defined  in the current proposal. The relative importance of these instruments 
in  terms  of  the  total  revenues  they  generate  in  the  Community  can  be  seen  in  the 
table below.  Total revenues from  goods vehicles in the Union  were estimated  to be 
some  33.8  billion  ecu  in  1995:  77%  of  these  revenues  came  from  diesel  excise 
duty;  15%  from  vehicle  taxes;  6%  from 
tolls  and  2%  from  user  charges 
(Eurovignette  and  Austrian  system). 

Table  1 

Taxes,  tolls  and  charges  paid  by  goods vehicles  in  1995 

Fuel  excise  duty 

Vehicle  taxes 

Revenue 

26 

5 

Tolls 

2 

User  charges 

0.8 

Total 

33.8 

Source: Estimation based on information provided by Member States to the Commission Services. 

in  billion  ecu 

2.2.1.  Vehicle  taxes 

2.2.1.1.  Vehicle  taxes  are  levied 

in  the  country  of  registration  on  an 
annual  basis and  are  differentiated  according  to  certain  vehicles 
characteristics  such  as:  engine  power,  gross  or  unladen  vehicle 
weight  and  number  or  configuration  of  axles.  The  fact  that  the 
vehicle characteristics being used in the Member  States' national 
tax systems still vary across the Community  results in  difficulties 
and inaccuracies when  comparing  tax  rates. Following  the  entry 
into  force  of  Directive  93/89/EEC  an  adjustment  towards  the 
minimum  levels set in the Directive has been  realized.  Currently 
the majority  of Member  States apply vehicle tax rates  above the 
minimum  levels  (which  in  the  case  of  France,  Greece,  Italy, 
Portugal and Spain are 50% lower until 31  December  1997). The 
UK  and 
to  a  lesser  extent  Germany  and  Ireland  apply 
considerably  higher  rates.  Table  2 below  shows  indicatively  the 
1995 tax  rates  of  some  common  vehicle  types  in  a number  of 
Member  States. 

2.2.1.2.  Vehicle  taxes,  by  their  nature  (fixed  annual  amounts),  and  in 
spite of the fact  that they  offer  scope for  some differentiation  of 
rates,  cannot  provide  a  fair  charge  for  the  use  that  a  vehicle 
really  makes of the roads  and  do not tackle the problem  of cost 
recovery  for  vehicle  use  in  a  country  other  than  the  country  of 
registration.  Furthermore,  as  vehicle  taxes  still  differ  from 
country  to  country,and  because they  are not  necessarily  related 
to actual infrastructure  costs, they adversely  affect  the conditions 
of competition  among transport  hauliers.  The  structure  of  actual 
vehicle  taxes  in  the  Union  is  subject  to  an  ongoing  extensive 
review  by  the  Commission. 

Table  2 

Vehicle  taxes  of  selected  types  of  vehicles  in  1995 

GVW  NVW  PAYLOAD 

Axle 
No 

DK 

E 

IRL 

EU 

L 

NL 

P 

UK 

in  ecu 

tonnes 

18 

32 

38 

40 

7.5 

10.8 

13.5 

14.3 

10.5 

21.2 

24.5 

25.7 

2 

4 

2+3 

2+3 

1  019 

440 

734 

1  778 

440 

1  247 

1  940 

458 

1  759 

1  940 

458 

1  930 

min 

111 

537 

700 

700 

277 

544 

709 

709 

832 

419 

1  049 

1  021 

5  449 

1  021 

3  974 

1  021 

Source:  Commission  services 
GVW  =  Gross  vehicle  weight 
NVW  = Net  vehicle  weight 

2.2.2.  Fuel  excise  duties 

2.2.2.1.  Fuel  excise  duties 

currently  applied  in  all  Member  States 
provide  the largest  part  (see table  1 above)  of the revenue  from 
heavy  goods  vehicles.  In  application  of  Directive  92/82/EEC 
which  entered  into  force  in  1993  diesel  excise  duty  rates  in  all 
Member  States are now above the minimum  level  set at 245 ecu 
per  1 000  litres.  Actual  (April  1996)  rates  are  shown  in  the 
table  3  below. 

Table  3 

Diesel  excise  duties 

April  1996 

Member  State 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Fuel  Excise 
Duty 

302 

300 

329 

245 

273 

354 

303 

361 

in ecu  per  1000  litres 

Member  State 

Lux 

NL 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

UK 

Fuel  Excise 
Duty 

i 

-1 

1 

263 

327 

301 

326 

291 

291 

406 

EU 
min 

245 

Source: Commission  sen ices 

2.2.2.2.  Increased  intra-Community  transport,  the  differences  in  fuel 
prices  across  the Community,  the  increased  capacity  of  vehicle 
fuel  tanks and the fact that some smaller  countries can be easily 
crossed  without  the  need  to  refuel 
the  vehicle  mean  that 
frequently  fuel  will not be purchased in the Member  State where 
a vehicle is driven.  When this occurs the vehicle  is not  making 
contribution  through  fuel  taxes  to  the  costs  of  trie  road 
a 
infrastructure 

it  uses. 

2.2.2.3.  Furthermore,  while  there  is  a  fairly  good  relationship  between 
the  quantity  of  fuel  used  and  the  distance  driven  by  a  vehicle, 
the  Commission's  Green  Paper  explored  the  limitations  of  this 
relationship  when  comparing  the  infrastructure  damage  caused 
by  different  types of freight  vehicle.  Similarly,  while there is a 
relationship  between  the  quantity  of  fuel  used  and  the  noxious 
emissions  for  a  specific  model  of  vehicle,  advances 
in 
technology  have  meant 
that  more  modern  vehicles  emit 
significantly  less pollutants than  older vehicles for  the same  fuel 
consumption. Congestion, which represents  probably the greatest 
external cost of road transport,  is very loosely related to the level 
of  fuel  consumption. 

2.2.2.4.  These reasons suggest that exclusive reliance on fuel  duty would 
be  a  limited  tool  for  charging  for  road  use,  despite  the  simple, 
well-established  and  inexpensive  way  in  which  it  is  applied. 
Complementary  instruments  are therefore  necessary. 

2.2.3.  Tolls 

2.2.3.1.  Tolls are employed  by a number of Member  States to charge  for 
the  use  of  motorways  or  other 
individual  expensive  pieces  of 
infrastructure.  Balancing  the  requirements  for  simplicity  in  the 
levying  of  the tolls  against  the  need  for  some  differentiation  in 
their  rates,  Member  States  usually  apply  3 to  5 charging  bands 
corresponding  to  an  equivalent  broad  classification  of  vehicles. 

2.2.3.2.  Directive  93/89  requires  the  level  of  tolls  to  be  related  to  the 
cost of constructing,  operating  and  developing the  infrastructure 
network  concerned.  However, 
the  differentiation  currently 
applied  is frequently  not well  related to the actual  costs imposed 
on the  road. 

2.2.3.3.  Toll  rates  for  a  similar  vehicle  vary,  sometimes  substantially, 
both among and within Member  States. Of course, as long as toll 
rates  are  set  at  levels  designed  to  cover  road  costs  and  not 
to 
serve  other  purposes,  for  example,  to  raise  general  revenue, 
there  is  no justification  for  toll  rates  to  be  uniform  since  road 
costs  are  not  uniform  either.  A  rate  of  0.12  ecu  per  kilometre 
could  be  quoted 
as  indicating  the  middle  of  the  range  in 
the  Community. 

2.2.3.4.  Road  tolls  by  their  nature  are  the  most  "territorial"  instrument 
currently  used in the Community.  However,  the present  method 
for  their  application  presents  a  particularly  problematic  feature 
with  respect  to  their  potentially  generalised  use:  they  require 
the  installation  of  toll  plazas,  which  is  often  difficult  and 
impossible  in  the  case  of 
costly  or  sometimes  practically 
existing  infrastructure. 

2.2.4.  User  charges 

2.2.4.1.  User  charges  were  introduced  by  Directive  93/897EEC  as  the 
counterpart  of  tolls  when  these  were  for  whatever  reason  not 
possible or simply undesirable. The difference  between tolls and 
user charges is that the latter for reasons of functional  simplicity 
relate  to  the  whole  motorway  (or  primary  road)  network  in  a 
Member  State rather than to  specific  parts of it as in the case of 
tolls.  For  the  same  reasons  user  charges  are  based  on  the 
duration  of  the  use  of  the  infrastructure  rather  than  on  the 
distance  driven.  Because  of  their  time  basis  user  charges  can 
have  only  an  approximate 
relationship  with  actual  use  and 
therefore  with  the  costs  of  the  infrastructure.  They  have, 
however,  the  advantage  of  constituting  a  significantly 
less 
serious  hindrance to  traffic  and  of requiring  no road  space  for 
their  collection. 

2.2.4.2.  Directive  93/89/EEC  set  the  maximum  annual  rate  of  user 
charges  and the  requirement  that  rates  shall  be  in  proportion  to 
the  duration  of  the  use  made  of  the  infrastructure.  No  further 
differentiation  by  vehicle type was  required. 

2.2.4.3.  Prior  to joining  the Community,  Austria  operated  a user  charge 
system  which applied  much higher levels of charges than  those 
allowed  in  Directive  93/89/EEC.  As  part  of  the  accession 
agreement  these were to be reduced  and will  be in  line with  the 
levels  in  Directive  93/89/EEC  by  1997. 

referred 

2.2.4.4.  In  conformity  with  Directive  93/89/EEC  a  user  charge  system 
to  as  the  Eurovignette  system)  has  been 
(often 
introduced  since  1  January  1995 
in  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Germany,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands  (since  1 January 
1996).  Sweden  will  join  the  system  (January  1997)  if  the 
Swedish Parliament ratifies the governments decision to accede. 

2.2.4.5.  According 

to  an  agreement  between 

the  participating 
Member  States,  each  one  is  responsible  for  the  levy  of  the 
charge  on  its  territory  from  both  national  and  non-national 
hauliers,  whereas 
the  responsibility  for  the  collection  of  the 
charge  outside  the  territory  of  the  participating  countries  (in 
is  shared  between  Germany  and 
a  "zone"  around 
Denmark.  Belgium,  Denmark  and  Luxembourg  apply  only 
annual  rates  (  two  levels  depending  on  the  number  of  the 
vehicle's  axles) for  vehicles registered  in their territory,  whereas 
Germany  and  the Netherlands  also  have  monthly,  weekly  and 
daily  vignettes.  The  same  system  (two  categories  of  vehicles 
and  four  time  periods)  applies  to  all  vehicles  not  belonging  to 
the  Member  States  subscribing  to the  common  system. 

them) 

2.2.5.  Infrastructure  costs 

2.2.5.1.  Historically,  the fixed  and  variable  costs  of  infrastructure  have 

been  funded  through  the  mix  of  fuel  duty  and  vehicle  taxes. 
Fuel  duty  roughly  approximates  to  road  usage.  To  compensate 
for  the  fact  that  fuel  duty  is  not  a  good  fit  to  variable  costs, 
which  depend  heavily  on  axle-weights,  Member  States  have 
attempted  to  compensate  by  increasing  differentiation  of  the 
vehicle  taxes.  While  overall  revenue  may  be  adequate,  this 
provides  poor  signals  to  users  because  the  variable  costs  arise 

from  road  usage  to  which  vehicle  taxes  are  unrelated  and 
because  the  charges  are  not  paid  when  road  damage  is 
actually  caused. 

~~ 

2.2.5.2.  In  the  current  situation  tolls  and  user  charges  have  been 
introduced  as an attempt to charge fixed and variable costs when 
they  arise. However,  these charges are only  partly  differentiated 
and are therefore  not in proportion  to the costs being  caused.  As 
a  result  there  remains  an  overall  mismatch  in  the  use  of  fuel 
duty  and  vehicle taxes  to  fund  the  fixed  and  variable  costs. 

2.2.5.3.  It  is  desirable  over  time  for  charges  to  be  better  related  to  the 
costs which are being recovered.  Therefore tolls and user charges 
should  become 
technology, 
particularly telematics, makes this feasible.  These charges should 
increasingly  approximate  to  the  actual  cost  of  using  the  road, 
that  is, the variable  cost.  As a step in this direction  user  charges 
and  vehicle  taxes  should  be  more  differentiated. 

increasingly  differentiated  as 

2.2.5.4.  When  road  pricing  is  sufficiently  advanced  to  be  used  on  all 
roads,  it  would  be  possible  to  use  it  to  replace  fuel  duty  as  the 
main  means  of  charging  for  variable  costs,  and  to  reduce  the 
reliance  on  the use  of  other  taxes  and  charges  for  this  purpose. 
However,  in  the  meantime,  these  instruments  will  still  be 
necessary  to  recover  and  provide  incentives  to  reduce  costs. 
Moreover,it  should be recalled  that  the current  approach within 
the  European  Union  towards  fuel  taxation  is  likely  to  continue 
to be governed not only by transport  policy  concerns but also by 
broader  fiscal  policy  considerations,  in  particular  the  fact  that 
fuel  duties  are  an  important  source  of  revenue. 

2.2.5.5.  The high degree of differentiation  in  advanced charging  systems 
requires  the  introduction  of  pay-as-you-go  telematics  based 
pricing systems as outlined  in the Green Paper.  The Commission 
is  pursuing  research  in  the  field  of  telematics  with  this  aim  in 
mind,  but  it  is  clear  that  telematics  technology  will  not  be 
available for wide  scale implementation  in the near future.  Any 
such  system  will  need  to be  interoperable  on  a European  wide 
basis  to  ensure  the  greatest  benefits.  The  Community's  role  in 
setting clear  requirements  to ensure this interoperability  will  be 
crucial.  Furthermore,  the  possibilities  offered  by  electronic  fee 
collection 
and 
enforcement,  and  by  weigh-in-motion  techniques,  capable  of 
thereby 
measuring  actual  axle  weight  at  high  speed  and 
allowing  the setting of charges closer to real  costs, will also need 
to be  examined. 

systems,  with 

classification 

automatic 

2.2.5.6.  As regards the determination  of  the  level  of  charges required  to 
recover  infrastructure  costs  Member  States  have  so  far  applied 
a  number  of  different  methodologies.  Usually,  the  total  annual 
expenditure  for  new  road  construction  and  maintenance  was 
allocated  to  broad  categories  of  vehicles,  so  that  the  total 
resulting  revenue  would  cover  in  varying  degrees  the  total 
expenditure.  It  is  clear  that,  if  a  harmonized  approach  to 
infrastructure  charging  is to  apply  in the Community,  common 
methods  need  to  be  adopted  both  with  regard  to  the  elements 
which  will  determine  the total  costs,  and  not  simply  the  annual 
expenditure,  to  be  allocated  and  with  regard  to  how  this 
allocation  should  be  made  to  different  vehicle  types.  This  is 

particularly  important  in  order  to  ensure  transparency  of  rates 
and  non  discrimination  when  electronic  fee  collection  systems 
are  used.  In  the  meantime,  the  following  estimatertiave  been 
made  of  the  amount  of  total 
the 
Community  and  of  the  average  costs  related  to  heavy  goods 
vehicles,  on  the  basis  of  which  appropriate  charges  should 
be  fixed. 

infrastructure  costs  in 

2.2.5.7.  Total  annual  expenditure  on  roads  in  the  Community 

is  more  uncertain  but 

is 
estimated  to  be  some  65  billion  ecu9.  Estimating  the  total  cost, 
which  will  include  interest  charges  for  the  capital  value  of  the 
network, 
is  probably  around 
90 billion  ecu per year10  of which  about  30 billion  ecu11  can  be 
attributed to goods vehicles above 12 tonnes. The annual revenue 
from  taxes,  charges  and  tolls  paid  by  all  goods  vehicles  above 
tonnes12  amounts  to  some  34  billion  ecu13.  In  1995 
3.5 
approximately  4.8 million  goods vehicles above 3.5 tonnes were 
registered  in  the  Union.  Of  these  2  million  were  heavy  goods 
vehicles above  12 tonnes.This suggests that heavy goods vehicles 
above  12 tonnes do not fully  pay  their total infrastructure  costs. 

it 

2.2.5.8.  Moreover, 

the  current  structure  of  charging  schemes  for 
individual  vehicle  types  does  not  correspond  to  the  real 
infrastructure  costs  caused.  Indicatively,  it  has  been  estimated 
that  infrastructure  costs  vary  from  0.07  ecu/km  for  a  12 tonnes 
truck  to  0.29  ecu/km  for  a  (3+2)  axle  articulated  vehicle  of 
38 tonnes total weight.  On one hand the structure of the vehicle 
taxes  applied  by  most Member  States follows  these  differences 
in infrastructure  costs. This is in line with Directive  93/89/EEC, 
although 
therein  do  not 
correspond  to  the  necessary 
levels  for  cost  recovery.  On  the 
other  hand,  current  user  charge  levels  are  not  appropriately 
differentiated. 
In fact,  for  reasons  of  administrative  simplicity, 
there  are  only  two  charge  levels  based  on  the  number  of  axles 
(less  than  4  axles  and  more  than  four  axles),  leading  to  the 
undesirable effect  of vehicles having the same total weight being 
charged  more  if  they  have  4  axles  than  if  they  only  have 
3  axles.  This  is  in  contradiction  with 
the 
the  levels  of 
infrastructure  costs  caused  by  these  two  types  of vehicles. 

the  minimum 

laid  down 

levels 

2.2.5.9.  Consequently,  to ensure  that  total  vehicle  charges  are  sufficient 
to  recover  infrastructure  costs, 
the  infrastructure  element  of 
average charges must be appropriately  differentiated;  this implies 
that  for  some  vehicle  types  charges  will  have  to  be  increased, 
whereas  for  others they  will  have to  be  reduced. 

