Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, road transport, toll, transport infrastructure, transport planning, transport price

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 23.7.2003
COM(2003) 448 final

2003/0175 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of
certain infrastructures

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

I.

INTRODUCTION

The White Paper on European transport policy for 20101 concluded that one of the principal
reasons for the imbalance in the transport system is that the transport modes do not in every
case  pay  the  costs  for  which  they  are  responsible.  The  European  Parliament  confirmed  the
need for infrastructure charging when  it adopted the report on the  conclusions  of the  White
Paper on 12 February 2003.

For  the  rail  sector,  infrastructure  charging  is  already  included  in  the  first  rail  package.  The
Commission  reserves  the  right  to  present  sectoral  directives  at  a  later  date  on  charging  for
infrastructure use in the air, waterway and maritime transport sectors. The priority now must
be to concentrate on road transport, by proposing a sectoral directive to this effect. This also
ties in with the wishes of the Copenhagen European Council of 12 and 13 December 2002 and
of the Brussels European Council of 20 and 21 March 2003, which reiterated the call to the
Commission to present  a  proposal on a  "new  Eurovignette directive" by the end of  the  first
half of 2003 at the latest.

This  proposal  therefore  amends  Directive  1999/62/EC,  the  "Eurovignette"  Directive.
Amendment is all the more urgent as most Member States are examining the reforms needed
to  include  the  cost  to  society  in  the  prices  paid  by  infrastructure  users.  Some  countries  are
planning  or  have  already  undertaken  to  introduce  new  road  charging  systems  linked  to  the
distance travelled.

These efforts to reform charging in the road transport sector have the merit of attempting to
internalise  certain  transport-related  costs.  Ensuring  freedom  of  movement,  developing
infrastructures and improving road safety all cost money. Sooner or later the cost is passed on
to taxpayers, without their knowing how much it is. The public, as direct or indirect transport
users and taxpayers, have the right to know what they are paying for and why. Charging could
contribute to raising awareness. By improving how transport is used, this approach will also
enhance competitiveness and boost the economy as a whole.

However,  these  isolated  initiatives  lead  to  a  regulatory  patchwork  which  exacerbates  the
existing fragmentation in the European Union in the field of transport taxes and charges. This
gives rise to unequal treatment of operators on the various networks and hence to distortions
of competition. It acts as a disincentive to investors and undermines the commercial strategies
of  operators,  who  have  difficulty  in  anticipating  charging  policies  and  in  adapting  their
strategies accordingly.

In the road sector, Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use
of  certain  infrastructures2  lays  down  certain  rules  defining  the  conditions  under  which  user
charges  ("Eurovignette")  and  tolls  may  be  applied.  However,  these  rules  need  to  be
supplemented, as the national systems of tolls and user charges for infrastructure use must be
aligned on common principles to ensure fair competition between operators.

1

2

COM (2001) 370, 12.9.2001.

OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

2

                                                
Charging  will  have  all  the  more  chance  of  being  understood  and  accepted  by  users  if  it  is
reflected in an improvement in the quality  of  service  offered  by  infrastructure  managers.  In
certain  cases,  there  should  be  scope  for  cross-financing  of  infrastructure  providing  an
alternative  to  road  transport,  as  is  the  case  in  Switzerland  for  example.  The  system's
acceptability to users and public opinion will greatly depend on how the revenue is used and
on the transparency of the financial circuits activated by the charging methods. If the general
public  can  see  for  themselves  that  the  revenue  is  used  as  a  basis  for  investing  in  transport
infrastructure  networks,  from  whence  it  comes,  the  system  will  be  legitimised  and  thus
accepted. If the opposite is true, charging will become just another taxation tool, serving no
specific  purpose  other  than  to  boost  State  income.  It  is  also  essential  in  the  context  of
acceptability that the  Community framework  serve  to  avoid  any  discrimination  between  the
countries in the EU heartland and those on the periphery.

The  Middle  Ages  were  the  only  time  that  the  owners  of  strategic  highways  were  able  to
charge "tolls" without providing any added value or some other service in return.

Infrastructure  charging  on  its  own  cannot  cure  all  the  imbalances  in  the  transport  market.
However,  it  will  provide  a  necessary  framework  enabling  transport  undertakings  to  make
rational choices that take account of all the constituent parameters of transport costs in each
mode. By providing a stable, predictable framework it constitutes, with the support of other
instruments, one of the solutions to the problem of financing major transport infrastructure.

It  is  not  so  much  the  level  of  charges  on  transport  as  the  structure  of  the  charges  and  the
manner  in  which  they  are  applied  to  the  various  categories  of  user  that  need  to  change.
Infrastructure  fees  offer  the  possibility  of  greater  differentiation  by  vehicle  type,  time  and
place, and hence of more accurately reflecting costs in different situations without increasing
the overall burden of taxes and fees in the road sector.

II. THE MAIN CHANGES TO DIRECTIVE 1999/62/EC

1.  

Tolls that better reflect the costs of transport

Charging for the use of road infrastructure cannot on its  own solve all the transport sector's
problems.  There  are  several  instruments  available  to  reduce  transport  costs,  ranging  from
regulatory measures to user fees, fuel taxes and taxes on vehicles. Infrastructure fees are thus
one  tool  among  others.  They  cannot  replace  regulation  in  the  field  of  emissions,  noise  or
speed limits. Each problem must be solved with the appropriate instruments. Moreover, there
are uncertainties in the method of calculating the costs of certain transport impacts.

In these circumstances, road charges should reflect the following costs (Article 7(9)):

a.

The costs of constructing, operating, maintaining, and developing the network

This category of costs, already covered by Directive 1999/62/EC, covers the cost of damage
to the infrastructure and the investment costs (construction cost including, where appropriate,
interest  on  the  invested  capital).  The  cost  of  damage  includes  occasional  structural
maintenance,  such  as  renewal  of  the  road  surface,  and  regular  annual  maintenance,  such  as
road marking and winter maintenance.

The  proposal  for  a  directive  limits  the  construction  costs  that  can  be  taken  into  account  to
those  for  new  infrastructure,  i.e.  infrastructure  to  be  built  in  future  or  which  has  just  been
built. It is necessary to avoid including in the fees any construction-related costs which have
already been covered. A special provision has been included so as not to cause prejudice, with

3

regard  to  the  taking  into  account  of  construction  costs,  to  rights  relating  to  concession
contracts in existence at the time of entry into force of this proposal for a directive.

The investment costs include the costs of infrastructure to reduce the impact of noise, such as
anti-noise barriers erected along certain roads.

The costs  of  structural maintenance are  proportional to the infrastructure  damage caused  by
the traffic. This varies as a function of axle weight. The damage is generally estimated to be
equivalent  to  the  fourth  power  of  the  axle  weight.  Consequently,  doubling  the  weight
multiplies by 16 the amount of damage to the road. Regular maintenance costs, although not
linked to vehicle weight, reflect the intensity of traffic overall and its composition.

As there are substantial differences in the damage resulting from an increase in axle weight,
the proposal for a directive provides for  a classification based on four categories of vehicle;
this  permits  a  more  sophisticated  differentiation  of  tolls  according  to  the  level  of  damage
caused (according to the maximum permissible gross laden weight, the number of axles and
the suspension type).

b.

The uncovered costs of accidents

Accidents  are  one  of  the  most  visible  negative  impacts  of  transport.  Every  year,  more  than
40 000  people  are  killed  and  over  1.7  million  are  seriously  injured  in  accidents  in  Europe,
mainly on the roads. The victims represent a  cost to society  running into tens of billions of
euros and an incalculable human cost.

Insurance premiums already cover some of the costs of accidents, reimbursing in most cases
the material damage and some of the medical costs. Tolls must include the costs that are not
covered by insurance, of which part is borne by social security or by society in general.

More precisely, account should be taken of the real costs for society as a whole. These include
vehicle  repair  and  replacement  costs,  which  are  generally  covered  to  a  large  extent  by
insurance schemes, as well as the administrative costs of the public services mobilised in the
event  of  accidents,  the  costs  of  medical  services  and  losses  of  human  capital  (discounted
losses of productive potential) and the cost of physical damage. So as not to include the costs
already  internalised  by  insurances,  it  is  then  necessary  to  subtract  insurance  premiums  and
users' contributions to insurance companies.

c.

Estimating costs

The  costs  of  building,  operating  and  maintaining  infrastructure  are  generally  fairly  easy  to
measure.  They  can  be  deduced  from  the  national  accounts  or  from  the  infrastructure
managers' accounts. With regard to accident costs, for which there are no figures as there is no
market, monetary values can be derived from objective surveys. A number of studies, past or
in progress, use methods that enable monetary values to be attributed to externalities.

