WRITTEN QUESTION P-0863/02 by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission. Disproportionate and discriminatory system of fines for road traffic offences in Belgium.
Date: 2002-03-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU law - national law, EU national, European citizenship, discrimination on the basis of nationality, fine, highway code, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, offence

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/53

(2002/C 309 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0863/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Disproportionate and discriminatory system of fines for road traffic offences in Belgium

Further to the written question on fines for road traffic offences in the EU (E-0830/01) (1) tabled to you by
my colleague Karla Peijs on 20 March 2001, I wish to draw your attention to the following.

In the answer that you gave in May 2001 to the question referred to above, you said that the Commission
intended to analyse the Belgian legislation in detail before taking a position on the compatibility of Belgian
legislation with Community law.

Since then, the situation for road users not resident in Belgium has deteriorated. Fines for exceeding the
speed limit by 10 kph were recently increased by the Belgian Government to EUR 200. Residents may
claim a reduction of some EUR 60 from that amount. Non-residents must pay the entire amount. Apart
from the fact
fines for non-residents are denominated in euros, while those for residents are
denominated in Belgian francs (which now no longer exist) (cid:1) which means, in the case of residents, that
collection of the fine becomes more unlikely (cid:1) non-residents are required to pay the fine on the spot. That
procedure is laid down in the Royal Decree of 10 June 1985.

that

The question remains as to the extent to which that procedure is compatible with European Union law
and the principle of non-discrimination enshrined therein. Is it not time to bring infringement proceedings
against the Belgian authorities? The fact that such distinctions are drawn breaches the concept of European
citizenship introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht. What is more, the exorbitant amount of the penalties
flouts the principle of proportionality confirmed by the case-law of the European Court of Justice. In its
White Paper on Transport, the Commission said that it intended to harmonise penalties and controls in the
EU. I therefore call on it to investigate this situation as a matter of urgency.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, Belgian legislation relating to the collection
and deposit of fines for road traffic offences makes a distinction between resident and non-resident
offenders. The former can opt to pay the fine immediately or within a period set by the King, while the
latter must pay the amount demanded immediately or deposit the amount plus an increase to cover legal
costs.

The Court of Justice ruled in the Pastoors case (1) that, in the absence of instruments to enforce a judgment
in a Member State other than the one in which it had been delivered, there were objective grounds for
treating resident and non-resident offenders differently and that a Member State could require only non-
resident offenders to lodge a security if, in the case of an offence, they choose criminal proceedings rather
than opt to pay a fine immediately.

The Commission must complete its examination of Belgian legislation in the light of the recent judgment
(19 March 2002) in Case C-224/00 Commission v. Italy which concerns Italian legislation governing the
same subject, before it can decide whether or not it is compatible with Community law.

One of the reasons that has led the Belgian authorities to distinguish between residents and non-residents
is the difficulty in having a fine imposed by a Belgian court enforced in another Member State. In this
connection the Commission would draw attention to the initiative of the United Kingdom, France and
Sweden aimed at adopting a Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to financial penalties (2). The proposed Framework Decision provides that a fine imposed in
one Member State must be recognised and enforced in other Member States. In some Member States the
fines imposed for road traffic offences are administrative penalties rather than criminal penalties. If the

C 309 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

it
Framework Decision were to cover administrative fines, and this issue is currently being discussed,
should in large part resolve the problem of cross-border enforcement of fines and thus eliminate the need
for differential treatment of residents and non-residents.

With regard to proportionate fines, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the
Commission to Written Question P-3092/00 by Ms Kauppi (3): While the Commission is generally of the
opinion that fines should be proportionate to the severity of the offence for which they were imposed, it
must be acknowledged that it is very difficult to determine in individual cases whether this criterion has
been met or not. Different Member States may have different sets of values and what would appear
proportionate in one Member State may be seen as disproportionate in another.

The Commission is aware of the fact that there are significant differences among Member States in relation
to fines for speeding offences. There is no legislation at Union level that sets maximum amounts to be
imposed in such cases.

As regards the White Paper on European transport policy, the Commission is indeed currently examining
what would be the most effective way of harmonising certain sanctions and controls (particularly as
regards speeding and drink-driving).

(1) Case C-29/95 [1997] ECR I-285 (judgment given on 23.1.1997).
(2) OJ C 278, 2.10.2001.
(3) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: International Air Transport Association (IATA)

(2 April 2002)

The Commission has conducted a study of airlines’ cooperation on fares and routes within the trade
association IATA. IATA’s general exemption should have expired in June 2001, though the Commission
was reportedly prepared to extend it for a further year. However, the Commission was also to study
whether there are other, better ways of airlines cooperating to enable passengers to find cheap and flexible
fares.

What was the outcome of the Commission’s study? Does the Commission not consider that IATA reduces
competition and therefore the opportunities for consumers to enjoy cheap and good quality air travel? Can
IATA continue to exist with, in principle, a permanent exemption?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

As follows implicitly from the mere existence of the group exemption for International Air Transport
Association (IATA) passenger tariff conferences the Commission considers that these conferences, which
involve price fixing, are in principle restrictive of competition. The group exemption applies under certain
additional conditions and obligations only. In particular, the discussions must be limited to fares that can
be used on the services of several different carriers (so-called interlinable fares) and may not cover any
fares that airlines set for their own services (so-called on-line fares).

In February 2001 the Directorate General Competition issued a Consultation Paper to seek views on, in
essence, whether the benefits secured by the tariff consultations (that is the ability for passengers to
interline) could be secured by less restrictive means. Responses were received from Member States, airlines,
travel agents and consumer groups.