10 

9  The  information  provided by Member  States suggests expenditures of 65 billion  ecu. This 
level  corresponds  well  with  UN  statistics  on  expenditures  on  motorways,  other  supra 
regional  and  regional  roads.  If  also  local  and  urban  roads  are included  the  expenditures 
can  be  estimated  to  at  least  80 billion  ecu. 
The  capital  expenditure  is  approximately  45% of  the  total  expenditure.  An  interest  rate 
of 8% and  a relation between  capital  expenditure and capital  cost of  1:1.7  has been  used. 
If  also  local  and  urban  roads  are  included  the  cost  will  be  36 billion  ecu. 
Information 
not  available. 
Estimation based on information  provided by Member States to the Commission  Services. 

regarding  the  exact  revenue  from  HGV  above  12  tonnes  alone  is 

13 

2.2.6.  Differentiation  in  infrastructure  charging 

2.2.6.1.  There are two types of road infrastructure  cost whicTTneed to be 
allocated  among  road  users;  these  are  the  capital  costs  of  road 
construction  and  the  damage  costs  arising  from  road  use. 
Capital  costs  arise  from  the  need  to  create  or  expand  road 
capacity.  These  costs  are  dependent  on  the  road  space  and 
characteristics  of  different 
types  of  vehicles.  Heavy  goods 
vehicles  are  large  and  relatively  slow  moving  especially  on 
inclines.  Therefore  they  lead  to a need  for  greater  capacity  than 
if  the  road  was  to  cater  only  for  cars.  In  addition  because  of 
their  weight  and  axle loading,  the roads  must be  constructed  to 
a  greater  strength  leading  to  additional  cost.  Allocation  of 
capital  costs  to  different  vehicle  types  is  often  in  line  with 
these  considerations. 

2.2.6.2.  Considerable  research  has  been  conducted  on  overall  levels  of 
road  damage  caused by  heavy  goods vehicles  and  different  axle 
and  suspension  types.  From  this  research  it  is  possible  to  say 
with  some  accuracy  how  much  damage  is  caused  by  correctly 
loaded trucks of different  configurations.  Damage costs may then 
be  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  average  distances  travelled. 
Member  States have for  a long time employed  graduated  annual 
vehicle  taxes  for  lorries  in  recognition  of  the  relationship 
between  axle  weight  and  road  damage.  It  was  this  information 
coupled  with  the  appportioning  of  capital  costs  which  provided 
levels  put  forward  by 
the  basis  for 
the  Commission  in  its  1991  proposal.  Evidence  also  points  to 
there  being  further  significant  benefits  to  be  gained  from 
encouraging the greater use  of  lorries with  more  axles  and  road 
friendly  suspension. 

the  minimum 

tax 

2.2.6.3.  As  the  costs  of  road  use  vary  significantly  across  vehicle 
characteristics,  in  time  and  in  space,  efficient  charging  requires 
accurate  differentiation  in  a  number  of  respects.  The  allocation 
of  costs  to  different  road  users  should  also  be  reviewed. 
Provided  certain  conditions  on the cost  structure  are met  and  an 
efficient  infrastructure  investment policy is applied, cost recovery 
on  the  basis of  marginal  cost  pricing  should  recover  most  costs 
in  the  long  run.  However,  it  is  likely  that  charges  based  on 
average  costs will  also  have  to be  used,  particularly  early  on. 

2.2.7.  External  costs 

2.2.7.1.  There  are  a  wide  range  of  other  costs  which  are  directly 
attributable  to  the  use  of  roads.  These  factors  include  the  cost 
of  policing,  accidents,  congestion,  and  other  environmental  and 
social  factors  such  as  noise  and  pollutant  emissions.  Currently 
these costs are borne by the rest of society  either through  general 
taxation  to pay  for  example for  emergency  services  and  hospital 
treatment,  or  through  the  impacts  of  noise  and  emissions  and 
accidents  on  the  health  and  quality  of  life  of  the  population. 
Congestion  costs  are  currently  borne  by  road  users  through 
longer  journey  times,  However  because  of  the  different  value 
placed  on time by  road  users this is  a very  inefficent  method  of 
allocating  capacity. 

2.2.7.2.  Although  there is large uncertainty  surrounding cost estimates of 
individual  externalities  and  costs  vary  significantly  across  and 
within  modes, and time and place of use, the order  ofmagnitude 
of  the  total  costs  -  which  is  broadly  comparable  to  the  total 
direct  contribution  of  inland  transport  modes  to  GDP  -  is  so 
large  that  action  is  warranted.  In  the  future  it  will  be  desirable 
to  ensure  a  better  approximation  between  these  costs  and  the 
level  of  charges,  but  improved  technology  will  be  necessary  to 
implement  more  refined  charging. 

2.2.7.3.  Based  on  specific  emissions  of  a  representative  Euro  I  truck 
during  an  inter-urban  driving  cycle the  cost  of  only  one  type  of 
local  air  pollution  has  been  conservatively  estimated  at  slightly 
more than 0.03 ecu/km14. This figure does not include other  form 
of  air  pollution  costs  or  other  externalities  such  as  noise, 
congestion  or  accidents  and  can  therefore  be  seen  as  a 
very  cautious  estimate  of 
in 
the  Community. 

the  relevant  external  costs 

2.2.7.4.  A  number  of  organizations  have undertaken  work  to  attempt  to 
estimate  the  total  external  costs  above  the  local  air  pollution 
discussed  above.  The  Commission's  Green  Paper  gave  an 
average  figure  derived  from  literature  on  the  subject  of  some 
0.033  ecu  per  tonne-km  for  road  freight  excluding  congestion 
costs.  On  the basis  of  certain  assumptions  to translate  the  cost 
estimate  per tonne-km  into  a cost per vehicle-km,  it is  possible 
to  derive an average  figure  for  the external  costs of road  freight 
haulage  of  about  0.5  ecu  per  kilometre  travelled  excluding 
congestion costs.  A recent study by ECOPLAN15 provided  some 
evidence that external  costs  in  Alpine areas might be  as high  as 
2  ecu  per  vehicle-km  for  HGVs. 

2.2.7.5.  Existing  charging  systems  do  not  allow  for  distance  dependent 
charging  and  therefore  annual  charges  have  to  be  based  on 
estimates  of  annual  distance  driven  and  the  estimated  cost  per 
kilometre.  However, flat rate environmental  charges have a very 
low  efficiency  in  terms  of  affecting  distances  travelled  and 
therefore  appropriate  differentiation  of  the  charges  is  more 
important  than  a high  absolute  level. 

2.2.8.  Differentiation  of  external  costs 

2.2.8.1.  The  control  of transport  related  air  pollution  in  the  Community 
has  over  the  last  ten  years  followed  a  uniquely  regulatory 
approach:  emission  standards  for  vehicles  have  been  set. 
Currently  three  different  standards  can  be  identified  for  heavy 
goods  vehicle  emissions,  these  are  pre  1988  (referred  to  as 
non-Euro), Euro I which became mandatory in October  1993 and 
Euro  II  which  becomes  mandatory  in  October  1996. 

An  evaluation  of  3 ecu/kg  NOx  gives  a  concervative  estimate  of  air  pollution  cost, 
excluding  particulate  matters  (PM),  at  0.03  ecu/km,  for  a common  type  of  vehicle. 
The  effects  of  including  external  costs  of  road  freight  transport  into  infrastructure  user 
charges:  a  case  study  for  the  Alps.  ECOPLAN  March  1996 

11 

2.2.8.2.  These regulations specify  the maximum  level-of pollutants which 
may  be  emitted  by  engines  complying  with  the regulation.  The 
specifications  cover  a  number  of  substances  but  by~weighting 
these  we  can  arrive  at  relative  levels  of  overall  pollution  from 
different  vehicle types. In this way, if Euro I pollutant  levels are 
classified  as 100  (units) the Commission estimates that  pollutant 
emissions  from  pre-Euro  trucks  are  about  180  and  Euro  II 
emissions  are  around  70.  These  estimates  can  therefore  be used 
as the basis for  differentiation  of the external  costs generated  by 
different  vehicle types. 

2.2.8.3.  External  costs do not only vary between vehicle types, there can 
also  be  significant  variations  in  the  level  of  external  costs 
between  different  locations  in  time  and  space. 

2.3. 

Further  considerations 

2.3.1. 

2.3.2. 

2.3.3. 

2.3.4. 

The  creation  of  the  single  market  and  its  vitality  has  led  to  increasing 
levels of internal trade. The expansion of the Community in January  1995 
has  further  expanded  growth  in  intra-Community  trade.  This  expansion 
makes  increasing  demands  on  infrastructure  and  over  time  leads  to 
demands for new infrastructure  and requires methods of making better use 
of  existing  capacity. 

The environmental  problems arising  from  road  transport  are  increasingly 
recognized.  In many  circumstances this is a local  or regional  matter that 
should be solved within Member  States. However, Community  action has 
to be considered where cross-border externalities exists, where there is an 
effect  on  the  internal  market,  where  Community  action  can  achieve 
economies of scale and where policy  spill-over exists. The environmental 
problems which  arise in the context  of international  goods transport  fulfil 
a  number  of  these  criteria. 

The  expansion  of  the  Community  is  having  a deep  effect  on  the  alpine 
region  which  forms  a  natural  barrier  between  much  of  Northern  and 
Southern  Europe.  For  example,  between  1984  and  1994  the  number  of 
heavy goods vehicle trips through the region increased twice as fast  as the 
average  transport  increase  in  the  Union16.  As  there  have  historically 
always  been  a  limited  number  of  routes  through  this  area  the  growing 
trade  between  Northern  and  Southern  European  countries  is  putting 
increased  pressure  on this  limited  number  of  transit  routes. 

In  addition  to the volume of traffic,  the geography  of the region  leads to 
particularly  high  infrastructure  and  maintenance  costs  and  the  alpine 
environment  is  also  particularly  sensitive  to  the  effects  of  pollution.  As 
a result,  alpine  States both  inside  (Austria,  France  and  Italy)  and  outside 
to  a  greater  or  lesser  degree,  are 
(Switzerland)  the  Community, 
experiencing  serious  problems.  It  is  therefore 
the 
Community's transport  strategy  should address soon the specific  concerns 
of  this  region  in  a comprehensive  way.  This  will  be  done in  the  context 
of  the  Environmental  Impact  Framework  that  has  been  announced  in 
the  "Common  Transport  Policy  Action  Programme  1995-2000" 
(COM(95)  302  final). 

important 

that 

6  Source:  Secretariat  general  of  the  Swiss  Department,  for  Energy  and  Transport, 

October  1995. 

12 

3.  THE  PROPOSAL 

3.1.  Objectives 

3.1.1. 

Flowing  from 
objectives  for  this  proposal  are: 

the  problems  outlined, 

the  Commission's  principal 

3.1.2. 

(a)  To further  the development  of the internal  market in road  transport. 

(b)  To  ensure  better  recovery  of  costs  associated  with  road  use, 

including  externalities. 

(c)  To  allow  for  greater  differentiation  in  charges  in  line  with  costs. 

(d)  To  see  further  moves  towards  the  principle  of  territoriality  in 

charging  for  road use. 

The  general  aim  of  furthering  the  development  of  the  internal  market  is 
achieved by ensuring that the proposal reduces distortions to competition. 
This  objective  is  achieved  by  further  harmonizing  tax  and  user  charge 
levels  for  identical  vehicle  categories,  irrespective  of  the  country  of 
registration.  However,  the correct functioning  of the internal  market  also 
requires  the  provision  and  maintenance  of  adequate  infrastructure,  the 
costs of which need to be recovered  from  users. For this to be carried out 
fairly, greater differentiation  in charges is necessary.  Similarly, provisions 
are  needed  to  allow  charges  to  reflect  different  levels  of  external  costs. 
Finally,  charging  has 
increasingly  to  be  carried  out  on  a  territoriality 
basis  so that  costs  are  recovered  where  they  arise. 

3.1.3. 

The  main  features  of  the  Directive  which  will  ensure  that  the  other 
objectives  can  be  met  are: 

(a)  The  introduction  of  greater  differentiation  in  the  levels  of  annual 
vehicle  taxes  and  user  charges  for  individual  vehicle  categories  in 
line with  the  costs  caused. 

This  is  intended  to  ensure  that  charges  are  more  closely  linked  to 
cost  and  provide  incentives  to  vehicle  operators  to  use  less 
damaging  vehicles. 

This differentiation  will  lead to an increase in the weighted  average 
of  annual  user  charges  from  1 020  ecu  to  1 258  ecu;  user  charges 
for  low  damage,  Euro  II  vehicles  will  go  down  to  750  ecu,  whilst 
for  high  damage,  non-  Euro  vehicles  user  charges  will  go  up  to 
2  000  ecu. 

(b)  The  introduction  of  changes  in  the  rules  governing  vehicle  taxes, 
user  charges  and  tolls  to  put  greater  emphasis  on  the  use  related 
element  (notably  user charges  and tolls)  so as to  move towards  the 
principle  of  territoriality  in  charging  for  road  use. 

13 

(c)  A further  harmonisation  of the structure  and  levels of vehicle  taxes 

and  charges  across the  Community. 

This  objective  is  reached  by  the  introduction  of  a  range  within 
which the levels of user charges and vehicle taxes can vary  (defined 
by minimum  and maximum  levels) as well  as rules on the  structure 
of  these  charges  and  taxes.  Whilst  leaving  appropriate  room  for 
dealing  with  variations 
the 
Community,  these measures  seek to further  the development  of the 
internal  market  in  road  haulage. 

costs  across 

infrastructure 

in 

(d)  The  introduction  of  the  possibility  of  an  external  cost  element  in 

tolls  and  user  charges 

Tolls  are  currently  only  permitted  to  recover  infrastructure  costs. 
In line with  user  charges it  is proposed  that  an  element  of  external 
cost  may  also be  charged 

(e)  The  introduction  of  the  concept  of  sensitive  routes  for  which  a 
in  recognition  of 

larger  external  cost  element  can  be  charged, 
higher  external  costs  on  them. 

(f) 

Specific  requirements  for  shorter  period  user  charges.  It  is  also 
proposed  that  their  rates  should  be  made  more  attractive  thereby 
encouraging  a move  towards  marginal  cost  charging. 

A  summary  of  the  current  and  proposed  charges  for  different  vehicle 
types  are  shown  in  table  4  below  (Annex  1  gives  a  comprehensive 
description  of  the  changes). 

14 

Table  4 

Changes  in  the  levels  of  vehicle  taxes  and  user  charges 

ecu p.a. 

Current  and proposed  charges for different  vehicle  types 

All 
Member 
States 

Current 
annual 
vehicle 
taxfa) 

In Member  States  that 
do  not apply  User 
Charges 

Proposed 
vehicle tax 
levels00 

Percentage 
change in 
annual 
vehicle tax 

In Member  States  that  apply  User  Charges 

Proposed 
vehicle tax 
levels00 

Current 
annual  user 
charge00 

Proposed 
annual  user 
charge00 

Percentage 
change in 
annual 
user 
charge 

706 

465 

465 

465 

515 

370 

225 

186 

225 

186 

854 

563 

512 

465 

623 

448 

272 

225 

225 

186 

+21 

+21 

+10 

0 

+21 

+21 

+21 

+21 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 250 

2 000 

+60 

1 250 

1 500 

+20 

1 250 

1 350 

1 250 

1 250 

+8 

0 

1 250 

1 500 

+20 

1250 

1500 

+20 

1250 

1000 

1250 

1000 

1250 

1250 

750 

750 

-20 

-20 

-40 

-40 

Vehcile  type 

2+2  axle  o.s 38 t 
non  Euro 

2+2  axle  a.s 38 t 
non  Euro 

2+2  axle a.s 
38 t Euro I 

2+2  axle a.s 
38 t Euro  II 

2+3  axle o.s 
38 t non Euro 

2+3  axle a.s 
38 t non Euro 

3+3  axle o.s 
38 t non Euro 

3+3  axle a.s 
38 t non Euro 

3+3  axle o.s 
38 t  Euro II 

3+3  axle a.s 
38 t  Euro II 

(a) minimum rates 
(b) maximum rates 

a.s = air suspension or equivalent 
o.s = other suspension 

15 

3.2.  The  content  of  the  proposal 

(a) 

The  scope  of  the  proposal  (Article  2) 

~~ 

3.2.1.  As  in  Directive  93/89/EEC,  the  scope  of  the  current  proposal  is 
unchanged  and  is  therefore  limited  to  goods  vehicles  of  over  12  tonnes 
gross vehicle  weight. 