To  guarantee  consistent,  harmonised  application  of  toll  systems,  the  annex  to  the  proposed
directive  contains  a  common  methodology  for  calculating  the  various  cost  constituents.
Average  values  are  proposed  for  situations  where  there  are  no  figures  for  the  cost  of
accidents.  Member  States  will  be  able  to  use  these  figures  if  they  are  unable  to  estimate
accident  costs  sufficiently  accurately.  It  is  clear  that  these  figures  reflect  the  choice  of  a
simplified method and that they can evolve in the light of more specific regional or local data.
Regular  updating  of  these  figures  will  be  an  essential  part  of  the  system  of  monitoring
transport costs.

4

2.  

A more differentiated charging system

Directive  1999/62/EC  links  charges  only  to  a  very  small  extent,  or  not  at  all,  to  damage  to
infrastructure, congestion or accident risks. Tolls offer the possibility of establishing this link
by making a more sophisticated differentiation by vehicle type and time and place and hence
of more accurately reflecting costs in different situations.

To  establish  this  link,  the  proposal  for  a  directive  therefore  gives  Member  States  the
possibility of varying tolls according to a number of factors:

(cid:1)  Distance travelled
(cid:1)  Place:  accident  rates  differ  between  urban  and  rural  areas  and  according  to  population
density.  In  addition,  harsher  winter  conditions  increase  the  costs  of  road  maintenance  in
certain areas.

(cid:1)  Infrastructure type and speed: maintenance expenditure on a motorway differs greatly from
that on a trunk road. The  type of  infrastructure also determines the speed of the vehicles
using it, which has a knock-on effect on accidents, among other things.

(cid:1)  Vehicle characteristics: axle weight and suspension type of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs)
have  a  major  influence  on  infrastructure  repairs  and  maintenance.  Engine  type,  energy
source  and  emission  standards  (EURO  standards)  determine  the  level  of  air  pollution.
Directive  1999/62/EC  already  makes  provision  for  taking  account  of  EURO  vehicle
standards  to  vary  the  level  of  tolls.  Finally,  the  larger  the  vehicles,  the  greater  their
contribution to congestion.

(cid:1)  Time  of  day  and  congestion  level:  Congestion  in  certain  regions  of  Europe  and  along
certain  major  arteries  increased  in  the  1990s  and  this  is  now  undermining  economic
competitiveness.  According  to  the  most  recent  study  on  the  subject,  external  congestion
costs due to road traffic alone represent about 0.5% of Community gross domestic product
(GDP) and could reach 1% of GDP in 2010, or approximately €80 billion.

Congestion  levels  differ  between  off-peak  and  peak  times,  normal  periods  and  the  main
tourist  seasons.  The  different  levels  of  congestion  in  turn  generate  different  levels  of
pollution.

Differentiation  according  to  specific  roads  in  the  network  to  take  account  of  the  level  of
congestion will be optional initially. The proposal for a directive envisages requiring Member
States to vary tolls on different roads in the network from July 2008.

In practice, the fees are  collected  by the  infrastructure managers as  a condition of access to
their  section  of  the  road  network.  This  system,  normally  characterised  by  motorway  toll
stations,  enables  charges  to  be  modulated  according  to  vehicle  characteristics  or  time  slots,
which is a first step in reflecting the external costs of transport.

In  a  few  years'  time,  however,  the  general  availability  of  satellite  positioning  systems  will
enable Member States to introduce charging scales that are sufficiently sophisticated to price
transport operations according to time and place and so better reflect their costs at the point of
use.  The  European  Galileo  system  will  contribute  to  this  objective  when  it  is  taken  into
service in a few years' time.

3.  

The networks and users concerned

The Community framework for charging for infrastructure use must target the networks and
users directly concerned by the internal market. It should therefore concentrate on lorries over
3.5 tonnes and the main itineraries.

5

a.

Goods transport vehicles over 3.5 tonnes

The Eurovignette directive applies to vehicles intended exclusively for the carriage of goods
by  road  having  a  total  authorised  laden  weight  of  12  tonnes  or  more.  The  proposal  for  a
directive now makes the  Community  infrastructure  charging  framework applicable to  goods
transport vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. While they carry fewer goods than heavy goods vehicles,
lorries  with  a  lower  carrying  capacity  cause  damage  to  infrastructure  and  contribute
directly - like a heavy goods vehicle - to the increase in congestion on the road network and
the number of accidents.

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  scope  of  the  proposal  for  a  directive  is  consistent  with
Community  road  transport  legislation  which  is  generally  aimed  at  lorries  over  3.5  tonnes.
Mention  can  be  made,  for  example,  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  881/92  of
26 March 1992  concerning  access  to  the  market  for  the  carriage  of  goods  by  road  in  the
Community,  Directive  98/76/EEC  on  access  to  the  profession,  Regulation  3820/85  and
Regulation 3821/85 on driving time and rest periods, and Directive 2002/15/EC on working
hours, etc.

Vehicles not meeting this criterion are not covered by the directive. As a reusult of their very
small load-carrying capacity, they rarely make intra-Community journeys.

Private  cars  also  pose  different  problems.  The  congestion  costs  they  generate  may  be
considerable,  particularly  in  an  urban  environment.  However,  car  traffic  is  still  primarily
national  in  character,  except  in  the  tourist  season.  The  Commission  considers  that  Member
States  and  cities  should  retain  the  freedom  and  the  responsibility  to  develop  their  own
approach to this category of users. If, in the framework of subsidiarity, local authorities intend
to  apply  infrastructure  user  charges  to  passenger  cars,  they  may  of  course  follow  the  broad
lines of the directive.

b. Main itineraries

This mainly concerns the trans-European transport network  (TEN-T)  as  defined in  Decision
No  1692/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  1996  on
Community  guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network3.  This
network currently  represents around 60 000  km  of  motorways  and  high-quality  roads  in  the
European  Union  (by  way  of  a  guide,  see  the  map  below  of  the  trans-European  transport
network in 2001).

3

OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

6

                                                
Restricting charges to the TEN-T network could lead to traffic diverting to the parallel trunk
roads or to other major roads in compact urban areas, with serious consequences in terms of
traffic  regulation  and  congestion,  not  to  mention  accidents  and  environmental  problems.
Examples  of  roads  where  this  may  happen  include  the  N7  parallel  to  the  A7  motorway
between Lyon and Marseille, the N10 parallel to the A10 motorway between  Bordeaux and
Paris or the N II parallel to the A7 motorway between Figueras and Barcelona. It is therefore
proposed to allow Member States to extend the scope of the Community framework in certain
cases  where  a  trunk  road  or  main  road  closely  follows  the  route  of  a  motorway.  The
proportionality  of  such  measures  will  be  examined  by  the  Commission  on  a  case-by-case
basis.

This  definition  of  network  covered  by  the  Community  framework  does  not  prevent  the
Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, from considering applying an
infrastructure  charging  system  on  roads  that  are  not  part  of  the  main  itineraries.  This
possibility could in particular allow the accession candidate countries, whose main network is
at present  still  limited,  to  apply  a  charging  system  on  other  roads  in  order  to  raise  funds  to
improve their networks as a whole.

7

4.  

Using the revenue from fees

The proposal for a directive is based on the general principle that the revenue from tolls and
user charges must be ploughed back into maintenance of the road infrastructure on which the
tolls are levied  and  into  the transport sector  as  a whole, taking due account of  the  balanced
development  of  the  transport  networks.  Consequently,  there  can  be  no  question  of  States
using  this  revenue  in  the  context  of  their  general  expenditure,  for  example  on  health  or
education.  The  Commission,  the  Member  States  and  the  independent  infrastructure
supervision  authority  to  be  designated  by  the  Member  States  must  ensure  strict  compliance
with this principle.

The  question  of  the  correct  use  of  this  revenue  is  all  the  more  important  as  the  proposed
directive  would  authorise  Member  States  to  apply  mark-ups  to  tolls  in  the  case  of  roads  in
particularly  sensitive  areas,  in  particular  in  mountainous  regions  (Alps,  Pyrenees);  for  such
infrastructure, the proposal gives the option of including a mark-up, provided that the revenue
is used to improve existing transport or to develop alternative modes of transport in the same
corridor or in the same area (e.g. to build a rail link from Lyon to Turin). Unlike the system of
"ecopoints"  applying  to  transit  on  the  whole  of  Austrian  territory,  these  mark-ups  on  fees
would in future be clearly targeted in order to promote road and other transport networks in a
very specific area.

The  White  Paper  on  European  transport  policy  for  2010  highlighted  the  efforts  still  to  be
made to relieve congestion on the main arteries and build the sections needed to link up the
trans-European  transport  networks.  Charging  could  thus  have  a  multiplier  effect  for  the
financing  of  new  sections  within  a  corridor  or  multimodal  area  in  particularly  sensitive
regions.

III. THE BENEFITS OF CHARGING

1. 

A more efficient market

The proposal for a directive will make a crucial contribution to improving the efficiency and
productivity  of  the  road  transport  sector  as  a  whole.  A  Community  framework  for  road
charges will not only result in fairer prices for users, by modulating tariffs according to local
characteristics, but also help establish fair conditions of competition between operators in the
European Union. This competition framework will be of a nature to enhance integration of the
internal  market  and  hence  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  economy,  by  avoiding
fragmentation of Community territory.

It will also provide a stable, predictable framework for charges, enabling operators to position
themselves and more effectively decide their development strategy in the large market.

As the White Paper on European transport policy for 2010 points out, charging for the use of
infrastructure can replace systems which ration transit rights in sensitive areas. It was the lack
of  an  efficient  system  of  charging  for  heavy  goods  vehicles  in  Europe  that  led  Austria  to
introduce  the  "ecopoint"  system  for  distributing  transit  rights,  as  an  interim  solution  to  the
problem of the impact of heavy goods traffic in the Alps.

2.  More rational use of infrastructure

Tariffs  differentiated  according  to  zones  and  their  territorial  characteristics  will  provide
lasting  encouragement  to  use  less  congested  networks  and  cleaner,  safer  modes  than  the
existing alternatives. If there is a reduction in congestion, in the number of accidents and —

8

by equipping heavy lorries with emission-reduction technology — in air pollution, the costs
currently  associated  with  transport  will  also  diminish,  and  this  in  turn  will  boost  the
competitiveness of the European economy and improve the quality of life.

3.  A gain for the European economy

Charging will generate savings of several tens of billions of euros yearly, owing to a reduction
in  time  lost  on  congested  roads,  a  drop  in  the  number  of  accidents  and  improved
environmental quality. Charging provides an incentive to replace polluting vehicles by more
efficient,  clean  technologies.  Other  transport  policy  measures,  such  as  stricter  emission
standards, will accentuate these positive developments.

Furthermore,  this  system  will  help  reduce  the  overall  distance  travelled  by  encouraging  the
transport operators to optimise their loads and the forwarders to adapt their logistical chain.

4. 

Support for financing new infrastructure

The  White  Paper  on  European  transport  policy  for  2010  highlighted  the  efforts  still  to  be
made  to  relieve  congestion  on  the  main  routes  and  build  the  sections  needed  to  link  up  the
trans-European  transport  networks.  The  cost  of  building  the  remaining  infrastructure  in  this
network, the map of which was decided by the European Parliament and the Council in 1996,
is today estimated at €600 billion as a minimum, including €100 billion in the future Member
States.  No solution has been found so far to funding these needs, which are well beyond the
range of the Community and national budgets. Up to now, public budgets have assumed the
main  burden  of  transport  infrastructure.  This  option  is  no  longer  conceivable  and  realistic
today given the required levels of investment in an enlarged Europe and the current budgetary
constraints.

A  differentiated  infrastructure  charging  system  will  generate  more  revenue  than  is  the  case
today. These financial surpluses could  create some leeway in public budgets to finance new
investments in transport and hence increase the capacity of the network.

Mention should also be made of the possibility given to the Member States to increase tolls by
25% of the average toll in particularly sensitive areas in order to cross-finance other transport
infrastructure of high European interest in the same corridor or the same transport area. This
additional revenue, combined with concentrating the funds from all the infrastructure charges
on the completion of certain axes or sections, will make a real contribution to the completion
of the trans-European network.

Other  instruments  will  contribute  to  this  objective,  in  particular  those  mentioned  in  the
Commission  Communication  of  23  April  2003  "Developing  the  trans-European  network",
which  seeks  to  promote  public-private  partnerships  and  to  encourage  the  widespread
introduction and interoperability of electronic toll collection systems in the Community4.

5. 

A more transparent, less discriminatory system

Reform of the conditions governing tolls and user charges will introduce greater transparency
in setting the price charged to the user. A clear economic message must be sent to users. The
latter  will  have  access  to  information  on  tariffs,  enabling  them  to  optimise  journeys  and  to
choose between the least costly itineraries or modes. If users are more aware of the levels of

4

COM (2003) 132 final.

9

                                                
costs  generated  and  see  these  costs  reflected  in  the  charging  system,  they  will  be  more
inclined to shoulder their share of the responsibility.

Monitoring  of  transport  costs  and  vigilant  management  of  charging  will  also  ensure  the
smooth functioning of the single market and avoid tariff-based discrimination. The conditions
for fair, non-discriminatory charging must be transparent.

IV. SPECIFIC MEANS TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION

1. 

Compensation for the annual vehicle tax

Charging  for infrastructure use is not primarily  intended to raise  new  revenue,  but  rather  to
provide positive economic incentives for transport operations through a structure which more
effectively  integrates  external  costs  and  infrastructure  costs  in  transport  prices.  It  is  also
intended  to  facilitate  investment  in  the  road  transport  sector  and  in  other  transport  modes,
should this prove necessary.

It should first of all be noted that this proposal for a directive is based, as regards the basis for
calculating  tolls,  on  the  total  infrastructure  costs  (construction,  operation  and  maintenance
costs). The proposal for a directive also adds to this calculation basis the costs of accidents,
while allowing the tolls to be differentiated according to certain environmental and congestion
costs.

In  order  to  offset  the  financial  burden  involved  as  a  result  of  introducing  an  infrastructure
charging  system,  the  proposed  directive  would  allow  Member  States  to  compensate  for  the
introduction  of  tolls  and/or  user  charges  by  reducing  the  annual  vehicle  tax  (road  tax
harmonised by Directive 1999/62/EC). The annual vehicle tax is based on vehicle ownership
and not on use.  It is calculated in  the form  of  a single amount, once per  year. Charging  for
infrastructure use may replace this tax, partially or totally, by new, fairer rules permitting the
introduction of fees that more accurately reflect the costs of infrastructure use. These fees will
henceforth  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  distance  travelled,  modulated  according  to
vehicles' environmental performance (EURO standards, as already provided for in the existing
Directive), their axle weight, congestion levels and the number of accidents on the network.

With  regard  to  the  consequences  which  establishing  such  a  system  may  have  on  the  road
sector, the Commission could examine the conditions for implementing provisions making it
possible to harmonise certain contract clauses in order to protect carriers vis-à-vis consignors.
This possibility, which was envisaged in the Commission White Paper on transport policy for
2010, could allow carriers to revise their rates, where appropriate, in the event of a significant
increase in their costs as a result of the establishment of infrastructure-charging systems in the
Member States.

2. 

The technical systems for charging for infrastructure use

The  most  common  fee  collection  systems  require  vehicles  to  stop  at  toll  stations,  which
inconveniences  users  and  can  cause  major  delays.  In  this  respect,  the  Directive  states  that
Member  States  must  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  charges  are  collected  in  a
manner which causes the minimum hindrance to the traffic flow and obviates any mandatory
check at the Community's internal frontiers.

The  introduction  of  a  new  infrastructure  charging  system  should  take  advantage  of  new
technologies. The latter already support systems which permit automatic payment, register the
distances travelled and technical characteristics of vehicles and trace their routes with the aid

10

of  satellite  radio  navigation.  They  therefore  offer  the  possibility  of  implementing  charging
policies  with  much  greater  differentiation  in  time  and  space,  at  a  much  lower  cost  than
traditional systems.

However,  there  is  a  risk  that  the  development  of  electronic  fee  collection  systems  using
different  technologies  will  create  new,  artificial  barriers  in  a  unified  Europe  and  present
unacceptable  difficulties  to  drivers.  It  is  of  prime  importance  to  make  these  systems
interoperable Europe-wide in order to avoid such an eventuality. To this end, the Commission
adopted  a  proposal  for  a  directive  on  23  April  2003  concerning  a  European  electronic  fee
collection system, which will help create conditions more favourable to the rational use of the
trans-European transport networks. The proposal seeks to establish a European electronic fee
collection  system  to  ensure  that  payment  systems  in  the  internal  market  are  interoperable.
This  system  should  make  it  possible  to  reduce  congestion,  improve  traffic  flows  and  limit
cash  transactions  at  toll  stations.  Users  will  be  able  to  subscribe  to  all  the  operators  of  the
different  parts  of  the  network.  The  proposal  requires  the  operators  of  the  fee  collection
systems to provide this service from 1 January 2005 for all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.