(b) 

Annual  vehicle  taxes  (Article  3, 4,  5 &  6) 

3.2.2. 

3.2.3. 

the  Euro 

To provide for  a period  of  stability  for  those Member  States which  have 
had  significantly  to increase their  annual  vehicle taxes  in recent years, it 
is proposed  that  the  existing  minimum  annual  vehicle  taxes  for  vehicles 
meeting 
II  standard(which  will  be  mandatory  as  of 
October  1996)  shall  be  maintained.  However,  to  provide  a  financial 
incentive for operators to replace older vehicles with less environmentally 
damaging models, it is proposed that non-Euro and Euro I vehicles should 
be  subject  to  somewhat  higher  charges  (10%  and  21% resepectively17). 
This  differentiation  is  in  line  with  the  existing  arrangements  for  lower 
minimum  rates for  vehicles with  road  friendly  suspension  in  recognition 
of  the  lower  infrastructure  damage  which  they  cause. 

individual  Member  States  are 

The  differentiation  which  was  built  in  to  annual  vehicle  taxes  in 
Directive  93/89/EEC  only  applied  to  the  minimum  levels  of  these 
charges.  While 
introduce 
differentiation  through higher  charges on dirtier vehicles, in general, this 
has  so  far  not  happened.  The  desirability  of  harmonising  conditions  of 
competition  and 
influencing  vehicle  ownership  decisions  on  a 
Community-wide basis makes it  appropriate for  this differentiation  to be 
compulsory  at  any  level  of  annual  vehicle  taxes  in  all  Member  States. 
The  proposed  differentiation  in  annual  rates  implies  that  tax  levels  for 
non-Euro vehicles are  10% higher than for  Euro I vehicles, which in turn 
should  be  10% higher  than  for  Euro  II  vehicles. 

free 

to 

3.2.4.  Moreover,  in  order  to  encourage  Member  States  to  rely  more  on  use-
related  charges,  it  is  proposed  that  Member  States  may  impose  lower 
vehicle  taxes  than  the  minimum  rates,  provided  that  they  introduce  or 
have  in  place  user  charge  systems.  As  it  is  also  proposed  [Article  7(6)] 
to  introduce  minimum  rates  in  the  user  charge  system,  this  proposal 
ensures  that  Member  States  will  continue  to  be  able  to  recover 
infrastructure  costs  in  a balanced  way,  whilst  moving  towards  a  system 
that  further  harmonises  the  conditions  of  competition  in  the  internal 
market. 

(c)  User  charges  and  tolls  (Article  7) 

3.2.5.  As  user charges are only  aimed  at covering the average costs of the road 
network  they  will  not  cover  the  costs  of  specific  expensive  pieces  of 
infrastructure,  such  as  tunnels,  bridges,  mountain  passes  or  sensitive 
routes.  This  provision  therefore  allows  for  the  application  of  both 
instruments  in  these  special  cases  [Article  7(3)]. 

17  10% between  each  category.  (1.10  x  1.10  =  1.21,  i.e.  21%). 

16 

3.2.6. 

3.2.7. 

The  maximum  permitted  levels  of  user  charges  will  allow  a  reasonable 
recovery  of infrastructure  costs (if fuel  excise duty  and vehicle taxes  are 
taken  into  account)  and  an  element  of  charging  for  externaTcosts.  The 
maximum  infrastructure  component  will  be  1600  ecu  and  the  external 
component  400  ecu.  It  is  proposed  that  the  infrastructure  component  is 
differentiated  according  to three damage  classes based  on the  difference 
in  infrastructure  costs  due  to  these  classes.  The  external  component  is 
differentiated  according to the weighted  emission limits laid  down in the 
type  approval  of the  engine.  These  changes will  result  in  a much  fairer 
system  of  charging  and  mean  that  weighted  average  charges  will  only 
increase  from  1 020 to  1 258  ecu  per vehicle year  [Article  7(6)]. 

In order to further  harmonise the conditions of competition  and to ensure 
that  Member  States  wishing  to  reduce  annual  vehicle  taxes,  maintain  a 
system which  ensures that infrastructure  costs are appropriately  charged, 
it  is  proposed  to  introduce  minimum  rates  in  the  user  charge  system. 
These  rates  are  50%  of  the  maximum  rates.  These  minimum  levels 
roughly correspond to the current minimum levels for vehicle taxes. This 
ensures  that,  if  Member  States  decide  to  fully  phase  out  annual  vehicle 
taxes  when  introducing  user  charges,  the  harmonisation  of  the  full 
incidence  of  transport  fiscality  (charges  and  taxes)  is  strengthened  and 
not weakened  [Article  7(6)]. 

3.2.8. 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  conditions  of  competition  in  the  internal 
market are harmonised  and that incentives influencing  vehicle  ownership 
decisions  are  streamlined  it  is  furthermore  proposed  to  make  the 
differentiation  compulsory  at  any  level  of  user  charge  [Article  7(6)]. 

3.2.9.  Directive 93/89/EEC  laid down  maximum  annual  levels for user  charges. 
Member  States were required  to set user  charge rates in proportion  to the 
the  duration  of the use made of the infrastructure,  but  no rates or  periods 
were specified.  User charges are intended to reflect the actual  cost of road 
construction  and  use,  and  it  follows  that  the  charges  should  be  more 
closely  related  to  actual  vehicle  use.  However,  annual  charges  do  not 
provide  suitable  signals  for  road  users  because  once  the  cost  has  been 
sunk,  the user  has  no incentive  to reduce  road  use  and  indeed  they  have 
the effect  of making the cost per kilometre lower  the  more the vehicle  is 
driven.  Therefore  the  proposal  requires Member  States to  offer  shorter 
period  charges  which  are  more  closely  related  to  actual  road  usage  by 
defining  the  maximum  ratios  between  the  charges  for  daily,  weekly, 
monthly  and  annual periods. This should  encourage operators to pay  user 
charges  more  closely  related  to  their  use  of  the  infrastructure  [Article 
7(7)] 

3.2.10.  The  proposal  recognizes  that  some  Member  States  use  tolls,  rather  than 
user charges, to charge for the use of motorways. It is important that tolls 
are  set  in  a fair  and  transparent  way  and,  like  user  charges,  may  not  be 
used to exploit  a monopolistic  position.  However,  specific  infrastructure 
elements can have widely  differing  costs and therefore  the Directive  does 
not  attempt  to  determine  maximum  toll  levels  because  this  could 
discourage  the  development  of  expensive  but  desirable  infrastructure. 
Instead  it  seeks  to  ensure  that  toll  charges  are  set  at  a level  sufficient  to 
recover  actual  costs  including  a  satisfactory  i-eturn  on  the  investment 
[Article  7(8)]. 

17 

Article 7(8) ensures that Member  States can fully  recover the capital  costs 
of  any  individual  part  of  their  infrastructure  network  on  which  tolls  are 
levied.  Given the fact  that  expenditures  on infrastructure  have  a  different 
time  profile  from  infrastructure  capital  costs,  this  provision  implies  that 
Member  States  can  use  toll  revenues  from  any  specific  infrastructure  in 
excess of expenditures  on it for  other purposes, for  example for  financing 
investment  needs  that  arise  elsewhere  in  the  infrastructure  network. 

3.2.11.  To  ensure  compatibility  between  user  charges  and  tolls,  the  Directive 
makes  provision  for  the  possibility  of  including  a  specific  external  cost 
component  of  up  to  0.03  ecu/km  in  toll  charges.  This  figure  is  not 
intended  to  correspond  to  the  external  cost  on  a  specific  section  of 
motorway  but  is  intended  to  set  a  cap  on  these  charges  at  a  level  which 
does  not  exceed  the  overall  external  costs  caused  by  road  transport 
[Article  7(8)]. 

(d) 

Sensitive  routes  [Article  7(9)  and  (10)  and  Article  9] 

3.2.12.  It  is  clear  that  the  costs  of  the  provision  of  infrastructure  and  its use  are 
not  the  same  everywhere  in  the  Community.  In  most  parts  of  the 
Community  costs  are  not  likely  to  vary  greatly,  but  it  does  need  to  be 
recognized  that in  some areas these costs can be dramatically  greater than 
the  average.  This might  be the  case in  an  area which  is  environmentally 
very  delicate,  or  where  there  are  serious  congestion  problems. 

traffic  on 

is  congested  and/or  whether 

3.2.13.  Therefore  the  proposal  makes  provision  for  the  definition  of  sensitive 
routes in such areas. The definition  of sensitive routes should be based on 
the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  9:  criteria  used  for  determining  that  a 
motorway 
it  contributes 
significantly  to  poor  air  quality  and  /  or  noise  standards  being  exceeded 
in the area. Furthermore,  certain  supplementary  conditions will have to be 
met,  notably  that  other  transport  modes  in  the  area  can  provide  an 
adequate  service,  implying  open  and  non-discriminatory  access  to 
infrastructure  for  authorized  Community  enterprises,  and  that  relevant 
measures  have been  taken  to  combat  air  pollution  from  all  other  sources 
as  well.  Also,  a justification  for  the  charges  proposed  will  have  to  be 
given  including  a description  of:  the  method  and calculation,  which  have 
been  used  to  set  the  rates;  the  organization  of  other  modes  of  transport 
within the area; measures taken to reduce the relevant  external  costs  from 
all road users in the area and measures taken to combat  air pollution  from 
all  sources in  the  area. 

3.2.14.  Given  that  the  basic  user  charge  is  intended  to  make  a  contribution 
towards  coverage  of  only  the  average  external  costs  over  the  whole 
network,  on  sensitive  routes where  external  costs  are  exceptionally  high, 
their  recovery  through  an additional  charge is justified.  Accordingly  it is 
proposed  that  on  these  sensitive  routes,  whichever  charging  system  a 
Member  State uses, it will be able to charge tolls to recover  infrastructure 
costs  and,  in  addition,  external  costs  of up  to  0.5  ecu  per  kilometre.  The 
actual 
level  of  charges  must  be  determined  by  sound  economic 
justification.  A  Member  State  will  be  free  to  choose  whether  it  recovers 
these  tolls  on  sensitive  routes  through  a  tolling  system  to  collect  the 
charges or through  user charges.  Such  user  charges would  be valid  for 
a  day  and  would  allow  passage  through  the  specified  sensitive  routes  in 
a Member  State. The price  of  daily  user charges must be based  on sound 
economic argument and may in no circumstances be above  15 ecu per day 

3.2.15.  Because  this  proposal  acknowledges  the  existence  of  sensitive  routes, 
including  congested  corridors,  Article  10(c)  in  Directive_93/89/EEC 
("regulatory  charges  specifically  designed 
time  and 
space-related  traffic  congestion")  is already  covered  in  Article  7 and  has 
therefore  been  deleted.  This means that the proposal  seeks to  encourage 
the use of highly  differentiated  congestion  pricing while at the same time 
incorporating  interurban  congestion  pricing within the framework  of tolls 
and user  charges. The pricing of urban traffic  is still unregulated  (Article 
11(b))  as in  Directive  93/89/EEC. 

to  combat 

3.3.  The  legal  basis  for  the  proposal 

The Commission  proposes to adopt the present proposal  on the basis of Article 75 
of  the  EC  Treaty  which  is  the  relevant  provision  for  the  Council  to  adopt  any 
measures  (including measures  involving fiscal  instruments) aiming  at  establishing 
a  common  transport  policy  which  includes  the  elimination  of  the  distortion  of 
competition  among  Community  hauliers. 

3.4.  Examination  of  the  impacts 

3.4.1.  Effects  on  heavy  goods  vehicles  (HGV)  fleet  composition 

3.4.1.1.  The  mandatory  differentiation  in  both  vehicle  taxes  and  user 
charges  is  likely  to  affect  the  composition  of  the  heavy  goods 
vehicles fleet  in the  Community  as a whole.  It will  mean  lower 
charges  for  vehicles  causing  less  damage 
to  the  road  or  the 
environment,  in  any  weight  category.  Some  examples  of  the 
resulting  differences  in  charges  between  different  vehicle  types 
are shown in Annex  1.  It can be seen that an additional  axle on 
a 40 tonne vehicle  could result  in a saving of up to 5400 ecu  in 
the  present  value  of  the  charges  over  the  vehicle  life18.  For  a 
haulier  using  a 40 tonne  heavy  goods vehicle  the  present  value 
of  the  savings  for  the  most  road  friendly  configuration  (3+3 
axle)  with  air  suspension 
is  9300  ecu  compared  to  the  most 
damaging  configuration  (2+3 axle) without  air  suspension.  As a 
result  of  the  differentiation  of  charges  by  emission  category,  a 
saving  of  almost  3 000  ecu  is  possible  for  a Euro  II  equivalent 
of  a Euro  I vehicle  (3+2  axle  air  suspension  ). 

3.4.1.2.  The savings in charges resulting from  this proposal  are expected 
to  provide  incentives  for  hauliers  to  invest  in  new  equipment19 
which  will  lead  to  a  reduction  in  the  overall  damage  and 
therefore  cost  to  infrastructure  and  the  environment  in  the 
Community.  Similar  changes  in  the  heavy  goods  vehicle  tax 
structure  in the USA were analysed  in the study  "Road  Work"20 
which  can  provide  an  indication  of  the  likely  changes  in  fleet 
composition  which  would  result  from  the  present  proposal.  In 
that  study  charges were assumed  to be distance based and it was 
predicted  that  as  a  result  there  would  be  an  increase  in  the 
number  of road friendly  vehicles as well  as a fall  in the  distance 
travelled  by  the  most  road  damaging  categories. 

18  Compared  to  a possible  saving  of  2 400  ecu  in  Directive  93/89/EEC. 
19  This could  mean  a "cleaner" vehicle, a vehicle with more axles or simply the  addition 

of  an  extra  axle to  an  existing  vehicle. 

20  Small,  Winston  and  Evans,  Washington,  1989. 

19 

3.4.1.3.  Because  of  the  economic  incentives  provided  by  the  proposed 
charging  system,  operators  are likely  to adapt their behaviour  to 
best  suit  their  particular  situation.  The  dynamic  effects  of 
changed taxes and charges should not be neglected: although  the 
changes in the short term are not expected  to be significant,  over 
a  number  of  years  vehicle  fleets  should  become  progressively 
less damaging. Certainly some changes in hauliers' behaviour can 
be  expected  to  "escape"  the  proposed  charges  and  taxes,  and  if 
that is taken into account, then  the average increase in costs will 
be  less.  Throughout  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  these  changes 
have been taken into account in a scenario, supplementary  to the 
base case, in which assumptions have been made about  hauliers' 
behaviour,  a  so-called  "market  reactions"  scenario. 

3.4.1.4.  At  the  end  of  1995  there  were  approximately  2  million  heavy 
goods vehicles above  12 tonnes gross vehicle weight  registered 
in  the  Community21.  The  estimated  changes  in  the  fleet  during 
one  year  are  an  introduction  of  7.5%  of  new  vehicles,  and 
scrapping of 4.5% of the stock resulting in a growth  in the  stock 
of  3%.  Euro  II vehicles will  be  compulsory  from  October  1996 
so the proposed differentiation  will only affect  the scrapping rate 
and  the  use  of  vehicles  that  pay  a  user  charge.  The  Euro  III  is 
assumed  to  be  compulsory  from  2001.  The  estimated  vehicle 
composition  in  1998  and in  2005 with the above changes in the 
fleet,  is  presented  in  the  table  below  as  the  "base  case".  If  the 
scrapping  rate  of  vehicles  in  damage  class  III  is  doubled  from 
1997  compared  to  the  baseline  and  no  new  damage  class  III 
vehicles  are  sold  from  1997  onwards,  the  fleet  composition  is 
presented  in the table below  in  the  "market  reactions"  scenario. 
The  right  hand  column  shows  the  composition  estimates  if 
the  new  Directive  will 
to 
for  vehicles  meeting 
of 
include  differentiation 
Euro  III  standards22. 

be 
charges 

subsequently 

amended 

3.4.1.5.  On  the  basis  of  the  fleet  composition  estimates  shown  in  the 
table below  a weighted  average user  charge  has been  calculated 
for  each  scenario. For  1998, the  year  of  the  expected  entry  into 
force  of  the  new  Directive,  this  level  is  at  1 258  ecu  as 
compared  to  a  current  weighted  average  of  1  020  ecu; 
this 
shows  an  increase  of  23%.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  all 
other  scenarios  in  the  table  below  average  user  charges  are 
estimated  to  be  lower,  which  indicates  the  lower  infrastructure 
and  environmental  costs  expected  as  a  consequence  of  the 
proposed  pricing  measures. 