The latest systems being installed no longer require vehicles to slow down as they approach
toll stations. They are based on short-range microwave communication technologies requiring
the installation of vehicle on-board units that communicate with external beacons in order to
identify the vehicle and carry out the financial transactions. Experience with this has opened
the way to the development of systems which primarily communicate with a set of satellites
rather than terrestrial beacons  (GPS today, Galileo in future), making  it possible to  locate  a
given vehicle at all times, to know the routes travelled and to calculate the charge due, with
payment being effected by mobile telephony (GSM).

3. 

An independent infrastructure supervision authority

Charging  for  road  infrastructure  should  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  creation  in  each  Member
State of an independent infrastructure supervision authority whose main tasks would be:

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

to  oversee  the  operation  of  the  national  charging  systems  in  a  manner  guaranteeing
transparency and non-discrimination between operators;

to verify that the financial resources from tolls and charges for infrastructure use will be
ploughed  back  into  the  transport  networks,  in  conformity  with  the  proposed  directive.
Steps must be taken to avoid the financial surpluses being diverted to other investments
which do not benefit the transport sector.

The proposal for a directive does not leave the allocation of financial resources to chance.
It  provides  for  using  the  revenue  to  maintain  the  road  network  and  for  sustainable
projects in the transport sector;

to  promote  synergies  between  the  different  sources  of  funds  earmarked  for  transport
infrastructure.

In  short,  this  authority  would  guarantee  that  the  calculation  of  tolls  on  the  trans-European
network  and  roads  competing  with  this  network  and  the  use  of  revenue  from  tolls  and  user
charges are in accordance with the provisions of the Community directive. It will need to be
independent  in  order  to  take  into  account,  without  discrimination  and  with  the  greatest
possible degree of transparency, the interest both of the public sector and the private sector.
The latter sector in many cases operates the roads or certain roads on the network on which
charges are levied.

11

Each  Member  State  will  be  able  to  create  this  structure  in  accordance  with  its  needs  by
adapting it to the specific characteristics of the national network.

V. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL

Road transport gives rise to externalities that vary greatly according to the place and time of
the  journey,  the  type  of  infrastructure  and  the  vehicle  characteristics.  The  RECORDIT
project5  examined  these  costs  for  the  various  transport  modes  in  the  European  Union  and
evaluated  the  impact  of  a  charging  scheme  on  HGVs.  RECORDIT  allocated  these  costs
according to the place and population density.

Road  charging  for  HGVs  based  on  external  costs  was  also  analysed  using  the  SCENES6
model  for  2020.  This  model  compares  a  base  scenario  and  an  alternative  scenario  using
charging.

The  directive  now  proposed  would  help  reduce  the  undesirable  external  effects  of  road
transport.  Differentiated  tolls  will  encourage  the  use  of  less  polluting  vehicles,  the  routes
chosen  for  goods  will  be  optimised,  roads  with  a  low  environmental  impact  will  have  a
competitive  advantage  and  users  will  be  encouraged  to  change  their  behaviour  by  taking
account of the real costs of transport.

The  capacity  provided  by  the  various  networks  will  thus  be  used  more  rationally  and
efficiently, reducing bottlenecks and hence time losses. In the long term, economic operators
will be encouraged to reorganise their logistical chain and to adapt their modal choices on the
basis  of  clear  economic  signals,  with  beneficial  effects  for  the  environment  as  well  as
advantages for the transport sector.

In  addition,  thanks  to  a  system  of  infrastructure  fees,  surplus  revenue  is  conceivable  in
congested  regions  with  a  high  population  density.  This  surplus  will  be  used  to  improve  the
efficiency of the transport sector as a whole.

Among  the  consequences  of  the  new  proposed  charging  system,  mention  can  be  made  in
particular of the following:

(cid:1)  Modification of the itineraries of heavy goods vehicles

Given that traffic going through sensitive areas can be subject to a higher charge, road freight
transport will tend to move away from these areas and concentrate more on interurban roads
where  the  pollution  costs  are  the  lowest.  Where  mountainous  areas  cannot  be  avoided,
alternative modes, and in particular rail/road services, will benefit from the adjustment effect
brought about by the directive on road tolls.

(cid:1)  Modification of the fleet of heavy goods vehicles

The charge per tonne for small/medium-sized lorries travelling on the trans-European network
will be higher than the charge per tonne for heavy goods vehicles. Small/medium-sized lorries

5

6

RECORDIT  -  Real  cost  reduction  of  door-to-door  intermodal  transport,  project  funded  under  the  5th
Framework  Programme  of  Research  and  Development.  The  project  reports  are  available  at
www.recordit.org

SCENES Scenarios for European transport, project financed under the Fourth Framework Programme
of  Research 
report  at
see 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/final_reports/strategic/SCENES.pdf.

transport.  For  more  details, 

field  of 

final 

the 

the 

in 

12

                                                
carry fewer tonnes of goods than heavy goods vehicles to absorb the charge. While they carry
fewer  goods  than  heavy  goods  vehicles,  small  lorries  nevertheless  cause  infrastructure
damage and contribute directly - like a heavy goods vehicle - to the increase in congestion on
the TEN network and to the number of accidents. The new charging system should therefore,
to  some  extent,  encourage  the  use  of  heavier  vehicles  and  hence  the  optimisation  of  road
freight transport.

The  example  of  charging  in  Switzerland  has  resulted  in  a  big  impact  in  terms  of  the
restructuring  of  the  vehicle  fleet.  Following  the  introduction  of  a  kilometre-based  charge,
sales of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes have increased by 45% with a large increase in lorries over
26 tonnes. As the charge applies in Switzerland to all the network, the effect on the fleet of a
policy  limited  to  the  TEN  network  is  likely  to  be  more  limited  is  still  significant  since  this
network carries 50% of the traffic in terms of tonne-km.

In  addition,  road  infrastructure  charging  should  generate  other  positive  changes,  such  as
progress in vehicle technology, the operation of road haulage companies, and goods logistics
management.  Differentiating  tolls  should  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  fleet.  By  way  of
example, estimates made at the time of introduction of the new charging system in Germany
indicate  a  drastic  reduction  in  EURO  III  vehicles  by  2010  and  a  proportion  of  EURO  V
vehicles in excess of 50%.

VI. CONCLUSION

Transport  users  have  the  right  to  know  what  they  are  paying  for  and  why.  It  is  therefore
necessary  to  promote  systems  in  which  the  costs  related  to  infrastructure  use  are  translated
into  the  prices  users  pay  for  transport,  without  this  affecting  access  to  a  quality  service
throughout the whole of EU territory.

Member  States  are  increasingly  taking  the  initiative  to  introduce  a  system  of  infrastructure
charging which passes these costs on to users. The existing Community charging framework
must be reinforced in the face of isolated initiatives on the part of Member States, given the
importance of road transport to the European economy. These national initiatives risk creating
new distortions and hence compromising the smooth functioning of the internal market.

In response to repeated requests from Member States, the European Council and the European
Parliament,  the  Commission  is  therefore  presenting  a  proposal  to  amend  Directive
1999/62/EC  on  the  charging  of  heavy  goods  vehicles  for  the  use  of  certain  infrastructures.
This Community framework is an important complement to the internal market, guaranteeing
sustainable freedom of movement.

This reform will make a crucial contribution to improving the efficiency and productivity of
the transport sector. The revenue from charging will finance trans-European network projects
which are  currently  well  beyond  the  reach  of  national  and  Community  budgets.  In  the  long
term,  transport  operators  and  forwarders  will  be  encouraged  to  reorganise  their  logistical
chain.

The proposed directive provides a framework that will enable Member States, with due regard
for the subsidiarity principle, to give economic incentives to transport in the form of a price
structure that better reflects the costs to society.

13

The  phasing-in  of  charges  on  commercial  transport  may  serve  as  a  model  and  encourage
Member States, if they so wish, to introduce charges for private cars, particularly in an urban
environment.

VII.

SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS TO DIRECTIVE 1999/62/EC

Article 1 of the proposal for a directive

(cid:1)  Point 1 amends Article 2 of Directive 1999/62/EC which contains definitions of the terms
used  in  the  directive.  The  new  definitions  include  the  network  to  which  the  tolls  apply
(new  paragraphs  a  and  aa  which  replace  the  concept  of  motorway  in  Directive
1999/62/EC), the concept of construction costs (not defined in Directive 1999/62/EC), the
concept of vehicle (the directive now applies to lorries over 3.5 tonnes). Lastly Article 2,
referring  to  an  annex  for  greater  clarity,  includes  the  entire  present  nomenclature  of
EURO vehicles with regard to emissions.