21  Estimate  by  the  Commission  services. 
22  New standards, called here Euro III, concerning tailpipe emissions from  road vehicles, are 
expected  to  be  the  subject  of  a  new  Commission  proposal  by  the  end  of  1996. 
The  emission  limit values  likely  to be proposed  are based  on the results  of the  so-called 
Auto/Oil  Programme.  This  is  a  cooperative  programme  set  up  jointly  by 
the 
European  Commission  and the European automotive and oil industries to examine  engine 
technology,  fuel  quality  and  air  quality  in  view  of  formulating  options  for  reducing 
pollutant  emissions  from  vehicles. 

20 

Table 5 

E. U.  Fleet  composition  and  average user  charge 

Base  case 

Market  reactions  scenario 

1998 

2005 

1998 

2005 

2005  + EIII 

Proportion  of  vehicle  stock  per  damage  class  (%) 

Damage  Class I 

Damage  Class  II 

Damage  Class  III 

Non  Euro 

Euro  I 

Euro  II 

Euro  III  (from  2000) 

53 

30 

17 

70 

19 

11 

0 

53 

30 

17 

55 

31 

14 

61 

36 

3 

Proportion  of  vehicle  stock  per  environmental  class  (%) 

30 

15 

20 

34 

70 

19 

11 

0 

30  * 

15 * 

20  * 

34  * 

Average  user  charge  (ecu  per  year) 

61 

36 

3 

30  * 

15 * 

8  * 

46  * 

Average  User  Charge 

1258 

1130 

1243 

1026 

j 

1014 

*  Possible effects  of the pricing changes on the early retirement of non-Euro vehicles have 

not been taken  into account. 

COST  BREAKDOWN 

20.0 

400 

60.0 

80.0 

*00.0 

1200 

140.0 

ie 

'000  ecu/year 

I Fuel c oris umption 

g  Maintenance 

Depreciation&mterest g Labour Costs 

ss Overheads 

Insurani-R 

_  Mntnnw av  Tnll 

, FURTWIONFTTF 

«VRhirlR  TSXRS 

21 

3.4.2.  Impact  on  transport  costs 

3.4.2.1.  An  indicative  breakdown  of  the  cost  components  fof  the  road 
haulage  industry  is  shown  in  the  bar  chart  above23.  This  shows 
an approximate 50% overall variation in annual operating costs of 
a lorry from  the different  Member  states with,on  average, vehicle 
taxes constituting  around  3%  and fuel  excise duty  10%  or more 
of  total  operating  costs.  It  can  be  seen  that  the  contribution  to 
cost  of  the  average user  charge  is  small  as a proportion  of  total 
operating costs and also in comparison with other charges such as 
fuel  or tolls. 

3.4.2.2.  For  the  case  of  a  haulier  in  a  Member  State  which  operates  a 
user charge system, and who chooses to pay  a full  annual  charge, 
the  maximum  increase  will  be just  over  0.5%  of  total  operating 
costs24.  In addition those  States may  offset  some of this  increase 
through  changes  to  annual  vehicle  taxes.  However,  the  average 
increase  in  the  user  charge  will  only  be  one  third  of  this  most 
extreme case25 and, consequently,  the operating  cost will  increase 
by  just  under  0.2%. 

3.4.2.3.  Hauliers  from  non-user  charge  countries  will  typically  buy  daily 
and  weekly  user  charges.  The  current  proposal  specifies  the 
relationship between the different  types of user charge. The  effect 
of  this  is  that  while  it  is  proposed  that  the  absolute  maximum 
annual  charge  should  be  increased  by  60%,26  the  increase  in  the 
equivalent  maximum,  daily  user  charge  would  be  only  some 
33%27. As a result, operating cost increases for hauliers from  non-
user charge countries are likely to be substantially  lower than the 
above  mentioned  increases.  In  fact,  they  are  more  likely  to  be 
closer  to  an  average  of  0.1%. 

3.4.2.4.  The introduction  of  an  external  cost  component  in  the toll  levels 
can  increase  the  average  toll  by  some  25%28  at  the  maximum.In 
Member  States that use tolls instead of user charges the maximum 
increase  in  transport  costs  can  be  estimated  at  0.75%29. 

23  Breakdown  of  cost  structures  of  transport  undertakings.  Mercer  management  consulting 

May  1993. 

25 

24  For  the  worst  case  of  a  damage  class  III,  non-Euro  truck  the  user  charge  will  increase 
from  1 250  ecu  to  2  000  ecu,  i.e.  750  ecu.  This  user  charge  increase  divided  by  an 
average  annual  cost  of  about  130 000  ecu  gives  an  annual  increase  in  transport  costs  of 
just  over  0.5%. 
The weighted  average  increase  will  be  1 258 -  1 020 =  238  ecu, which  is just  under  one 
third  of  the  maximum  increase  of  ECU  750. 
That  is the  difference  between  the proposed  rate of  2 000  ecu  and  the  current  maximum 
of  1 250  ecu. 
The proposed  daily  rate is  1/250  of the annual  2 000 ecu, i.e.  8 ecu, whereas the currently 
applied  one  is  6  ecu. 
This  is the  increase  of  0.03  ecu/km  on  an  average toll  level  of  0.12ecu/km. 
This is the 25% of the 3% contribution to operating costs that tolls are estimated to  make. 

27 

28 

29 

26 

22 

3.4.2.5.  The introduction  of  a sensitive route charge can lead to a varying 
increase  in  the  operating  costs  of  hauliers  depending  on  their 
cost  structure and the length of the journeys involved.  So, the cost 
of  a  long  distance  journey  of  750  km,  including  one  daily 
payment,  for  an  average  cost  haulier  may  increase  by  1.5%  . 
In the  case  where  a  sensitive  route  charge  is  paid  every  day  the 
operating cost could increase by  3%31.  For a shorter journey  with 
a low cost vehicle the sensitive route charge can be up to 5%32 of 
the  operating  cost. 

3.4.3.  Impact  on  demand  for  road  transport  and  modal  shift 

3.4.3.1.  To examine the likely impact of the proposal  on transport  demand 
and  modal  shift  calculations  have  been  performed  for  the  base 
case  and 
reactions  scenarios  using  estimated 
elasticities.  The effect  of  only the user  charge as well  as both  the 
user  charge  and  the  charge  on  sensitive  routes  have  been 
examined.  In the latter case the most extreme assumption  of daily 
use  of  a  sensitive route  has been  used. 

the  market 

3.4.3.2.  The effect  of  the proposal  will  in  general  be  limited.  In the  base 
case  the  overall  traffic  volume  in  year  2005  will  be  reduced  by 
less than  1%.  If  the  market  reactions  of  the  haulier  industry  are 
taken  into  account,  the  level  of traffic  will  be unchanged  as it is 
assumed  that  the  haulier  industry  will  react  with  a  new  fleet 
composition  that  will  offset  the  price  effect  of  the  proposal. 

3.4.3.3.  For  vehicles  making  regular  journeys  through  a  sensitive  route, 
the  effect  of  charging  at  15  ecu  a  day 
is  expected  to  be  a 
reduction  in traffic  volume  of  1.5%.  If the special  user  charge is 
undifferentiated  between  vehicle  types,  it  is  impossible  to  offset 
the  price  increase  with  a  changed  vehicle  composition  and  the 
traffic  volumes  are  the  same  in  the  scenario  "market  reactions". 
However,  each  Member  State  can  differentiate  the  special  user 
charge to take  into  account  local  conditions. 

3.4.3.4.  However,the supplementary  condition requiring the availability of 
adequate  quality  of  service provided  by  other transport  modes,  is 
expected  to  lead  to  a more  significant  modal  shift 
than  implied 
by  these  calculations. 

3.4.3.5.  Finally,  even if the overall reduction  in demand for road transport 
would be  small,  transport will  be increasingly  performed  by  less 
damaging  vehicles. 

30 

31 

32 

This  is  based  on  the  assumption  of  an  average  operating  cost  of  130  000  ecu  and  an 
average  annual  distance  travelled  of  100  000  km  giving  a  cost  of  1.3ecu/km.  The 
operating  cost  therefore  for  the  750  km  is  assumed  to  be  975  ecu.  The  daily  sensitive 
charge  of  15 ecu  represents  1.5%  of the  cost  of  this  750-km journey. 
For  250 transport  days  at  15 ecu per  day  the annual  increase  will  be  3 750  ecu,  equal  to 
3%  of the  annual  operating  cost,  assumed  to be  130  000  ecu. 
For example  for  a 300-km journey  of a haulier  having  an operating  cost of  1 ecu/km  the 
cost  of this journey  will  be  only  300  ecu; the  15 ecu maximum  daily  charge  would  then 
represent  5%  of the  costs. 

23 

3.4.4.  Impact  on  the  price  of  goods 

3.4.4.1.  For  most  industrial  branches,  road  transport  costs "are  a  small 
percentage  of  production  costs,  but there  are  studies which  show 
that  for  some  companies  transport  costs  can  be  significantly 
higher  than  the  average.  Annex  2  shows  how  increases  in 
transport  costs  would  affect  the  price  of  the  final  output33.  An 
increase  in  road  transport  cost  by  100  percent  would  increase 
production  costs for  most  products  between  1 and  8 percent.  On 
average  it  would  imply  a  cost  increase  by  4  percent  with  the 
highest  proportion  in  the  mineral  and  cement  industries.  The 
estimated  snares in  each  branch  based  on the  input-output  tables 
from  Eurostat  are presented  in  Annex  2. 

3.4.4.2.  For the  standard  user charge it  has been  shown that the weighted 
average  increase  in  user  charges  is  some  23%. This  increase  is 
equivalent  to  some  0.2%  of  a  hauliers  vehicle  costs  as  was 
estimated  in  paragraph  3.4.2.2.  For the  average  good,  with  a 4% 
road  haulage  component  in  its  price,  this  will  equate  to  an 
increase  in  product  price  of  some  0.01%  an  effect  which  would 
be  almost  unnoticeable  in  comparison  with  exchange  rate 
variations,  fuel  price  fluctuation  and  inflation. 

3.4.4.3.  In  the  most  extreme  case  where  the  goods  have  an  8%  road 
transport  component  in  their  price,  and  a  low  cost  haulier 
operating a damage class III, non-Euro truck has to pay an annual 
user  charge,  the  haulier's  operating  costs  will  increase  by  some 
1%.  This  will  result  in  an increase  in the  product  price  of  some 
0.08%.  However, because the charges will have a direct effect  on 
hauliers,  the  proposal  will  have  a  significantly  greater  effect  on 
transport  behaviour  than  the  price  effect  on  goods would  imply. 

3.4.4.4.  The  charge  for  sensitive  routes  is  of  greater  magnitude  than  the 
standard user charge and has a correspondingly  greater impact on 
demand.  If the effect  described  in  paragraph  3.4.2.5  is taken  as 
fairly  typical  then  the  result  is  almost  a  1.5%  increase  in 
operating  costs.  For  an  average  good  this  will  equate  to  an 
increase  in  product  price  of  some  0.06%  under  the  assumption 
that  not  only  transport  services  provided  directly  for  the  various 
industries but also those for their  suppliers take place on  sensitive 
routes  to  a  similar  degree.  The  theoretically  worst  case  will  be 
where  a haulier  operates  all the time on a sensitive route.  In that 
case  his  operating  costs  would  increase  by  some  3%.  If  in 
addition  all  indirect  supplies to the various branches  face  such  a 
cost  increase,  this would  equate  to  a  price  increase  of  0.12%  on 
average  (not  in  table). 

33  This  estimate  takes  into  account  both  the  hire  and  reward  and  the  own  account  transport 

sector  costs. 

24 

3.4.4.5.  An  analysis  of the price  impacts  for  54 product  sectors  has been 
performed34. The results,  presented in Annex 2, showjhat with no 
redistribution  of  revenues  average  overall  prices  would  increase 
by only 0.008%  as a result of the proposed user charge increases, 
and  by  0.061%  with  the  proposed  user  and  sensitive  route 
charges. The worst hit sector (minerals and derived products) will 
face  a price  increase  of  less than 0.13%. 

3.4.4.6.  Moreover,  if  revenues from  user charges are used to alleviate the 
burden of other taxes (e.g. social  security contributions or income 
taxes) on industry, the pattern of the impact changes  substantially. 
As an  example  estimates  of the  sectoral  impact  of  a reduction  in 
social  security  contributions have been made in Annex 2.  Service 
industries  will  in  general  be  better  off,  with  prices  falling  by  up 
to 0.13%.  For the worst impacted  sector under the sensitive  route 
scenario (again minerals and derived products), the price increase 
is  estimated  at  0.10%. 

3.4.5.  Savings  in  road  infrastructure  costs  and  emissions. 

3.4.5.1.  Due  to  the  economic  incentives  provided  by  the  proposed 
charging  system  substantial  reductions  in  external  costs  can  be 
expected.  On  the  basis  of  the  impact  estimates  on  fleet 
composition,  road  transport  demand  and  modal  shift,  reductions 
in both  road  damage and emissions  on  sensitive routes as a result 
of  the  differentiation  and  the  proposed  rates  of  user  charges  can 
be  estimated. 

3.4.5.2.  Accordingly, with regard to infrastructure  costs attributed to HGV 
and  estimated  as described  earlier  in  §2.2.5.7,  annual  savings  for 
the  market  reactions  scenario  in  year  2005  have  been  estimated 
to  be  approximately  1.6  billion  ecu 
in  the  Member  States  that 
currently  have or plan to introduce user charges35. This represents 
a  13%  reduction,  compared  to  the  base  case36.  Almost  all  of 
the  savings  are  a  result  of  changed  fleet  composition.  The 
effect  of  modal  shift  is  not  significant.  Indicatively,  if  the  same 
effect  could  be  produced  throughout  the  Union  ,  a  saving  of 
4  billion  ecu  could  be  expected.  A  reduced  need  for  road 
maintenance work in the Union will reduce negative  consequences 
of  road  work,  notably  congestion  and traffic  accidents. 

34  Based  on  a change  in  transport  price  of 0.6% with  user charge  or tolls only  and 2% with 

sensitive  route  charges. 

35  B,  DK,  D,  L,  N  and  S.  The  estimates  exclude  A. 
36  Vehicle  stock as in chapter  3.4.1,  infrastructure  costs based on an average of 0.15  ecu/km 
differentiated  on vehicle types with  the same damage factors  and  cost allocation  as in the 
tax  structure  of  Directive  93/89/EEC. 
Either  through  a generalized  use  of  user  charges  or through  an  equivalent  adjustment  of 
toll  rates. 

37 

25 

3.4.5.3.  With  regard  to  emissions,  as  the  Directive  does  not  include  any 
incentives  to  introduce  new  technology  for  the  moment,  the 
emissions  are  unchanged  between  the  scenarios  with  market 
reactions  and  the base  case.  However,  thanks  to  the  compulsory 
standards the emissions  are likely  to be reduced  by up to  15% in 
year 200538compared to year  1996. The  emissions  can be  further 
reduced  by 3% in year 2005  if incentives  are given  for  purchase 
of  so  called  Euro  III  vehicles  before  they  are  mandatory  and  if 
a  shift  towards  Euro  III  vehicles  can  start  two  years  earlier 
in  1999. 

3.4.5.4.  In  addition,  in  an  area  where  a  charge  for  sensitive  routes  is 
levied the emissions are likely to be reduced  by up to  1.5%  extra 
on  average  in  year  2005.  Some  routes  may  experience  a  much 
larger  reduction  in  the  emissions.  If  Member  States  introduce 
incentives  towards use  of  cleaner  vehicles  in  the  sensitive  route 
charges,  then  substantial  reductions  can  be  achieved. 

3.4.6.  Revenues  from  charges 

3.4.6.1.  The  estimated  revenues  from  the  application  of  user  charges  on 
HGV are presented  in the table below  for  the base  case  and  the 
market  reactions  scenarios  in  1998  and  2005.  The  underlying 
assumption  is  that  the  vehicle  mix  in  the  fleet  composition 
described  in  §  3.4.1  is  representative  of  the  vehicles  paying 
user  charges. 