(cid:1)  Point  2  adapts  Article  6  of  Directive  1999/62/EC  to  ensure  consistency  in  the  text,  in
order to take into consideration the new possibility offered by the proposal for a directive
of reducing vehicle taxes in accordance with the new Article 7b.

(cid:1)  Point 3 amends Article 7 of Directive 1999/62/EC and adds several new provisions to it.

(cid:1)  Paragraph 2 concerning the motorway network on which tolls are levied is replaced.
The approach based on the motoway concept is replaced by an approach followed in
other Community acts based on the trans-European road network, together with roads
competing  with  that  network.  This  concept  of  roads  competing  with  the  trans-
European  network  is  in  response  to  the  current  concerns  in  the  Member  States
confronted with the phenomenon of a shift in traffic to axes is not subject to tolls.

(cid:1)  Paragraph  4  concerning  the  non-discriminatory  nature  of  infrastructure  charges  is

replaced by a more complete wording.

(cid:1)  Paragraph  5a  is  intended  to  adapt  Directive  1999/62/EC  to  technical  progress
concerning  tolls,  namely  electronic  collection  systems.  The  aim  is  to  guarantee  that
such  systems  are  introduced  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  place  the  road  sector  at  a
disadvantage or hinder the free movement of transport.

(cid:1)  Paragraph  9  develops  the  basis  for  calculating  weighted  average  tolls.  The  text  of
Directive  1999/62/EC  is  replaced  by  the  new  approach  of  this  proposal  (total
infrastructure costs and accident costs).

(cid:1)  Paragraph 10 of Directive 1999/62/EC is replaced by the new approach concerning the
differentiation of weighted average tolls. Member States can now vary tolls according
to the different types of vehicles, the time of day and level of congestion, and the route
in  the  road  network.  The  proposal  for  a  directive  also  provides  that  toll  variation
according to the route in the network will be compulsory from July 2008.

(cid:1)  The  new  paragraph  11  provides  for  the  possibility  of  increasing  tolls  in  particularly
sensitive  areas,  in  particular  in  the  mountains.  This  provision  is  a  fundamental
innovative aspect of the proposal for a directive, and is intended to help complete the
(road  and  other)  transport  networks  in  these  sensitive  areas.  These  increases  will  be
implemented under strict Commission supervision.

(cid:1)  The  new  paragraph  12  includes  a  practical  provision  for  the  application  of  tolls  by

Member States. It reflects the new approach of greater differentiation in tolls.

14

(cid:1)  Point  4  adds  Articles  7a  and  7b  to  Directive  1999/62/EC.  Article  7b  establishes  the
principles for calculating tolls according to a common methodology. This methodology is
set out in a new Annex III to Directive 1999/62/EC. Article 7b allows Member States to
introduce 
these  charges.  This
compensation applies to vehicle taxes, but does not exclude other compensation.

to  grant  compensation  for 

infrastructure  charges 

(cid:1)  Point  5  adds  Articles  8a  and  8b  to  Directive  1999/62/EC.  Article  8a  requires  Member
States  to  create  an  independent  infrastructure  supervision  authority.  It  is  a  measure
necessary  for  the  implementation  of  the  new  framework  established  by  the  directive.
Article 8a specifies the conditions for granting discounts or reductions in tolls.

(cid:1)  Point  6  mainly  modifies  the  concept  of  the  assignment  of  revenue  from  infrastructure
charges  set  out  in  Article  9  of  Directive  1999/62/EC.  While  Member  States  are  free  to
assign this revenue to any type of expenditure pursuant to Directive 1999/62/EC,  the new
proposal  provides  that  it  must  be  assigned  to  the  transport  sector,  taking  account  of  the
balanced development of transport networks.

(cid:1)  Point  7  inserts  Articles  9a,  9b  and  9c  into  Directive  1999/62/EC.  Article  9a  requires
Member States to introduce appropriate controls and a penalty system. This will make it
possible  to  guarantee  the  sound  application  of  the  directive.  Article  9b  is  intended  to
update  the  technical  annexes  to  the  directive,  and  more  particularly  the  new  toll
calculation  methodology.  Lastly,  Article  9c  introduces  the  committee  procedure  and  a
procedure  for  the  consultation  of  the  Commission.  This  provision  is  the  practical
implementation  of  the  new  powers  of  the  Commission  with  regard  to  infrastructure
charges (for the definition of the network by the directive and monitoring the parameters
for the calculation of tolls, etc.).

(cid:1)  Point  8  amends  Article  11  of  Directive  1999/62/EC.  It  provides  for  the  Commission  to
report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and the effects
of the directive by 1 July 2008.

(cid:1)  Point  9  is  intended  to  update  the  user  charges  set  out  in  Annex  II  to  Directive
1999/62/EC. These user charges, which were set in 1999, had been adapted by applying a
weighting calculated on the basis of inflation in the European Union in 2000 (1.9%), 2001
(2.2%), and 2002 (2.1%).

(cid:1)  Point  10  inserts  an  Annex  0  setting  out  the  different  EURO  standards  applicable  to

vehicles (see also point 1 above).

(cid:1)  Point  11  inserts  a  new  Annex  III  setting  out  the  toll  calculation  methodology  (see  also

point 4 above).

Article 2 of the proposal for a directive

Bringing  into  force  of  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  by  the  Member
States to comply with the proposal for a directive.

Article 3 of the proposal for a directive

Entry into force of the proposal for a directive.

15

2003/0175 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of
certain infrastructures

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article
71(1) thereof,

Having regard to the Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures7,
and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission8,

Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee9,

Having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions10,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty11,

Whereas:

(1) 

(2) 

7 
8

9

10

11

12

Eliminating distortions of competition between transport undertakings in the Member
States, the proper functioning of the internal market and improved competitiveness all
depend  on  fair  mechanisms  being  established  to  charge  hauliers  for  the  cost  of
infrastructure use. A degree of  harmonisation has  already  been  achieved  through  the
adoption of  Directive 1999/62/EC of the  European Parliament and  of  the  Council  of
17 June 199912.

A  fairer  system  of  charging  for  the  use  of  road  infrastructure  is  crucial  in  order  to
ensure sustainable transport in the Community. The objective of making optimum use
of  the  existing  road  network  and  achieving  a  significant  reduction  in  its  negative
impact  must,  if  possible,  be  achieved  without  imposing  additional  burdens  on
operators in the interests of sound economic growth and the proper functioning of the
single market.

OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42
OJ C […], […], p. […].

OJ C […], […], p. […].

OJ C […], […], p. […].

OJ C […], […], p. […].

OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

16

                                                
(3) 

(4) 

The Commission announced its intention of proposing a directive on charging for the
use of road infrastructure in the White Paper "European transport policy for 2010: time
to  decide".  The  European  Parliament  confirmed  the  need  for  infrastructure  charging
when it adopted the report on the conclusions of the White Paper on 12 February 2003.
The  Copenhagen  European  Council  of  December  2002  and  the  Brussels  European
Council  of  March  2003  also  welcomed  the  Commission's  intention  of  presenting  a
new "Eurovignette" Directive.

For the purposes of setting tolls, Directive 1999/62/EC takes account of infrastructure
construction,  operating,  maintenance  and  development  costs.  To  avoid  charging  for
construction  costs  more  than  once,  the  costs  that  may  be  taken  into  account  for  this
purpose must be limited to those for new infrastructure, i.e. infrastructure to be built in
future  or  which  has  just  been  completed.  However,  a  special  provision  should  be
introduced,  so  as  not  to  cause  prejudice,  with  regard  to  taking  into  account
construction costs, to the rights relating to concession contracts in existence at the time
of entry into force of the directive.

(5)  When  Member  States  decide  to  introduce  tolls,  they  should  also  take  account  of
accident costs which are not covered by insurance but are borne by society as a whole.

(6) 

(7) 

International  road  transport  operations  are  concentrated  on  the  trans-European  road
transport  network.  Furthermore,  the  operation  of  the  internal  market  is  vital  to
commercial  transport.  Consequently,  the  Community  framework  must  apply  to
commercial transport on the trans-European road network as  defined in Decision No
1692/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  1996  on
Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network13.
In order to avoid traffic being diverted, with potentially serious consequences for road
safety and the optimum use of the transport network, Member States must be able to
introduce charging on any road which is in direct competition with the trans-European
network  (Main  road  network).  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,
Member States are free to apply tolls and/or user charges on roads other than those on
the main road network, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty.