3.4.6.2.  As  can  be  seen  in the table,  the  likely  revenue  increase  in  1998 
when  the  new  Directive  and  the  proposed  user  charge  rates  will 
be  applicable  compared  to the  estimated  revenue  in  that  year  on 
the  basis  of  current  user  charge  levels  is  approximately  23%. 
Given that the revenue estimates have not taken  into account  the 
effect  of a possible shift towards shorter duration user charges, the 
increases in revenues in the two scenarios and years coincide with 
the  increases  in  the  weighted  average  of  the  levels  of  the  user 
charges,  shown  in  the table  in  §  3.4.1. 

Table  6 

Revenues  from  user  charges  in  Member  States  that  apply  or 
plan  to  introduce  User  Charge 

Model  estimates 

in  million  ecu 

Base  Case 

Market  reactions 

Directive  93/89/EEC 

Proposal 
Compared  to 
Directive  93/89/EEC 

1998 

878 
1  079 
23% 

2005 

1  100 
1 221 
11% 

1998 

. 

1  071 
22% 

2005 

. 

1  110 
1% 

38  Reduced  emissions  from  HGV  based  on  the  following  difference 
non-Euro  =  180, Euro  I =  100, Euro  II =  75  and  "Euro  III" =  50. 

in  emissions; 

26 

3.4.6.3.  Given  that  as mentioned  in  § 3.4.5.2.  infrastructure costs  are 
in  the 
likely  to  be  reduced  by  approximately  1.6  billion  ecu 
scenario  with  market  reactions,  it  can  be  claimed  that  the 
budgetary  benefit 
(equal  to  the  saving  of  1.6  becu  and  the 
revenue  of  1.1  becu)  from  the  proposal  in  the  market  reaction 
scenario  will  be  2.7  billion  ecu  in  year  2005  compared  to  the 
1.1 billion  ecu  (shown  in  italics)  if  the Directive  93/89/EEC  is 
left  unchanged. 

3.4.6.4.  As a base scenario, where other taxes are unchanged, the revenues 
from  user charges, vehicle taxes and tolls can be estimated to be 
some 36.3 billion ecu in  1998. The changes now being proposed 
would result in this figure increasing to 37.0 billion ecu if all toll 
roads add an external cost component on the charge. The increase 
will be 0.7 billion ecu or 2% of the revenues. No sensitive routes 
are included in the estimate. 

Table 7 

Estimated  revenues in 1998 

Fuel  excise  duty 

Vehicle  tax 

Tolls 

Dir  93/89/EEC 
Proposal 

28 
28 

5.3 
5.3 

2.1 
2.6 

in billion ecu 

User 
Charges 
0.88 
1.08 

Total 

36.3 
37 

j 

Based  on an annual  increase of 3.5%  on the vehicle  stock of  1995. 

3.4.7.  Effect  on  competitiveness 

3.4.7.1.  Transport,  and  in  particular  road  transport,  is  an  important  factor 
contributing to the competitiveness of industry, not only because it 
enters into the cost structure of practically  all industrial  sectors but 
also because it has a direct impact on the reliabilty  and quality39 of 
product  deliveries  both  at  the  input  and  the  output  phases  of  the 
industrial process. An efficient  transport  system should be able to 
provide the required  level  of  service at the lowest  cost to  society. 
On the contrary, the opposite is to be expected  from  an  inefficient 
transport  system  which,  in  the  final  analysis,  is  synonymous  to 
badly managed and wasted resources. This waste can take the form 
of  unnecessary  road  damage,  underutilization  of  some  parts  of 
infrastructure  and  overutilization  of  others,  excessive  damage  to 
natural  resources and  unnecessary delays. 

39  Time and other conditions. 

27 

3.4.7.2.  However, waste has a price. An efficient  charging system, where 
charges  on users are close to  the costs40  they  arejesponsible 
for, is expected to reduce waste and thereby improve the overall 
efficiency  of the transport  system. The benefits  to the industry 
and its competitiveness from  an efficient 
transport  system  are 
expected  to  outweigh  the  disadvantage  from  possible  higher 
transport prices. 

3.4.7.3.  In  chapter  3.4.4 the changed  price structure was analysed both 
in a situation where the  revenues from the proposed charges are 
not  reimbursed  and  in  a  situation  where  the  revenues  are 
returned  to the  industry.  In  the  latter  case the  average  cost  is 
unchanged  for  the  industry  as  a whole but  the  cost  burden  is 
allocated to the branches which use more road transport. In other 
words,  the  results  of  the  proposed  changes will  be  in  general 
neutral or positive and only for the heaviest road users will there 
be any  significant  increase in costs. 

3.4.7.4.  Furthermore,  the  expected  more  rational  utilization  of  the 
infrastructure  would lead to reduced delays from  congestion as 
well, as less  road  repair  and  maintenance works  as a  result  of 
less  damaging  vehicle  configurations.  The  benefits  from 
transport  time  gains  anticipated  are  expected  to  benefit  the 
competitiveness of the European industry. 

3.4.7.5.  Finally, the emphasis given in  this proposal  to more territorial 
charges, that is the user charges and the tolls, and away from the 
least territorial ones, much as vehicle taxes, is expected to have 
a positive impact on the position of the Community road haulage 
industry with regard to competition from  third country hauliers. 
Possible  negative  reactions  from  the  latter  would  have  to  be 
dealt with in the framework  of existing agreements, in the light 
of reciprocity and non discrimination.  Also, due to the territorial 
character  of 
related 
competitiveness of goods produced inside  the Community is not 
likely to be  affected. 

the  charges  proposed, 

the  price 

3.4.8.  Location, concentration  of production  and geographic cohesion 

3.4.8.1.  Changes  in  transportation  costs  have  in  the  longer  term  an 
effect  on the location  and concentration  of production.  This is 
why  it  is  essential  that  the  process  of  adjustment  toward  full 
recovery  of costs is gradual.As already  shown in chapters 3.4.2 
and  3.4.4  the  effects  of  the  proposal  on  transport  costs  and 
product prices are both limited and diverse, depending on certain 
characteristics of the industrial sectors examined. Consequently, 
whether the end result will be a concentration of production or, 
on the  contrary,  a  decentralization  will  depend  on the  specific 
characteristics of each particular  industrial  sector. 

40  Including  the  costs  of  wasted  resources  so  far  been  borne  by  others  or  the  society  as 

a whole. 

28 

3.4.8.2.  The  proposal  aims  to  ensure  that  there  is  a  better  linkage 
between  charges  for  road  use  and  the  level  of  use.  It  is 
inevitable that a policy  of relating charges more directly  to use 
will have a greater impact on costs where greater use is made of 
the roads.  As a general rule, this will be reflected  in a greater 
increase  in the  prices  of  goods the  greater  the  distance  which 
those goods must travel.. 

3.4.8.3.  However, compared to short distance distribution, long distance 
road transport usually has greater possibilities of  substitution by 
other modes of transport.  It is therefore  possible that  some of 
the transport costs could be offset  through  a modal change. 

3.4.8.4.  Furthermore,  as  indicated  in  chapter  3.4.4  and  §  3.4.2.5,  the 
effects of the proposed charges on transport costs and on product 
prices  will  also  depend  on  the  cost  structure  of  transport 
operators and of  individual  products. In addition,  the  effects 
will  depend  on the routes used for  the transport  of the goods. 
For  example,  if  a  lorry  must  pass  through  a  sensitive  route 
which  is charged  at the maximum  level  of  15 ecu per  day the 
likely  additional  cost of a  Greece to Northern Europe journey 
would be around  1.5%.  On the contrary,  the likely  additional 
cost  of  a 200-km journey  through  the  same  region  would  be 
around 5%. 

3.4.8.5.  Both the user charges and the charges for  sensitive routes will 
impact  most heavily,  as a percentage  of  overall  transport  cost, 
in  the  region  in  which  they  are  applied.  This  is because  both 
would be imposed on all motorway journeys in those regions. 

3.4.8.6.  Finally,  because  of  the  relationship  set  between  the  different 
duration  user  charges,  there  is  no  longer  any  significant 
disbenefit  to hauliers who pay  shorter  period  user  charges41 as 
opposed to annual ones. 

3.4.8.7.  As a result  of  all  of  these factors,  the  effects  of  this proposal 
will  not be damaging  to  the cohesion  of the  Community.  In 
drawing up future  proposals for  introducing  a common  system 
of road charging, when appropriate, following the report on the 
implementation of the proposed Directive, the Commission will 
take account of the potential  impact  of measures on peripheral 
regions.  In  particular,  the  report  will  evaluate  the  possible 
regional  consequences  and  the  potential  spatial  impact  on 
production  structures both in the economy as a whole and with 
regard  to  SMEs  in  the  Union  that  may  result  from  a  move 
towards a more use based transport pricing system. 

41  Who are more likely to come from  peripheral Member States. 

29 

3.4.9.  Certification 

The additional  differentiation  which this proposal envisages will need to 
be easily and cheaply verified.  Details relating to the emission standards 
of lorries are not contained in their registration documents, nor do these 
documents  contain  any  detail  on  the  form  of  suspension  used. 
Commission  Regulation  3298/94  provides  for  a  unified  form  which 
certifies the level of NOx emissions from  lorries. Work is underway for 
amending  this  Regulation  to  include  in  the  aforementioned  form  the 
environmental  category  (Euro  I  or  II)  of  a  vehicle.  Checks  on  the 
appropriate level of  user charges  may then be quickly performed.  Since 
the damage category  depends  on the vehicle combination  used,  in case 
of  a  roadside  control,  it will  have  to  be  determined  on  the  basis  rr 
Annex 2 to the proposal. 

3.4.10.  Administrative  burden 

3.4.10.1.  A  certain 

in 

increase 

the  administrative  burden 

for 
Member  States' authorities as a result of the proposed changes 
the  increased 
in  the  charging  system  is  undeniable  due  to 
differentiation  in the charges and the incentives for the use of 
shorter  period  user  charges.  However,  this  increase  in 
administrative costs is expected to be very small relative to the 
overall  receipts  and  associated  benefits  in  terms  of  the 
objectives  of the exercise. 

3.4.10.2.  Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that the  process of 
paying user  charges  in  a  revised  charging  system  to be any 
more lengthy than with the existing system. In addition, while 
it  will  be  necessary  for  vehicles  to  carry  certification  that 
proves that the correct level of charge has been paid, obtaining 
this  certification  should  not  impose  a  significant  additional 
burden on haulage industry. 

30 

Levels of existing User Charges (Eurovignette) and proposed 
m a x i m um  User Charges 

Axles 

GVW 

Air suspension 

(ecu pa) 
Other 

A N N EX 1 

Truck 

Trailer 

lower 

upper 

2 

2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
. 3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 

12 

13 
14 
15 
15 
17 
19 
21 
23 
25 
23 
25 
27 
29 
31 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
23 
25 
26 
28 
29 
31 
33 
36 
36 
38 
36 
38 
40 
36 
38 
40 

13 
14 
15 
18 

Eurovig 
nette 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 

17 
19 
21 
23 
25 
26 
25 
27 
29 
31 
32 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
28 
25 
26 
28 
29 
31 
33 
36 
38 
38 
40 
38 
40 
44 
38 
40 
44 

nonEuro 

EI 

EII 

nonEuro 

EI 

EII 

750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
• 750 
1250 
1250 
750 
750 
1250 
1250 
1250 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
1250 
1250 
1750 
1750 
1250 
1750 
1250 
1750 
1750 
750 
1250 
1250 

1000 

850 

750 

1000 

850 

850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
1350 
1350 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
1350 
1350 
1350 
1350 
1350 
1350 
1350 
1850 
850 
850 
1350 

750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
1250 
1250 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
750 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1250 
1750 
750 
750 
1250 

1000 , 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1500 
1500 
1000 
1000 
1500 
1500 
1500 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1500 
1500 
2000 
2000 
1500 
2000 
1500 
2000 
2000 
1000 
1500 
1500 

850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
1350 
1350 
850 
850 
1350 
1350 
1350 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
1350 
1350 
1850 
1850 
1350 
1850 
1350 
1850 
1850 
850 
1350 
1350 

1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1500 
1500 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1000 
1500 
1500 
1500 
1500 
1500 
1500 
1500 
2000 
1000 
1000 
1500 

31 

Changes  in  User  Charges  - proposed  (maximum) levels compared  to the  Eurovignette 

Axles 

Truck 

Trailer 

GVW 
lower 

upper 

nonEuro 

(ecu pa) 

Air suspension 

Other suspension 

EI 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
-400 
-400 
-400 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
-400 
-400 
-400 
-400 
-400 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
600 
-400 
-400 
100 

EII 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-500 
-500 
-500 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-500 
-500 
-500 
-500 
-500 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
500 
-500 
-500 
0 

nonEuro 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
750 
750 
-250 
-250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
-250 
-250 
-250 
-250 
250 
250 
750 
750 
250 
750 
250 
750 
750 
-250 
250 
250 

EI 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
600 
600 
-400 
-400 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
-400 
-400 
-400 
-400 
100 
100 
600 
600 
100 
600 
100 
600 
600 
-400 
100 
100 

EII 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
500 
500 
-500 
-500 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-500 
-500 
-500 
-500 
0 
0 
500 
500 
0 
500 
0 
500 
500 
-500 
0 
0 

2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
• 3 
3 
3 
3 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 

12 
13 
14 
15 
15 
17 
19 
21 
23 
25 
23 
25 
27 
29 
31 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
23 
25 
26 
28 
29 
31 
33 
36 
36 
38 
36 
38 
40 
36 
38 
40 

13 
14 
15 
18 
17 
19 
21 

23 
25 
26 
25 
27 
29 
31 
32 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
28 
25 
26 
28 
29 
31 
33 
36 
38 
38 
40 
38 
40 
44 
38 
40 
44 

250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
-250 
-250 
-250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
-250 
-250 
-250 
-250 
-250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
750 
-250 
-250 
250 

32 

Road damage  differentiation 

Present value of  taxes and charges for  a 40t Euro II vehicle (8%, 10 years). 

Proposal 

Directive  89/93/EEC 

2+3  air 
2+3  ord 
3+2  air 
3+2  ord 
3+3  air 
3+3  ord 

11229 
J 5604 
10888 
15202 
6271 
10238 

, 

11826 
13065 
11417 
12583 
9883 
10626 

Environmental  differentiation 

ecu 
Changes 
% 
-5% 
19% 
-5% 
21% 
-37% 
-4% 

Present value of taxes and charges for  a 40t vehicle with air suspension  (8%, 10 years) 

Proposal 

Directive  89/93/EEC 

2+3air  EII 
2+3 air  EI 
3+2  air  EII 
3+2  air  EI 
3+3  air  EII 
3+3  air  EI 

11229 
12181 
10888 
13822 
6271 
7069 

11826 
11826 
11417 
11417 
9883 
9883 

ECU 
Changes 
% 
-5% 
,  +3% 
-5% 
+21% 
-37% 
-28% 

33 

Branch 

A" 

B 

C 

D 

E 

SSC  reimbursement 

Cost sensitivity 
to road 
transport price 
(%) 

User  Charge 

(% price  in 
crease) 

User charge  + 
Sensitive  route 
(% price  in 
crease) 

User  Charge 

(%  price  in 
crease) 

User  charge  + 
Sensitive  route 
(% price  in 
crease) 

ANNEX 2 

Agricultural forestry  and fishery products 
Coal and coal  briquettes 
Lignite  and lignite briquettes 
Products of  coking 
Crude petroleum 
Refined  petroleum  products 
Natural  gas 
Water 
Electric  power 
Manu-  factored  gases 
Steam, hot  water,  com- pressed  air 
Nuclear  fuels 
Iron  ore  and  ECSC  iron  and  steel  products 
Non-ECSC  iron  and  steel  products 
Non-ferrous  metal  ores, non-ferrous  metals 
Cement,  lime plaster 
Glass 
Earthenware  and  ceramic  products 
Other  minerals  derived  products 
Chemical  products 
Metal  products 
Agricultural  and  industrial  machinery 
Office  machines  etc. 
Electrical  goods 
Motor  vehicles  and  engines 
Other transport  equipment 
Meat  and  meat  products 
Milk  and  dairy  products 
Other  food  products 
Beverages 
Tobacco  products 
Textiles  and  clothing 
Leathers,  leather  and  skin  goods,  footwear 
Timber  and  wooden  furniture 
Pulp, paper,  board 
Paper  goods, products  of  printing 
Rubber  and  plastic  products 
Other manu-  facturing  products 
Building  and  civil  engineering  works 
Recovery  and  repair  services 
Wholesale  and  retail  trade 
Lodging  and  catering  services 
Railway  transport  services 
Road  transport  services 
Inland  waterways  services 
Maritime  and  coastal  transport  services 
Air transport  services 
Auxiliary  transport  services 
Communcations 
Credit  and  insurance 
Business  services  provided  to  enterprises 
Renting  of  immovable  goods 
Market  services  ed;,  health  etc. 
General  public  services 
Nnn.mnrlft  sprvicpy 
Total  uses 

2,50 
2,35 
1,16 
2,87 
0,44 
1,17 
1,30 
0,89 
1,26 
0,81 
1,61 
1,81 
5,85 
5,90 
3,19 
7,71 
5,19 
6,20 
8,37 
3,97 
3,94 
3,09 
2,70 
2,81 
3,46 
2,16 
3,32 
3,80 
4,17 
3,45 
0,72 
2,66 
3,25 
3,47 
4,12 
3,16 
3,38 
2,80 
4,43 
2,65 
3,92 
2,53 
2,46 
101,79 
2,11 
2,13 
2,12 
4,63 
0,84 
1,82 
1,00 
0,44 
1,16 
1,27 

4,08 

0,005 
0,005 
0,002 
0,006 
0,001 
0,002 
0,003 
0,002 
0,003 
0,002 
0,003 
0,004 
0,012 
0,012 
0,006 
0,015 
0,010 
0,012 
0,017 
0,008 
0,008 
0,006 
0,005 
0,006 
0,007 
0,004 
0,007 
0,008 
0,008 
0,007 
0,001 
0,005 
0,007 
0,007 
0,008 
0,006 
0,007 
0,006 
0,009 
0,005 
0,008 
0,005 
0,005 
0,204 
0,004 
0,004 
0,004 
0,009 
0,002 
0,004 
0,002 
0,001 
0,002 
0,003 
-ÛJÛÛ2. 