The fact that the user is able to take decisions which will influence the burden of tolls
by  choosing  the  least  polluting  vehicles,  itineraries  which  are  less  ecologically
sensitive,  less  congested  periods  or  itineraries  and  safer  vehicles,  is  central  to  a
charging  system.  States  should  therefore  be  able  to  differentiate  tolls  according  to  a
vehicle's emission category ("EURO" classification) and the level of damage it causes
to roads, the place, the time and the amount of congestion. Such differentiation in the
level of tolls must be proportionate to the objective pursued.

(8)  Where possible, the financial burden for the transport sector must not be increased, but
distributed  differently  by  replacing  fixed  taxes  and  charges  by  a  system  of  charges
related  to  use.  When  Member  States  introduce  tolls  and/or  user  charges,  they  must
therefore be  able  to reduce in particular the  rates  of  annual  taxes  on  vehicles,  where
appropriate  to  below  the  minimum  levels  provided  for  in  Annex  I  to  Directive
1999/62/EC.

(9)  With regard to infrastructure financing, efforts to reduce congestion and complete the
trans-European  network  infrastructure  should  be  stepped  up.  Consequently,  the
revenue from fees must be used for maintenance of the road infrastructure and for the

13

OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1. Decision amended by Decision No 1346/2001/EC (OJ L185, 6.7.2001, p. 1).

17

                                                
benefit of the transport sector, in order to contribute to the balanced development of all
infrastructure in the interests of the transport network as a whole.

(10)  Particular  attention  must  be  devoted  to  particularly  sensitive  areas,  in  particular
mountain  regions  such  as  the  Alps  or  the  Pyrenees.  The  launch  of  major  new
infrastructure projects has often failed because the substantial financial resources they
would  require  were  not  available.  In  particularly  sensitive  regions,  users  must
therefore  pay  a  mark-up  to  finance  essential  projects  of  very  high  European  value,
including those involving another mode of transport in the same corridor and area; the
level  of  such  a  mark-up  must  be  proportionate  in  order  to  safeguard  freedom  of
movement. This amount must be linked to the financial needs of the project. It should
also be linked to the basic value of the tolls in order to avoid artificially high charges
in  any  one  corridor,  which  could  lead  to  traffic  being  diverted  to  other  corridors,
thereby causing local congestion problems and inefficient use of networks.

(11)  Fees  must  be  non-discriminatory  and  not  involve  excessive  formalities  or  create
barriers at the internal borders. Appropriate measures must therefore be taken to make
payment possible at any time and by various means, and to ensure that the electronic
payment tool (on-board unit) is as accessible to the occasional user as to the frequent
traveller.

(12) 

(13) 

In  order  to  ensure  consistent,  harmonised  application  of  the  infrastructure  charging
system,  Member  States  will  have  to  set  the  level  of  tolls  with  the  aid  of  a  common
methodology  to  take  account  of  the  various  costs  which  should  be  covered.  Provision
must  also  be  made  in  this  methodology  for  using  estimates  of  accident  costs  where
Member States have not assessed such costs in a manner that more appropriately reflects
local  or  regional  circumstances.  Member  States  must  also  communicate  to  the
Commission, for approval, the unit values and other parameters they intend to apply to
calculate the various cost elements of the charges.

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  requirements  of  the  Directive  are  correctly  enforced,
Member  States  must  designate  an  independent  infrastructure  supervision  authority.
This body will have a key role in ensuring, through appropriate monitoring, balanced
use  of  the  available  resources.  Simple,  clear  rules  must  therefore  be  established
regarding  the  possibility  of  promoting  synergies  between  competing  transport
infrastructure modes in a single corridor.

(14)  Further technical progress is still needed to develop the system of charging for the use
of road  infrastructure.  There  must be  a procedure allowing the Commission to  adapt
the requirements of Directive 1992/62/EC to technical progress following consultation
of  the  Member  States  for  this  purpose.  The  measures  necessary  to  implement  this
Directive must  be adopted  in  accordance  with  Council  Decision  No  1999/468/EC  of
28  June  1999  laying  down  the  procedures  for  the  exercise  of  implementing  powers
conferred on the Commission14.

(15)  Given that the objectives of the proposed action, namely to harmonise the conditions
applicable  to  tolls  and  user  charges  for  the  use  of  road  infrastructure,  cannot  be
satisfactorily achieved by the Member States and may therefore be better achieved at
Community  level  by  reason  of  their  European  dimension  and  with  a  view  to
safeguarding  the  internal  transport  market,  the  Community  can  take  measures,  in
accordance with the  principle  of  subsidiarity  enshrined  in  Article  5  of  the  Treaty.  In

14

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p.23.

18

                                                
accordance with the principle of proportionality set out in that Article, this Directive
does not exceeed what is necessary to achieve those objectives,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 1999/62/EC is amended as follows:

1) Article 2 is amended as follows:

a) point (a) is replaced by the following text:

"(a) “trans-European network” means the road network defined in Section 2 of Annex I
to  Decision  No  1692/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council15  as
illustrated  by  maps.  The  maps  refer  to  the  corresponding  sections  mentioned  in  the
operative part and/or in Annex II to this Decision;

b)

the following points (aa) and (ab) are inserted:

(aa) “main road network” means the trans-European road network and any other road to
which  traffic  may  be  diverted  from  the  trans-European  road  network  and  which  is  in
direct  competition  with  certain  parts  of  that  network;  it  includes  the  urban  transit
sections of these roads;"

(ab)  “construction  costs”  means  the  costs  related  to  construction,  including;  where
appropriate, the cost of the interest on the capital invested, of new infrastructure or of
infrastructure completed not more  than ...  [15 years before the  entry  into force  of  this
Directive];"

c)

in point  (b), the  phrase  "the  amount  shall  be  based  on  the  distance  travelled  and  the
type of vehicle" is replaced by "the amount shall be based on the distance travelled and
the corresponding costs per kilometre";

d) points (d) and (e) are replaced by the following text:

"(d)  “vehicle”  means  a  motor  vehicle  or  articulated  vehicle  combination  intended  or
used for the carriage by road of goods and having a maximum permissible laden weight
of over 3.5 tonnes;

(e) vehicle of the «EURO 0», «EURO I»,«EURO II»,«EURO III»,«EURO IV»,«EURO
V» category means a vehicle that complies with the emission limits set out in Annex 0
to this Directive”

e)

point (f) is deleted.

2) Article 6 is amended as follows:

a) 

b) 

in  paragraph  2,  the  phrase  "Member  States  may  apply  reduced  rates  or  exemptions
for:",  is  replaced  by  the  following  text:  "Without  prejudice  to  Article  7b,  Member
States may apply reduced rates or exemptions for:"

in paragraph 4, the phrase "Without prejudice to the second subparagraph of paragraph
1  and  to  paragraphs  2  and  3  of  this  Article",  is  replaced  by  the  following  text:
"Without prejudice to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article and to Article 7b,"

15

OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

19

                                                
3) Article 7 is amended as follows:

a)  paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following text:

"1.  Member  States  may  maintain  or  introduce  tolls  and/or  user  charges  under  the
conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 12.

2.  Tolls  and  user  charges  shall  be  imposed  on  the  vehicles  defined  and  on  the  trans-
European  road  network.  Member  States  may  extend  the  imposition  of  tolls  and  user
charges to other roads of the primary road network. Without prejudice to paragraph 6,
their  extension  to  these  other  roads  shall  be  subject  to  the  procedure  referred  to  in
Article 9c(5)."

This  Directive  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  Member  States  to  apply  tolls
and/or  user  rights  on  roads  other  than  those  of  the  main  road  network,  in  compliance
with rules of the Treaty.

b) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following text:

"4. Tolls and user charges may not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of
nationality of the haulier, the country or place of registration of the vehicle, or the origin or
destination of the transport operation."

c)

a new paragraph 5a is inserted as follows:

"5a  Member States using electronic systems to collect tolls and/or user charges shall make
available to all vehicles, under reasonable administrative and economic arrangements, the
appropriate vehicle on-board units ("OBU"). These arrangements should not, financially or
otherwise, e.g. by imposing an additional administrative burden or requirements for other
additional equipment, place non-regular users of the road network at a disadvantage."

d)

the second subparagraph of paragraph 7 is replaced by the following text :

“The maximum rates shall be reviewed every two years from …[date of entry into force of
this Directive].  When necessary, the Commission shall adapt the rates, in conformity with
the procedure referred to in Article 9c(2).

e)

f)

the third subparagraph of paragraph 7 is deleted

paragraph 9 is replaced by the following text:

"9.  The  weighted  average  tolls  shall  be  related  to  the  costs  of  constructing,  operating,
maintaining  and  developing  the  infrastructure  network  concerned,  including  any
infrastructure  costs  designed  to  reduce  nuisance  related  to  noise  and  costs  of  actual
payments  made  by  infrastructure  operator  corresponding  to  objective  environmental
elements  such  as  for  example  soil  contamination,  and  to  the  direct  or  indirect  costs  of
accidents which, not being covered by an insurance system, are borne by society.

The  weighted  average  tolls  shall  be  calculated  without  prejudice,  as  regards  taking  into
account construction costs, to rights relating to concession contracts existing at … [date of
entry into force of this directive]."

g) Paragraph 10 is replaced by the following text:

"10. Without prejudice to the weighted average tolls referred to in paragraph 9, Member
States may vary the toll rates according to:

20

(a) vehicle type, based on its road damage class in conformity with Annex III and its
EURO emission class in accordance with Annex 0

(b) time of day and level of congestion on the road concerned, provided that no toll is
more than 100% above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day;

(c) the particular road in the network, depending on the environmental sensitivity of the
area, the population density or the accident risk;

Any variation in tolls charged with respect to different types of vehicle, time of day and
congestion  level  and  the  particular  route  taken  in  the  road  network  shall  be
proportionate to the objective pursued.

No later than 1 July 2008, Member States shall be required to vary the rates at which
tolls  are  charged  according  to  the  particular  route  in  the  road  network,  in  conformity
with point (c)."

h) paragraphs 11 and 12 are added as follows:

"11.  In  exceptional  cases  concerning  infrastructure  in  particularly  sensitive  regions,  in
particular mountainous regions, and after consulting the Commission in conformity with
the procedure referred to in Article 9c(5), a mark-up may be added to the tolls to allow for
cross-financing the investment costs of other transport infrastructures of a high European
interest in the same corridor and in the same transport zone. The mark-up may not exceed
25 % of the tolls. The application of this provision shall be subject to the presentation of
financial  plans  for  the  infrastructure  concerned  and  a  cost/benefit  analysis  for  the  new
infrastructure  project. Application of  this  provision to new  transfrontier  projects  shall  be
subject to the agreement of the Member States concerned.

Should the Commission consider that the planned mark-up does not meet the  conditions
set in this paragraph, it shall seek the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 9c(1).
It may reject the plans for charges submitted by the Member State concerned in conformity
with the procedure referred to in Article 9c(2).

When  the  Commission  informs  the  Member  State  concerned  that  it  intends  to  seek  the
opinion of the Committee, the deadline of 30 days mentioned in Article 2 of the Council
Decision referred to in Article 9c(5) shall be suspended.

12. Each Member State shall ensure that the emission classification and the road damage
classification of vehicles registered on their territory can easily be identified.

Where  a  driver  is  unable  to  produce  the  necessary  documents  in  the  event  of  a  check,
Member States may apply tolls as for the most polluting and damaging vehicle category,
i.e. EURO 0 and damage class III."

4) Articles 7a and 7b are inserted as follows:

"Article 7a

1. In determining the levels of tolls to be charged, Member States shall take account of the
various costs to be covered, according to the common methodology set out in Annex III. The
estimates  of  accident  costs  given  in  point  2  of  the  Annex  shall  be  used  in  cases  where  a
Member State has not assessed these costs in a manner that more appropriately reflects local
or regional circumstances.

21

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the unit values and other parameters
they use in calculating the various cost elements. After consulting the Committee referred to
in  Article  9c(1),  the  Commission  shall  approve  these  values  and  parameters  in  accordance
with the procedure referred to in Article 9c(2).

Article 7b

1. Without prejudice to Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, and subject to other provisions of
Community law, Member States may, on introducing a system of tolls and/or user charges for
infrastructure, provide compensation for these charges, in particular by reducing the rates of
vehicle  taxes,  where  appropriate,  to  a  level  below  the  minimum  rates  in  Annex  I  to  the
Directive.

2.  The  level  of  compensation  must  be  proportionate  to  the  level  of  the  tolls  and/or  user
charges paid. Member States may, however, average out the compensation paid to the various
categories of vehicles referred to in the Annex.

3.  Member  States  shall  include  both  the  system  of  tolls  and/or  user  charges  and  the
compensation  scheme  in  a  common  programme.  Any  compensation  scheme  must  be
implemented  in  the  year  following  the  introduction  of  the  new  system  of  tolls  and/or  user
charges."

6) Article 8a and 8b are inserted as follows:

"Article 8a

1. Each Member State shall ensure that an independent infrastructure supervision authority is
designated.

2.  The  independent  infrastructure  supervision  authority  shall  monitor  the  system  of  tolls
and/or user charges to ensure that it functions in a manner that guarantees transparency and
non-discrimination between operators.

3.  Without  prejudice  of  the  autonomy  of  private  concessionaries,  the  independent
infrastructure supervision authority shall verify that the revenue from tolls and user charges
are used for sustainable projects in the transport sector.

4. The independent infrastructure supervision authority shall promote synergy in financing by
coordinating the various transport infrastructure funding resources.

5.  Member  States  shall  inform  the  Commission  of  the  designation  of  the  independent
infrastructure supervision authority and of its areas of responsibility."

Article 8b

Any discounts or reductions in tolls shall be limited to the actual saving in administrative
costs by the infrastructure operator. In setting the level of any discount, no account may be
taken of the cost savings already internalised in the tolls levied."

6) Article 9 is amended as follows:

a)

point (c) of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following text:

"(c) insurance taxes."

b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following text:

22

"2. Without prejudice to Article 7(11), revenue from tolls and/or user charges shall be
used  for  the  maintenance  of  the  infrastructure  concerned  and  for  the  benefit  of  the
transport sector as a whole, taking account of the balanced development of the transport
networks."

7) Articles 9a, 9b and 9c are inserted as follows:

"Article 9a

Member  States  shall  establish  appropriate  controls  and  determine  the  penalty  system
applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted under this Directive; they shall
take  all  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  they  are  implemented.  The  penalties  established
must be efficient, proportionate and dissuasive.

Article 9b

The Commission shall update the Annexes in the light of technical progress or of inflation, in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9c(3).

Article 9c

1.  The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  Committee  established  by  Article  9  of

Regulation (EEC) No 1108/7016, hereinafter referred to as the Committee.

2.  Whenever  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Articles  3  and  7  of  Council  Decision

1999/468/EC17 shall apply, subject to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

3.  Whenever  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  5  and  7  of  Council  Decision

1999/468/EC shall apply, subject to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

The period provided for in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be [three] months.

4.  The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.

5.  Whenever reference is made to this provision, the Council Decision of  21 March 1962
instituting a procedure for prior examination and consultation in respect of certain laws,
regulations  and  administrative  provisions  concerning  transport  proposed  in  Member
States18 shall apply."

8) Article 11 is replaced by the following text:

"Article 11

No later than 1 July 2008, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament
and  the  Council  on  the  implementation  and  the  effects  of  this  Directive,  taking  account  of
developments in technology and of the trend in traffic density.

Member  States  shall  forward  the  necessary  information  to  the  Commission  no  later  than
twelve months before this date".

9) The table in Annex II indicating the amount of annual charges is amended as follows:

16 
17

18

OJ L 130, 15.6.1970, p.4.

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p.23.
OJ L 23, 3.4.1962, p. 720. Decision amended by Council Decision 73/402/EEC of 22 November 1973
(OJ L 347, 17.12.1973, p. 48).

23

                                                
"Annual charge

EURO 0
EURO 1
EURO II and less polluting

Max. of 3 axles
1 020
904
797

Min. of 4 axles
1 648
1 488
1 329

10) Annex 0, the text of which appears in Annex I to this directive is inserted.

11) Annex III, the text of which appears in Annex II to this directive is added.

Article 2

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  not  later  than  1  July  2005.  They
shall  forthwith  inform  the  Commission  thereof  and  communicate  a  table  of
equivalence between those provisions and this Directive.

When  Member  States  adopt  such  measures,  they  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  provisions  of
domestic law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

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

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Article 4

Done at Brussels, […]

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

24

ANNEX I

ANNEX O

EMISSION LIMITS

1.

"EURO 0" vehicle

Mass of carbon monoxide (CO) g/kWh

Mass of hydrocarbons (HC)
g/kWh

Mass of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
g/kWh

12.3

2.6

15.8

2.