0,008 

0,038 
0,035 
0,017 
0,043 
0,007 
0,018 
0,019 
0,013 
0,019 
0,012 
0,024 
0,027 
0,088 
0,089 
0,048 
0,116 
0,078 
0,093 
0,126 
0,060 
0,059 
0,046 
0,040 
0,042 
0,052 
0,032 
0,050 
0,057 
0,063 
0,052 
0,011 
0,040 
0,049 
0,052 
0,062 
0,047 
0,051 
0,042 
0,066 
0,040 
0,059 
0,038 
0,037 
1,527 
0,032 
0,032 
0,032 
0,069 
0,013 
0,027 
0,015 
0,007 
0,017 
0,019 
0,01 <i 

0,061 

0,001 
0,002 
0,001 
0,003 
0,000 
0,001 
0,002 
0,000 
-0,001 
0,001 
0,001 
0,002 
0,008 
0,008 
0,003 
0,013 
0,008 
0,010 
0,013 
0,002 
0,002 
0,001 
0,002 
0,000 
0,001 
0,000 
0,003 
0,004 
0,004 
0,004 
0.001 
0,000 
0,003 
0,003 
0.005 
0,002 
0,003 
0,003 
-0,001 
0,002 
-0,004 
0,001 
0,001 
0,201 
0,002 
0,002 
0,002 
0,007 
-0,001 
-0,017 
-0,005 
-0,001 
-0,003 
-0,015 
- Û L Û 1 2-

0,000 

0,010 
0,013 
0,007 
0,023 
0,003 
0,010 
0,013 
-0,002 
-0,004 
0,006 
0,004 
0,014 
0,057 
0,063 
0,025 
0,099 
0,058 
0,072 
0,101 
0,018 
0,016 
0,005 
0,014 
0,002 
0,011 
0,000 
0,022 
0,028 
0,028 
0,032 
0,004 
-0,002 
0,026 
0,023 
0,040 
0,018 
0,019 
0,022 
-0,004 
0,011 
-0,028 
0,008 
0,009 
1,505 
0,018 
0,016 
0,017 
0,049 
-0,011 
-0,129 
-0,038 
-0,005 
-0,026 
-0,110 

0,000 

42  Percentage change in cost of sector due to a 100 percent change in road transport costs. Road transport 
itself faces a price increase of greater than 100%. There is a direct price increase of  100%; in addition 
the prices  of  inputs  to  road  transport  also  increase  as they  themselves  make use  of  road  transport 
services, leading to an overall price  increase of  101.8 percent. 

34 

EXPLANATORY NOTE TO THE TABLE 

The table shows how the proposed Directive will affect  the price of output from  each of the 54 sectors 
listed.  The table can be read as follows: 

Column A shows by what percentage the price of output in a particular sector increases if the cost of road 
transport  increases by  100%. This column captures both the  direct  and indirect  effect  of transport  cost 
increases. The direct effect  is the increase in the cost of transport services bought by the sector itself; the 
indirect effect  is the rise in price of other inputs due to an increase in their costs of production as a result 
of higher transport costs. 

Column B reports the effect  of higher user charges on output prices. As higher user charges are expected 
to increase the cost  of transport by  0.2% (paragraph  3.4.2.2),  the figures  in  column B  are  obtained by 
simply  multiplying column  A by 0.2%. For example, user charges would raise the price  of agricultural 
produce by 0.005% (= 2.5% * 0.2%). 

Column C shows the impact on output prices of higher user charges together with sensitive route charges. 
These measures  are expected  to increase transport  costs by  1.5%  (paragraph  3.4.2.5),  so the  effect  on 
output prices is obtained by multiplying column A by  1.5%. 

It can be seen from  columns B and C that no sector is dramatically  affected  by the increase in transport 
costs. Even when both user charges and sensitive route charges are used, the worst hit sector (mineral and 
derived  products)  faces  an  overall  cost  increase  of  barely  0.13%.  (This  means  that  produce  from 
this sector  originally  costing  1 000 ecw would  now need  to be sold  at  1 001.3  ecu to keep the  sector's 
profits  identical.) 

It should be stressed that the cost increases reported in columns A and B are calculated on the assumption 
that the government  makes no use of the revenue raised.  In practice, the money may be used to reduce 
other taxes. Columns D and E of the table show the net price effect  if the revenue raised is reimbursed 
via the  social  security  system.  The worst  hit  sector  is  still  mineral  derived  products,  but  the net  price 
increase is now only  0.10%. With  reimbursement  some sectors, mainly  service industries, experience a 
reduction  in product prices (negative numbers). 

35 

Chart 1: 
Eurovignette + Corridor charges (% price increase, no reimbursements) 

-0,1 

-0.05 

0.061 

0,15 

Average irtcl. transport sector (not shown) 

Agricuture forestry fishery 

Coal and coal briquettes 

Lignite and ignite briquettes 

Products of coking 

Crude petroleum 

Refined petroleum pdts 

Natural gas 

Water 

Electric power 

Manu- fadured gases 

Steam, hot water,... 

Nuclear fuels 

Iron ore, ECSC  iron, steel 

Non-ECSC  iron and steel 

Non-ferrous metal (ores) 

Cement, lime plaster 

Glass 

Earthenware and ceramic 

Other minerals derived pdts 

Chemical products 

Metal products 

Agric. and ind. machinery 

Office machines etc. 

Electrical goods 

Motor vehicles, engines 

Other transport  equipment 

Meat  and meat products 

Milk and dairy products 

Other food products 

Beverages 

Tobacco products 

Textiles and clothing 

Leathers, footwear,... 

Timber and furniture 

Pulp, paper, board 

Paper, pdts of printing 

Rubber and plastic pdts 

Other manufacturing pdts 

Building, civil engineering 

Rtcovery and repair serv. 

Wholesale  and retail trade 

Lodging and catering serv. 

Railway transport serv. 

Inland waterways  services 

Maritime transport 

Air transport services 

Auxiliary transport 

Communcations 

Credit and insurance 

Business services 

Renting immovable goods 

Market services ed, health,... 

General public services 

Non-market  services 

SSJilê^itSfe^s^êSSSS-Sr:» 

M8  I 

36 

Chart 2: 
Eurovignette + Corridor charges (% price increase with SSC  reimbursement) 

-0,100 

-0,050 

0,100 

0.150 

Agricuture forestry fishery 

Co i\ and coal briquettes. 

Lignite 

\  and ignite briquettes 

Products of coking 

Crude petroleum 

Refined petroleum pdts 

Natural gas 

Water 

Electric power 

i 

I 

Manu- fadured gases 

Steam, hot water,... 

Nuclear fuels 

Iron ore, ECSC iron, steel 

Non-ECSC iron end steel 

Non-ferrous metal (ores) 

Cement, ime plaster 

Glass 

Earthenware and  ceramic 

Other fninerals derived pdts 

|  Chemical products 

Metal products 

Agric. arid ind. machinery  S 

j Office machines etc.  %ggË 

I 

Electrical goods 

I 
K*X? 

Motor vehicles, engines  $:$;» 

Othef transport equipment 

Meat and meat products  Kvl-j-g:::-:.? 

Milk and dairy products  &x-$ijK&3fess 
, Other food produds  S S S m g xS 

j  Tobacco produds  & 

I Textiles and clothing 

Leathers, footwear,... 

Timber and furniture 

SiSSx^SsK 

ï x ï xj 
«•X-K-KSSS 

Pulp, paper, board 

' ' "" * 

Paper, pdts of printing 

f-SSSSK 

Rubber and plastic pdts  &:;:$©! 

Other manufaduring pdts  BfSW:?::» 
&X&8&& 

; 

Building, civil engineering  | 

Recovery and repair serv.  ëjVJEg 

Wholesale  a i x l ^ g ^ ^| 

Lodging and catering serv. 

Railway transport serv. 

Inland waterways services 

Maritime transport 

Air transport services 

Auxifiary transport 

Communcatit 

wm 

Renting Immovable goods j; 

Market services < 

37 

Proposal  for  a 
COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 

on  the  charging  of  heavy  goods vehicles  for  the use  of 
certain  infrastructures 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in  particular 
Article  75(1)  thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission1, 

Having  regard  to  the  opinion  of  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee2, 

Acting  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  189c  of  the  Treaty,  in 
cooperation  with  the European  Parliament3, 

1.  Whereas  the  efficient  utilization  of  the  transport  system  in  the  Community  depends 
inter alia  on the establishment  of fair  and efficient  pricing in transport,  in line with  the 
"user-pays"  principle  ; 

2.  Whereas  the application  of this principle  requires  the establishment  of  an  appropriate 
legal  framework,  which  would  allow  all  Member  States  to  recover  their  real  road 
infrastructure  costs  as well  as  charge  for  external  costs,  where  appropriate; 

3.  Whereas Member States should ensure  the functioning  of the internal  market and avoid 
obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  or  services  within  the  Community;  whereas 
the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  transport  calls  for  a  reduction  of  the 
differences  in the conditions of competition  in goods road transport due to  unjustifiable 
divergences in the levels of transport-related  charges, including taxes and other relevant 
levies;  whereas,  therefore,  vehicle  taxes  and  user-charge  rates  should  be  set  within  a 
maximum  and  a minimum  level; 

4.  Whereas to ensure  sustainable transport  in the Community  it is important to  encourage 
the  use  of  more  environmentally  friendly  means  for  the  transportation  of  goods; 

5.  Whereas  those  objectives  should  be  achieved  in  stages in  order  to  avoid  upsetting  the 

stability  of  the  road  transport  market; 

O J N oC 
O J N oC 
OJNo 

38 

6.  Whereas  a  degree  of  harmonization  of  levy  systems  has  already  been  achieved 
through  the  adoption  of  Council  Directive  92/81/EEC  of  19  October  1992  on  the 
harmonization  of  the  structures  of  excise  duties  on  mineral  oils4,  as  last  amended  by 
Directive  94/74/EC5,  and  Directive  92/82/EEC  of  19  October  1992  on 
the 
approximation  of  the  rates  of  excise  duties  on  mineral  oils6,  as  amended  by 
Directive  94/74/EC; 

7.  Whereas  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Communities,  by  its  judgment  of 
5  July  1995 in Case C-21/94, Parliament v Council7, annulled Directive 93/89/EEC  of 
25 October  1993 on the application by Member  States of taxes on certain vehicles used 
for  the  carriage  of  goods  by  road  and  tolls  and  charges  for  the  use  of  certain 
infrastructures8,  while preserving the effects  of that directive until  the adoption  of new 
legislation  in  the  matter;  whereas, therefore,  Directive  93/89/EEC  should  be  replaced 
by  this Directive; 

8.  Whereas  under  present  circumstances  the  adjustment  of  national  levy  systems  should 
be  confined  to  commercial  vehicles  of  more  than  a certain  gross  laden  weight; 

9.  Whereas  minimum  rates  for  vehicle  taxes  need  not  apply  in  Member  States  where  a 

user  charge  system  is in  operation; 

10.  Whereas the use of more environment- and road-friendly  vehicles should be encouraged 
through  greater  differentiation  of  taxes  or  charges,  provided  that  such  differentiation 
does  not  interfere  with  the  functioning  of the  internal  market; 

11.  Whereas  certain  local  domestic  transport  operations  with  little  impact  on  the 
Community  transport  market  are  at  present  subject  to  reduced  rates  of  vehicle  tax; 
whereas,  in  order  to  ensure  smooth  transition,  Member  States  should be  authorized  to 
lay  down  temporary  derogations  from  the  minimum  rates; 

12.  Whereas  Member  States  should  be  permitted  to  apply  reduced  rates  or  exemptions  of 
vehicle  taxes  in  the  case  of  vehicles  whose  use  is  not  liable  to  affect  the  Community 
transport  market; 

13.  Whereas existing distortions of competition cannot be eliminated solely by  harmonizing 
taxes or fuel  excise duties; whereas,  however, until  technically  and  economically  more 
appropriate  forms  of  levy  are  in  place,  such  distortions  may  be  attenuated  by  the 
possibility  of  retaining  or  introducing  tolls  and/or  user  charges  for  the  use  of 
motorways; whereas, in addition, Member  States should be allowed to levy charges  for 
the  use  of  bridges,  tunnels,  mountain  passes  and  sensitive  routes; 

O J N oL  316,  31.10.1992,  p.  12. 
OJ  No  L  365,  31.12.1994,  p. 46. 
OJ No  L  316,  31.10.1992,  p.  19. 
[1995]  ECR 1-1827. 
O J N oL  279,  12.11.1993,  p. 32. 

39 

14.  Whereas  the  definition  of  "sensitive  routes"  should  be  decided  by  the  Commission 
through  a procedure  involving  an  advisory  committee  composed  of  representatives  of 
the  Member  States;  whereas  the  availability  of  adequate  service  providecTby  other 
transport  modes  should  be  a prerequisite  before  a route  can  qualify  as  sensitive; 

15.  Whereas  tolls  and  user  charges  should  neither  be  discriminatory  nor  entail  excessive 
formalities or create obstacles at internal borders; whereas, therefore, adequate measures 
should  be taken  to permit  the  payment  of  tolls  and  user  charges  at  any  time  and  with 
different  current  means of  payment; 

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  as  possible  to  the  real  costs  caused  by 
the  road  vehicles;  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; 

17.  Whereas,  in  order  to  ensure  that  user  charges  and  tolls  are  applied  homogeneously, 
certain  rules  for  determining  their  manner  of  application  should  be  laid  down,  such 
as the characteristics of the infrastructure  to which they are applicable, the  infrastructure 
and external  costs elements that their rates may cover and the maximum  and  minimum 
levels  of  certain  rates;  whereas  in  the  case  of  tolls,  their  rates  may  also  take  into 
account  a return  on the  capital  invested  at  a rate  attainable  in  similar  investments; 

18.  Whereas  two  or  more Member  States  should  be  allowed  to  cooperate  for  the  purpose 
of  introducing  a  common  system  of  user  charges,  subject  to  compliance  with  some 
additional  conditions; 

19.  Whereas, in accordance with the principle of proportionality,  this Directive limits itself 
to the minimum  required  for  the attainment  of the objectives  under the third  paragraph 
of  Article  3(b)  of the  Treaty; 

20.  Whereas  a  strict timetable  should  be  set for  reviewing  the provisions  of this  Directive 
and  considering  adjustments  to them,  if  necessary,  with  the  aim  of  developing  a  more 
territorial  levy  system, 

HAS  ADOPTED  THIS  DIRECTIVE: 

CHAPTER  I 

General  provisions 

Article 1 

This  Directive  applies  to  vehicle  taxes,  tolls  and  user  charges  imposed  on  heavy  goods 
vehicles,  as  defined  in  Article 2. 

This  Directive  shall  not  affect  vehicles  carrying  out  transport  operations  exclusively  in  the 
non-European  territories  of the Member  States. 

40 

It shall also not affect  vehicles registered in the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla, the Azores 
or  Madeira  and  carrying  out  transport  operations  exclusively  in  those  territories  or  between 
those territories  and  respectively,  mainland  Spain  and  mainland  Portugal. 

For  the purpose  of  this  Directive: 

Article  2 

(a) 

"motorway"  means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic,  which does not 
serve  properties  bordering  on  it,  and  which: 

(i) 

is  provided,  except  at  special  points  or  temporarily,  with  separate  carriageways 
for  the  two  directions  of  traffic,  separated  from  each  other  either  by  a  dividing 
strip  not  intended  for  traffic  or,  exceptionally,  by  other  means; 

(ii)  does  not  cross  at grade with  any  road,  railway  or tramway  track,  or  footpath; 

(iii) 

is  specifically  designated  as a  motorway; 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

"toll"  means  payment  of  a  specified  amount  for  a  vehicle  travelling  the  distance 
between  two  points  on  the  infrastructure  referred  to  in  Article  7(2);  the  amount  shall 
be based  on  the  distance  travelled  and  the type  of  the  vehicle; 

"user  charge"  means  payment  of  a  specified  amount  conferring  the  right  for  a  vehicle 
to use  for  a  given  period  the  infrastructures  referred  to  in  Article  7(2); 

"vehicle" means a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle combination intended  exclusively 
for  the  carriage  of  goods  by  road  and  having  a  maximum  permissible  gross  laden 
weight  of  not  less than  12 tonnes; 

"Euro I vehicle" means a vehicle having the characteristics  set out in line A of the table 
in  section  8.3.1.1  of  Annex  I to  Council  Directive  88/77/EEC9; 

"Euro II vehicle"  means  a vehicle  having the characteristics  set  out  line B of  the  table 
in  section  8.3.1.1  of  Annex  I to  Directive  88/77/EEC; 

"sensitive  route" means an  infrastructure  where tolls or user  charges may  be levied  in 
accordance  with  Article  7(a),  which  meets  the  criteria  mentioned  in  Article  9(2)  and 
which  has  been  defined  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  set  out  in  Article  10; 

(h) 

"external  costs"  are the  costs  of  congestion,  air  pollution  and  noise; 

OJ  No  L  36,  9.2.1988,  p.  33:  Directive  as  amended  by  Directive  91/542/EEC 
(OJ  No  L  295, 25.10.1991, p.  1). 

41 

(i) 

(j) 

"authorized transport operators" means those operators complying with the provisions  of 
Council  Directive  95/18/EEC10 
railway  undertakings  and 
in 
Council  Directive  87/540/EEC11  in  the  case of  inland  waterway  carriers; 

the  case  of 

"open access" means access within  the meaning of Council  Directive 91/440/EEC12 for 
railways,  and of Council  Regulations  (EEC) No 2919/8513,  (EEC) No 3921/9114,  and 
(EC) No  1356/9615 for  inland  navigation. 

CHAPTER  II 

Vehicle  taxation 

Article  3 

1. 

The  vehicle  taxes  referred  to  in  Article  1 are  as  follows: 

Belgium: 

taxe  de  circulation  sur  les véhicules  automobiles/ 

Denmark: 

Germany: 

Greece: 

verkeersbelasting  op  de  autovoertuigen, 

vaegtafgift  af  motork0ret0jer  m.v., 

Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, 

TéXn  KUKÀocpopiaç 

Spain: 
(a) 
(b) 

impuesto  sobre vehiculos  de tracciôn  mecânica 
impuesto sobre actividades econômicas (solely  as regards the amount  of the 
levies  charged  for  motor  vehicles), 

France: 

(a) 
(b) 

taxe  spéciale  sur  certains  véhicules  routiers 
taxe  différentielle  sur  les véhicules  à  moteur, 

Ireland: 

vehicle  excise  duty, 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

O J N oL  143, 27.6.1995,  p.  70. 
O J N oL  322,  12.11.1987,  p. 20. 
OJ  No  L  237,  24.8.1991, p. 25. 
O J N oL  280,  22.10.1985,  p. 4. 
O J N oL  373, 31.12.1991, p.  1. 
O J N oL  175,  13.7.1996,  p.  7. 

42 

Italy: 

(a) 

tassa  automobilistica 

(b) 

addizionale  del  5 %  sulla tassa  automobilistica, 

Luxembourg: 

taxe  sur  les véhicules  automoteurs, 

Netherlands: 

motorrijtuigenbelasting, 

Austria: 

Portugal: 

Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, 

(a) 

imposto  de  camionagem 

(b) 

imposto  de  circulaçâo, 

Finland: 

Sweden: 

moottoriajoneuvovero/motorfordonsskatt 

Fordonsskatt 

United  Kingdom: 

vehicle  excise  duty. 
2.  Member  States which replace any tax listed in paragraph  1  with another tax of the same 
kind  shall  notify  the  Commission,  which  shall  make  the  necessary  amendments. 
Article  4 

Procedures  for  levying  and  collecting  the  taxes  referred  to  in  Article  3  shall  be  determined 
by  each  Member  State. 

Article 5 

As  regards  vehicles  registered  in  the  Member  States,  the  taxes  referred  to  in  Article  3  shall 
be  charged  solely  by  the Member  State  of  registration. 

Article  6 

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  I  is not  lower  than  the  minimum  and  not  higher  than  the  maximum  laid 
down  in  that  Annex. 

However,  Member  States may  levy  vehicle taxes below these minimum  rates provided 
that  they  are  applying  a user-charge  system  in  accordance  with  this  Directive. 

Vehicle  taxes  for  non-Euro  vehicles  shall  be  at  least  10%  higher  than  those  for 
equivalent Euro I vehicles. Tax rates set for Euro I vehicles shall be at least  10% higher 
than  those  for  equivalent  Euro  II vehicles. 

43 

2.  Member  States  may  apply  reduced  rates  or  exemptions  for: 

(a) 

vehicles used  for  national  or civil  defence  purposes, by fire  and  other  emergency 
services,  and  by  the  police,  and  vehicles used  for  road-maintenance; 

(b)  vehicles which  travel  only  occasionally  on the public  roads of  the Member  State 
of  registration  and  are  used  by  natural  or  legal  persons  whose  main  occupation 
is not the carriage of goods, provided  that the transport  operations  carried  out by 
these  vehicles  do  not  cause  distortions  of  competition,  and  subject  to  the 
Commission's  agreement. 

3. 

4 

Subject  to  the  review  mentioned  in  Article  13,  Member  States  may  apply  until 
1  July  1998  special  derogations  for  vehicles  with  a maximum  of  three  axles,  engaged 
solely  in  national  local  transport. 

In  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  10,  a  Member  State  may  be 
authorized  to  maintain  further  exemptions  from  or  reductions  in  taxes  on  vehicles  on 
the  grounds  of  specific  policies  of  a  socio-economic  nature  or  linked  to  that  State's 
infrastructure.  Such  exemptions  or  reductions  may  apply  only  to vehicles registered  in 
that  Member  State  which  carry  out  transport  operations  exclusively 
inside  a 
well-defined  part  of  its  territory. 

5.  Without  prejudice  to the second  subparagraph  of paragraph  1 or to paragraphs 2, 3  and 
4 of this Article or to Article 6 of Council  Directive 92/106/EEC16, Member  States may 
not  grant  any  exemption  from,  or  any  reduction  in,  the  taxes  referred  to  in  Article 3 
which  would  render  the  chargeable  tax  lower  than  the  minimum  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1 of  this  Article. 

CHAPTER  III 

Tolls  and  user  charges 

Article  7 

1.  Member  States  may  maintain  or  introduce  tolls  and/or  user  charges  under  the 

conditions  set  out  in  paragraphs  2 to  11. 

2. 

Tolls  and  user  charges  shall  be  imposed  only  on  users  of:  bridges;  tunnels;  mountain 
passes;  sensitive  routes;  and  motorways  or  other  multi-lane  roads  with  characteristics 
similar  to  motorways. 

However,  in  a  Member  State  where  no  general  network  of  motorways  or  dual 
carriageways with  similar characteristics  exists, tolls and user charges  may be imposed 
on  users  of  the  highest  category  of  road  in  that  State. 

16 

O J N oL  368,  17.12.92,  p. 38. 

44 

Following  consultations  with  the  Commission,  and  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
laid down in the Council  Decision  of 21 March  196217, tolls and user charges may  also 
be imposed  on users of  other  sections  of the  primary  road  network, particularly  where 
there  are  safety  reasons  for  doing  so. 

Following  consultations  with  the  Commission,  and  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
laid  down  by  the  Decision  of  21  March  1962,  special  arrangements  for  border  areas 
may  be made  by  the Member  States  concerned. 

3. 

Tolls  and  user  charges  may  not  both  be  imposed  at  the  same  time  for  the  use  of  a 
single  road  section.  However,  Member  States  may  also  impose  tolls  on  networks 
where  user  charges  are  levied,  for  the  use  of  bridges,  tunnels,  mountain  passes  and 
sensitive  routes. 

4.  Without  prejudice  to  paragraph  (11)  of  this  Article  or  to  Article  9,  tolls  and  user 
charges  may  not  discriminate,  directly  or  indirectly,  on the  grounds  of  the  nationality 
of  the  haulier  or the  origin  or  destination  of  the vehicle. 

5. 

6. 

Tolls  and  user  charges  shall  be  applied  and  collected  and  their  payment  monitored  in 
such  a  way  as  to  cause  as  little  hindrance  as  possible  to  the  free  flow  of  traffic  and 
avoid  any  mandatory  controls  or  checks  at the  Community's  internal  borders.  To  this 
end,  Member  States  shall  cooperate  in  establishing  methods  for  enabling  hauliers  to 
pay  user  charges  24  hours,a  day,  using  all  common  means  of  payment,  inside  and 
outside  the  Member  States  in  which  they  are  applied.  Member  States  shall  provide 
adequate facilities  at the points of payment for  tolls and user charges so as to maintain 
normal  road-safety  standards. 

As  from  1 January  1998  user  charges,  including  administrative  costs,  for  all  vehicle 
categories  shall  be set by  the Member  State concerned  at a level  that is between  50% 
and  100% of the maximum  rates laid  down  in Annex  III for the different  categories of 
vehicles  as  indicated  in  Annexes  II  and  III.  Whatever  level  is  chosen,  the  charges  for 
individual  vehicle  categories  must  be  in  the  same ratio to  each  other  as the  maximum 
rates  in  Annex  III. 

On  1 January  2001  and  every  second  year  thereafter  these  maximum  rates  shall  be 
reviewed.  When  necessary,  the  Commission  shall  make  proposals  for  appropriate 
adjustments  and  the Council  shall  act on them, in accordance with  the conditions laid 
down  in  the  Treaty. 

7. 

User-charge  rates  shall  be  in  proportion  to  the  duration  of  the  use  made  of 
the  infrastructure. 

17 

OJ  No  23,  3.4.1962,  p.  720/62;  Decision  as  amended  by  Council  Decision  of 
22  November  1973  (OJ  No  L  347,  17.12.1973, p.  48) . 

45 

The payment of user charges shall be possible on an annual, monthly, weekly  and daily 
basis, at rates equal to  1/1,  1/12,  1/50  and  1/250  respectively  of the annual  rate in  each 
vehicle  category. 

A  Member  State may  apply  only  annual  rates  for  vehicles  registered  in  that  State. 

8. 

9. 

Toll  rates  shall  be  set  so  that  the  resulting  revenues  do  not  exceed  the  costs  of 
constructing, operating and developing the infrastructure  on which these tolls are levied, 
plus  a  rate  of  return  attainable 
investment  projects.  In  addition, 
in  similar 
Member  States may add an external  cost element at a level reflecting  the  corresponding 
external  costs,  up  to  a maximum  of  ECU  0.03  per  kilometre. 

In  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  10,  Member  States  may  be 
authorized  to  charge external  costs on sensitive routes,  above the level  provided  for  in 
paragraph  8, on presentation  of the justifications  provided for in Article 9(1). In no case 
may  the  external  cost  component  exceed  ECU  0.5  per  kilometre. 

On  sensitive  routes,  where  no  tolls  are  levied,  Member  States  may  be  authorized,  in 
accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  10,  to  impose  a  specific  daily 
charge for  external  costs, on the basis of the justifications  provided  for  in Article 9(1), 
up  to  a maximum  daily  rate  of  ECU  15. 

10.  The  identification  of  the  sensitive  routes  refered  to  in  paragraphs  (3)  and  (9)  of  this 
Article  shall  be made in accordance with the procedure laid  down  in Article  10, and in 
conformity  with  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  9(2). 

11.  Each  Member  State  may  ensure  that  the  emission  and  road-damage  classification  of 
the  vehicles  registered  in  their  territory  can  be  readily  identified.  In  the  absence  of  a 
relevant  document  to  that  effect,  Member  States  may  apply  charges  as  for  the 
non-Euro  vehicles  and  damage  class  III vehicles. 

Article  8 

1. 

Two  or more  Member  States may  cooperate  in introducing  a common  system  for  user 
charges  applicable  to  their  territories  as  a  whole.  In  that  case,  those  Member  States 
shall  ensure  that  the  Commission  is  closely  involved  therein  and  in  the  system's 
subsequent  operation  and  possible  amendment. 

2. 

A common  system  shall  be  subject  to the  following  conditions  in  addition  to  those  in 
Article  7: 

(a) 

the  common  user-charge  rates shall  be  set by  the  participating  Member  States  at 
levels  that  are  not  higher  than  the  maximum  or  lower  than  the  minimum  rates 
referred  to  in  Article  7(6),  (7),  and  (9); 

(b) 

payment  of the  common  user  charge  shall  give  access  to the  network  as  defined 
by  the  participating  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Article  7(2); 

(c) 

other  Member  States may join  the  common  system; 

46 

(d) 

a  scale  shall  be  finalized  by  the  participating  Member  States  whereby  each  of 
them  shall  receive  a fair  share  of  the  revenues  accruing  from  the  user  charge. 

Article  9 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

For  the  purpose  of  defining  sensitive  routes  and  for  determining  the  charges  which 
apply  on  them  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  set out  in  Article  10, Member  States 
shall provide the Commission  with  all relevant  data as well  as their justification  of the 
charges proposed.  In the justification  of the charges proposed,  the following  should  be 
described:  the  method  and  calculation  which  have been  used to  set the  rates;  measures 
taken to reduce the relevant external  costs from  all road users in the area; and measures 
taken  to  combat  air  pollution  from  all  sources  in  the  area. 

The  criteria  which  shall  apply  for  the  determination  of  the  sensitive  routes,  are,  as 
appropriate: those used  for  assessing whether  a motorway  is congested  and/or  whether 
traffic  on  it  contributes  significantly  to  poor  air  quality  and/or  noise  pollution  in  its 
proximity,  in  particular  in  zones  and  urban  areas  defined  on  the  basis  of  Article  2  of 
Directive  [...]18  on  ambient  air  quality  assessment  and  management.  Supplementary 
conditions that  shall be met  are: the availability  of  adequate  service provided  by  other 
transport  modes,  including  open  and  non-discriminatory  access  to  infrastructure  for 
authorized  transport  operators;  and  the  existence  of  measures  to  combat  air  pollution 
from  all  sources  in  the  area. 

Article  10 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by 
the  advisory  committee  created  under 
Council  Decision  65/270/EEC19  and  chaired  by  the  representative  of the  Commission. 

The  representative  of  the  Commission  shall  submit  to  the  Committee  a  draft  of  the 
measures  to  be  taken.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  its  opinion  on  the  draft  within  a 
time  limit  which  the  Chairman  may  lay  down  according  to the  urgency  of  the  matter, 
if  necessary  by  taking  a vote. 

The opinion  shall be recorded  in the minutes; in addition, each Member  State shall  have 
the  right  to  ask  to  have  its  position  recorded  in  the  minutes. 

The  Commission  shall  take  the  utmost  account  of  the  opinion  delivered  by  the 
committee.  It  shall  inform  the  committee  of the  manner  in which  its  opinion  has been 
taken  into  account. 

Common  Position  (EC) No  5/96,  OJ No  C  59, 28.2.1996,  p. 24. 
OJ No  88,  24.5.1965,  p.  1473/65. 

47 

CHAPTER  IV 

Final  provisions 

Article  11 

This  Directive  shall  not  prevent  the  application  by  Member  States  of: 

(a) 

specific  taxes  or  charges: 

levied  upon  registration  of the vehicle,  or 

imposed  on  vehicles  or  loads  of  abnormal  weights  or  dimensions; 

(b) 

parking  fees  and  specific  urban  traffic  charges. 

Article  12 

For  the  purposes  of this  Directive,  the  value  of the  ecu  in  national  currencies  shall  be  fixed 
once  a  year.  The  rates  to  be  applied  shall  be  those  in  force  on  the  first  working  day  of 
October  and  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities,  and  they  shall 
have  effect  from  1 January  of  the  following  calendar  year. 

Article  13 

1. 