"EURO I"/"EURO II" vehicles

Mass of carbon
monoxide (CO) g/kWh

Mass of hydrocarbons
(HC) g/kWh

Mass of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) g/kWh

Mass of particulates
(PT) g/kWh

"EURO I"
vehicle

"EURO II"
vehicle

4.9

4.0

1.23

1.1

9.0

7.0

0.4 (1)

0.15

(1)  A  coefficient  of  1.7  is  applied  to  the  particulate  emission  limit  value  in  the  case  of  engines  with  a  power
rating of 85 kW or less.

3.

"EURO III"/"EURO IV"/"EURO V" vehicles

The specific masses of carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates,
determined by the ESC test and the exhaust gas opacity, determined by the ERL test, must not
exceed the following values(1):

Mass of carbon
monoxides (CO)
g/kWh

Mass of
hydrocarbons
(HC) g/kWh

Mass of
nitrogen oxides
(NOx) g/kWh

Massof
particulates (PT)
g/kWh

Exhaust gas
m-1

"EURO III"
vehicle

"EURO IV"
vehicle

"EURO V"
vehicle

2.1

1.5

1.5

0.66

0.46

0.46

5.0

3.5

2.0

0.10 (2)

0.02

0.02

0.8

0.5

0.5

(1) A test cycle consists of a sequence of test points, each point being defined by a speed and a torque which the
engine must respect in steady state (ESC test) or transient operating conditions (ETC and ELR tests).

25

(2)  0.13  for  engines  whose  unit  cylinder  capacity  is  less  that  0.7  dm3  and  the  nominal  speed  is  in  excess  of

3 000 min-1.

In the case of diesel engines which also undergo the ETC test, and especially in the case of gas
emissions,  the  specific  masses  of  carbon  monoxide,  non-methane  hydrocarbons,  methane
(where appropriate), nitrogen oxides and particulates (where appropriate) must not exceed the
following values:

Mass of carbon
monoxide (CO)
g/kWh

Mass of non-
methane
hydrocarbons
(NMHC) g/kWh

Mass of methane
(CH4) (1)

g/kWh

Mass of
nitrogen oxides
(NOx) g/kWh

Mass of
particulates
(PT) (2) g/kWh

"EURO III"
vehicle

"EURO IV"
vehicle

"EURO V"
vheicle

5.45

4.0

4.0

0.78

0.55

0.55

1.6

1.1

1.1

5.0

3.5

2.0

0.16 (3)

0.03

0.03

(1) For engines operating with natural gas only.

(2) Not applicable to gas engines.

(3) 0.21 for engines whose unit cylinder capacity is less than 0.75 dm3 and normal speed is in excess of 3 000

min-1".

26

ANNEX II

ANNEX III

COST CALCULATION AND ALLOCATION

This Annex stipulates the method for calculating the various constituent elements of tolls. The
cost estimates and figures used in point 2 are intended as a guide. However, they must be used
if a Member State has not evaluated these costs in a manner that more appropriately reflects
local or regional circumstances.

1.

Infrastructure costs

1.1.

Investment costs

Infrastructure  investment  costs,  calculated  as  the  costs  of  constructing  the  infrastructure
concerned and expressed as an annual figure (including an appropriate rate of interest on the
invested  capital)  throughout  the  design  lifetime  of  the  infrastructure,  must  be  allocated  in
proportion to the number of annual vehicle-km for each vehicle category.

Unit investment cost (euros per vehicle-km)=

annual amortisation of investment plus interest on invested capital

× share of commercial traffic

÷ distance in km travelled by the commercial vehicles

1.2.

Infrastructure damage costs

Infrastructure damage costs, calculated as the average (over a maximum of five years) annual
expenditure  for  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  infrastructure  concerned,  must  be
allocated  in  proportion  to  the  annual  vehicle-km  for  each  vehicle  category,  weighted  by  an
equivalence  factor.  This  factor,  which  is  given  in  point 1.3  of  this  Annex,  expresses  the
influence  of  each  vehicle  category  on  the  maintenance  and  operating  costs  of  the
infrastructure  concerned.  It  is  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  vehicles'  weight,  suspension
system and number of axles.

Unit infrastructure cost (euros per vehicle-km) =

annualised expenditure on maintenance and operation

× share of the traffic by vehicle category weighted by equivalence factors

÷ distance in km travelled by vehicle category

1.3.

Vehicle classes and equivalence factors

The following table gives the equivalence factors:

27

Vehicle class

Equivalence factors

< 3.5t

Between 3.5t and 7.5t, Class 0

> 7.5 t, Class I

> 7.5 t, Class II

> 7.5 t, Class III

Structural
maintenance19

Regular
maintenance

0.0001

1.46

2.86

5.06

8.35

1

3

3

3

3

Structural maintenance, such  as resurfacing,  reinforcement of civil engineering  works  and
renewal  of  road  beds,  is  carried  out  occasionally.  These  costs  are  proportional  to  the
infrastructure damage caused by the traffic. The damage varies according to the axle weight.
According  to  an  accepted  rule,  this  damage  is  equivalent  to  the  fourth  power  of  the  axle
weight. Consequently, a doubling of the weight leads to a sixteenfold increase in the damage
to the road.

Regular maintenance, such as road marking, cleaning of ditches, winter maintenance, etc. is
carried out each year. Although this expenditure is not linked to the vehicle weight, it reflects
the overall traffic intensity and composition.

If the expenditure on structural maintenance cannot be determined from other expenditure in
the  infrastructure  manager's  accounts,  the  default  value  for  the  latter  is  20%  of  total
expenditure.

The vehicle classes are defined by the table below.

Vehicles must be classed in subcategories 0, I, II and III according to the damage they cause
to the road surface, in ascending order (Class III is thus the category causing most damage to
road infrastructure). The damage increases exponentially with the increase in axle weight.

All motor vehicles and vehicle combinations of a maximum permissible laden weight below
7.5 tonnes belong to damage class 0.

19

The vehicle classes correspond to axle weights of 0.5; 5.5; 6.5; 7.5 and 8.5 tonnes respectively.

28

                                                
Motor vehicles

Driving axles with air
suspension or recognised
equivalent20

Other driving axle suspension
systems

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

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

Not less than

Less than

Not less than

Less than

Damage class

Two axles

Three axles

Four axles

7.5
12
13
14
15

15

17

19

21

23

25

23

25

27

29

31

12
13
14
15
18

17

19

21

23

25

26

25

27

29

31

32

7.512
13
14
15

15

17

19

21

23

25

23

25

27

29

31

12
13
14
15
18

17

19

21

23

25

26

25

27

29

31

32

I

II

I

II

20

Suspension  recognised  as  equivalent  according  to  the  definition  in  Annex  II  to  Council  Directive
96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the
maximum  authorized  dimensions  in  national  and  international  traffic  and  the  maximum  authorized
weights in international traffic (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 59).

29

                                                
Vehicle combinations (articulated vehicles and road trains)

Driving axles with air suspension or
recognised as equivalent

Other driving axle suspension
systems

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

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

Not less than

Less than

Not less than

Less than

Damage class

12
14
16
18
20
22
23
25
28

25

26

28

29

31

33

36

38

I

II

III

7.5
12
14
16
18
20
22
23
25

23

25

26

28

29

31

33

36

2 + 1 axles

2 + 2 axles

12
14
16
18
20
22
23
25
28

25

26

28

29

31

33

36

38

7.5
12
14
16
18
20
22
23
25

23

25

26

28

29

31

33

36

30

36

38

36

38

40

36

38

40

2 + 3 axles

3 + 2 axles

3 + 3 axles

36

38

36

38

40

36

38

40

38

40

38

40

44

38

40

44

38

40

38

40

44

38

40

44

II

III

II

III

I

II

2.

Accident costs

The unit cost per accident type is adjusted by the risk involved per accident type and vehicle
type. The insurance premium per vehicle type is then subtracted. The final charge element is
expressed in euros per kilometre travelled. A distinction must be made between motorways,
urban roads and other non-urban roads.

The following is a simplified formula for taking account of the accident costs not covered by
insurance:

31

External unit cost of accidents by infrastructure type (euros per vehicle-km) =

(total costs per accident type for all types of accident

×  number  of  accidents  per  type  involving  a  heavy  goods  vehicle  -  insurance
premiums)

÷ vehicle-km

32

Estimated costs by accident type:

Accident risk

Fatal
Serious injury
Slight injury

€1 million/case
€135 000/case
€15 000/case

33