No later than  31 December  1999,  the Commission  shall  present  a report to the Council 
on  the  implementation  of  this  Directive  and  on  the  effects  of  Directive  93/89/EEC, 
taking  account  of  developments  in  technology  and  traffic  congestion. 

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. 

Where  necessary,  that  report  shall  be  accompanied  by  proposals  aimed  at  introducing 
a common  system  of  road  charging  shall be based  on the  principle  of territoriality  and 
shall  take infrastructure  and  external  costs as well  as the potential  regional  impact  into 
account.  In  that  event  the  Council  shall,  by  30  June  2000,  adopt  a  common  system 
which  shall  enter  into  force  on  1 January  2001  at the  latest. 

2.  Member  States introducing  electronic toll and/or user-charging  systems  shall  cooperate 
with  the  aim  of  achieving  inter-operability  between  those  systems.  The  Commission 
shall  produce  an  interim  report  on  these  matters  no  later  than  31  December  1998. 
In  the  report  it  will,  amongst  other  things,  examine  the  possibility  offered  by 
Electronic  Fee  Collection  systems  with  automatic  classification  and  enforcement. 

Article  14 

1.  Member  States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative  provisions 
necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  31  December  1997.  They  shall  forthwith 
inform  the  Commission  thereof 

48 

When  Member  States  adopt  such  provisions,  these  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  shall  be  accompanied  by  such  reference  at  the  time  of  their  official 
publication.  The  procedure  for  such  a reference  shall  be  adopted  by  Member  States. 

2.  Member  States  shall  communicate  to the  Commission  the text  of  the  main  provisions 
of  domestic  law  which  they  adopt  in  the  field  covered  by  this  Directive.  The 
Commission  shall  inform  the  other  Member  States thereof. 

Article  15 

Member  States  shall  determine  the  sanctions  for  infringements  of  the  national  provisions 
adopted  in  the  implementation  of  this  Directive  and  shall  take  all  necessary  measures  to 
ensure  their  enforcement.  The  sanctions  thus  established  shall  be  effective,  proportionate 
and  deterrent.  Member  States  shall  notify 
those  provisions  to  the  Commission  by 
31 December  1997 at the latest,  and  all  subsequent relevant amendments as soon as possible. 

Article  16 

This Directive  shall  enter  into force  on the twentieth  day  following  that  of  its publication  in 
the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities. 

This  Directive  is  addressed  to the  Member  States. 

Article  17 

Done  at Brussels, 

For  the  Council 
The  President 

49 

ANNEX  I 

RATES  OF  TAX  TO  BE  APPLIED  TO  VEHICLES 

Motor  vehicles 

Minimum  tax 
(in  ECU/year) 

Maximum  tax 
(in  ECU/year 

Driving  axle(s)  with 
air  suspension  or 
recognized  equivalent1 

Other  driving 
axle(s)  suspension 
systems 

Euro  II 

All vehicle  types 

0 
31 
86 
121 

31 
54 
111 
144 
222 
222 

144 
146 
228 
362 
362 

31 
86 
121 
274 

54 
111 
144 
222 
345 
345 

146 
228 
362 
537 
537 

984 
1  060 
1  175 
2  210 

1  287 
1  438 
1  481 
2  059 
3  133 
3  279 

1  784 
2  059 
3  249 
4  714 
4  714 

Number  of  axles  and 

maximum  permissible 
gross  laden  weight 
(in  tonnes) 

Not  less 
than 

Less  than 

2  axles 
12 
13 
14 
15 

3  axles 
15 
17 
19 
21 
23 
25 

4  axles 
23 
25 
27 
29 
31 

13 
14 
15 
18 

17 
19 
21 
23 
25 
26 

25 
27 
29 
31 
32 

Suspension  recognized  as equivalent  in  accordance with  the  definition  in  Annex  III  to 
Council  Directive  92/7/EEC  of  10  February  1992  amending  Directive  83/3/EEC  on 
weights,  dimensions  and  certain  technical  characteristics  of  certain  road  vehicles 
( O J N oL  57,  2.3.1992,  p. 29). 

50 

Vehicle  combinations  (articulated  vehicles  and  vehicle  trains) 

Number  of  axles  and 

maximum  permissible 
gross  laden  weight 
(in  tonnes) 

Not  less 
than 

Less  than 

Minimum  tax 
(in  ECU/year) 

Maximum  tax 
(in  ECU/year 

Driving  axle(s)  with 
air  suspension  or 
recognized  equivalent1 

Other  driving 
axle(s)  suspension 
systems 

Euro  II 

All  vehicle  types 

2+1  axles 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 

2+2  axles 
23 
5 
26 
28 
29 
31 

JJ 

36 

2+3  axles 
36 
38 

3+2  axles 
36 
38 
40 

3+3  axles 
36 
38 
40 

14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
28 

25 
26 
28 
29 
31 
33 
36 
38 

38  . 
40 

38 
40 
44 

38 
40 
44 

0 
0 
0 
14 
32 
75 
97 
175 

30 
70 
115 
169 
204 
335 
465 
465 

370 
515 

327 
454 
628 

186 
225 
336 

0 
0 
14 
32 
75 
97 
175 
307 

70 
115 
169 
204 
335 
465 
706 
706 

515 
700 

454 
628 
929 

225 
336 
535 

951 
1  103 
1  254 
1  406 
1  557 
1 633 

1  784 
2  476 

1  784 
1  860 
2011 
2  437 
2  702 
3  751 
7  252 
7  433 

4  496 
5  647 

3  959 
5  066 
7  494 

2  76 S 
2  919 
4  316 

Suspension  recognized  as equivalent  in  accordance  with  the  definition  in  Annex  III  to 
Council  Directive  92/7/EEC  of  10  February  1992  amending  Directive  83/3/EEC  on 
weights,  dimensions  and  certain  technical  characteristics  of  certain  road  vehicles 
(OJ  N oL  57,  2.3.1992,  p.  29). 

51 

ANNEX  II 

Classes  of  vehicles  referred  to  in  Article  7(6)  and  Annex  III. 

The vehicles  shall  be  classified  in  sub-categories  I,  II and  III according  to the  degree  of 
damage  they  cause to the  road  pavement  in  an  increasing  order  (i.e.  class  I is the  least 
damaging  to  the  road  infrastructure). 

Driving  axle(s)  with 
air  suspension  or 
recognized  equivalent1 

Number  of  axles 
and  maximum  permissible 
gross laden  weight 
(in  tonnes) 

Motor  vehicles 

Other  driving 
axle(s)  suspension 
systems 

Number  of  axles 
and  maximum  permissible 
gross  laden  weight 
(in  tonnes) 

Not  less  than 

Less  than 

Not  less  than 

Less  than 

2  axles 

7.5 
12 
13 
14 
15 

3  axles 
15 
17 
19 
21 
23 
25 

4  axles 
23 
25 
27 

29 
31 

12 
13 
14 
15 
18 

17 
19 
21 
23 

25 
26 

25 
27 

29 

31 
32 

2  axles 

7.5 
12 
13 
14 
15 

3  axles 
15 
17 
19 
21 

23 
25 

1 
1 

4  axles 
23 
25 

1  ? 

29 
31 

12 
13 
14 
15 
18 

17 
19 
21 
23 

25 
26 

25 
27 

29 

31 
32 

Damage 
Class 

1 

II 

I 

II 

Suspension  recognized  as equivalent  in  accordance with  the  definition  in  Annex  III  to 
Council  Directive  92/7/EEC  of  10  February  1992  amending  Directive  83/3/EEC  on 
weights,  dimensions  and  certain  technical  characteristics  of  certain  road  vehicles 
( O J N oL  57,  2.3.1992,  p. 29). 

52 

Vehicle  combinations  (articulated  vehicles  and  vehicle  trains) 

Driving  axle(s)  with 
air  suspension  or 
recognized  equivalent  ' 
Number  of  axles  and  maximum 
permissible 
gross  laden  weight 
(in  tonnes) 

Other  driving 
axle(s)  suspension 
systems 
Number  of  axles  and  maximum 
permissible 
gross  laden  weight 
(in  tonnes) 

Not  less  than 
2  +  1 axles 

Less  than 

Not  less than 
2  +  1 axles 

Less  than 

Damage 
Class 

7.5 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
2  +  2  axles 
23 
25 
26 
28 
29 

31 

33 
36 

2  +  3  axles 
36 
38 

3 +2  axles 
36 
38 

40 

3  +  3  axles 
36 
38 

40 

12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
28 

25 
26 
28 
29 
31 

33 

36 
38 

38 
40 

38 
40 

44 

38 
40 

44 

7.5 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
2  +  2  axles 
23 
25 
26 
28 

29 
31 

33 
6

^_ 

^

3

2 +  3  axles 
36 

38 

3  +  2  axles 
36 

38 
40 

3  +  3  axles 
36 

38 
40 

| 

1 
|

1 

1 

1 

12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
23 
25 
28 

25 
26 
28 
29 

31 
33 

36 
38 

38 

40 

38 

40 
44 

38 

40 
44 

I 

I 

II 

III 

n 

ui 
n 

m 

i 

II 

Suspension  recognized  as equivalent  in accordance with  the definition  in Annex  III to 
Council  Directive  92/7/EEC  of  10 February  1992  amending  Directive  83/3/EEC  on 
weights,  dimensions  and  certain  technical  characteristics  of  certain  road  vehicles 
(OJNo.  L  57,  2.3.1992,  p.  29) 

53 

ANNEX III 

1.  Maximum  amount of  annual  user charges referred  to in Article 7(6) 

Damage  Class  in 

Damage  Class  II 

Damage  Class  I 

NON-EURO 

EURO  I 

EURO  n 

2000 

1850 

1750 

1500 

1350 

1250 

1000 

850 

750 

ECU 

2.  Minimum  amount's of annual user charges referred  to in Article 7(6) 

The  minimum  amounts  of  annual  user  charges  are  set  at  50% the  maximum  amounts  as 
specified  above. 

54 

IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  FORM 

The  impact  of  the  proposal  on business  with  special 
reference  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 

Title  of  the  proposal: 

Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  the  charging  of  heavy 

goods vehicles  for  the use  of  certain  infrastructures 

Reference  number: 

The  proposal 
1. 

Taking  account  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  why  is  Community  legislation 
necessary  in  this  area  and  what  are its main  aims? 

This  proposal  is  for  a  Council  Directive  to  replace  Directive  93/89/EEC  on  the  application 
by  Member  States  of  taxes  on  certain  vehicles  used  for  the  carriage  of  goods  by  road  and 
tolls  and  user  charges  for  the  use  of  certain  infrastructures,  which  was  annulled  by  the 
European  Court  of  Justice  on  5 July  1995 on  grounds  of  procedural  irregularities.  To  avoid 
a legal  vacuum  the  effects  of the  Directive were  to be  maintained  until  the  Council  adopted 
new  legislation. 

The  proposal  is therefore  necessary  in  order to fulfil  this  legal  obligation. 

The  aim  of the  proposal  is to  establish  an  appropriate  legal  framework  which  would: 

* 

* 

* 

allow  all  Member  States  to  recover,  in  a  fair  and  efficient  way,  their  real  road 
infrastructure  costs,  as well  as  charge  for  external  costs,  where  appropriate; 

further  the  development  and  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  transport  by 
reducing  the  differences  in  the  conditions  of  competition  in  goods Toad transport  due  to 
unjustifiable  divergences  in  the  levels  of  transport-related  charges,  including  taxes  and 
other  relevant  levies; 

establish  greater  differentiation  in  charging  instruments,  in  favour  of  the  use  of  more 
environment  and  road  friendly  vehicles,  and,  thereby,  promote  sustainable  transport  in 
the  Community. 

The  impact  on  business 

2.  Who  will  be  affected  by  the  proposal? 

-  which  sectors  of  business  ? 

The  proposal  will  affect  road  haulage  operators  using  vehicles  of  a  maximum  gross  laden 
weight  equal  to  or  exceeding  12 tonnes. 

Wherever  charges for external  costs are introduced, they will affect  all vehicles in  proportion 
to  the  costs  they  impose. 

-  which  sizes of business  (what  is the concentration  of  small  and medium-sized  firms)? 

55 

Road  transport  operators  in  the  Community  have  an  average  of  about  4.4  vehicles  in 
operation.  In  1990,  78% of  road  haulage  undertakings  in  the Member  States, for  which  data 
are available, had between  1 and  5 vehicles in operation,  11% between  6 and  10 affir  11% had 
more  than  11 vehicles.  The  concentration  therefore  of  small  and  medium-sized  firms  in  the 
road  sector is high. However,  all  sizes of firms with vehicles  of gros laden weight  12 tonnes 
and  more  will  be  affected  by  the  measures  contained  in  the  proposal. 

-  are  there  particular  geographical  areas  in  the  Community  where  these  businesses 

are  found  ? 

The  situation  is more  or  less the  same in  all Member  States,  with  the  exception  of  Austria, 
Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  where  the  number  of  undertakings  with  more  than  5  vehicles 
is somewhat higher, whereas in the Mediterranean  countries as well as in  Sweden and Finland 
more than  90% of  the  operators  own  between  1 and  5 vehicles. 

More elements  on these issues can be found  in chapter  3.4.8.  of the Explanatory  Memorandum 
to the  proposal. 

3.  What  will  businesses  have  to  do to  comply  with  the  proposal? 

There  are  no  additional  obligations  on  business  resulting  from  this  proposal,  but,  to  benefit 
from  the proposed  reduced  user-charge  rates  for  their  "cleaner"  vehicles,  hauliers  will  need 
to have in their possession  a document  proving the environmental  category  (Euro I or II) of 
their vehicles. Aquiring this document, however, is not  expected to create any significant  new 
obligations on business, (see also chapter 3.4.9 and 3.4.10  of the Explanatory  Memorandum). 

4.  What  economic  effects  is the  proposal  likely  to  have? 

-  on  employment 

The proposal  is expected to lead to significant  savings in infrastructure  maintenance costs and 
has  the  potential  of  substantially  reducing  congestion  and  environmental  costs  on  sensitive 
routes.  These  cost  savings  will  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  industry, 
which,  in  turn,  will  lead  to  positive  effects  on  employment. 

-  on  investment  and  the  creation  of  new  businesses 

The  proposal  is  unlikely  to  affect  the  creation  of  new  businesses,  but  it  is  expected  to 
influence  investments  in  rolling  stock  away  from  the  most  road  damaging  and  air  polluting 
types  of  vehicles  towards  the  newer  more  road  and  environment  friendly  models,  (see  also 
chapter  3.4.1  of  the  Explanatory  Memorandum). 

-  on  the  competitive  position  of  businesses 

The proposal  seeks to harmonize the conditions of competion  of Community  hauliers through 
the promotion  of  a more territorial  charging  system, which  is expected  to lead to a reduction 
of the unjust  differences  in the economic/fiscal  burden  on them.  See also chapter  3.4.7  of the 
Explanatory  Memorandum. 

5.  Does  the  proposal  contain  measures  to take  account  of  the  specific  situation  of  small 

and  medium-sized  firms  (reduced  or  different  requirements  etc)? 

The  proposal  does  not  contain  any  specific  provisions  for  small  or  medium-sized  firms. 

Consultation 

6.  List  of  organizations  which  have  been  consulted  concerning  the  proposal  and  herewith 

is the  outline  of  their  main  views: 

56 

A consultation  meeting was held  on the basis of a working document  containing then main 
items  of  this  proposal,  which  were  not  included  in  Directive  93/89/EEC.  The  following 
organizations  were represented: 

"^ 

- 

- 

- 

the IRU (International  Road Union), 

the UNICE, 

the CLEÇAT, 

the EUROCHAMBRES, and 

the  "Comité  Syndical  des transports dans la CE". 

increase of  the 
Overall  the  positions  of  these  organizations  were negative  to a  significant 
maximum  user  charge  level  and  the  link  of  the  proposal  to  the  Green  Paper  on  Fair  and 
Efficient  Pricing in Transport leading to a premature taking  account  of external costs. They 
expressed a serious concern about the likely impact of the proposed charging instruments on 
transport  costs and  on the competitiveness of EU haulage industry. 

To a large extent, the views of the professional  organizations were taken into account in the 
drafting  of the  present  proposal.  With regard,  in particular,  to the maximum  levels of user 
charges  and  their  differentiation,  the  rates  proposed  are  substantially  lower  than  those 
originally  envisaged  and contained  in the working document on which the consultation took 
place.  Furthermore,  painstaking  work  has  been  carried  out  by  a  number  of  Commission 
services  in  assessing  the  likely  impact  of  the  proposed  changes.  The  results  obtained  are 
outlined  in  the Explanatory  Memorandum  to the  proposal  and  confirm  the  neutral  or very 
limited  (in the worst  cases) impact  of the proposed  changes on transport costs. 

57 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 331 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07  09 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-96-355-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-06918-3 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg