Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the widespread introduction and interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community" (COM(2003) 132 final — 2003/0081( COD))
Date: 2003-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, charges for use of infrastructure, financing, road network, toll, trans-European network, transport infrastructure

C 32/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the widespread introduction and interoperability of
electronic road toll systems in the Community’

(COM(2003) 132 final — 2003/0081 (COD)) (1)

(2004/C 32/06)

On 13 May 2003, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and
Social Committee, under Article 71(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above
mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 October 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Levaux.

At its 403rd plenary session held on 29 and 30 October 2003 (meeting of 29 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 117 votes to three, with four
abstentions.

1. Aim of the Proposal for a Directive

The Commission published the following two docu-

1.1.
ments together on 23 April 2003:

— a communication entitled ‘Developing the trans-European
transport network: Innovative funding solutions-Interop-
erability of electronic toll collection systems’;

— a Proposal for a Directive on the widespread introduction
and interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the
Community.

1.2.
In chapter 4 of its opinion on the revision of the list of
trans-European network (TEN-T) projects up to 2004 (2), the
Committee examined the contents of the funding section of
In this opinion the
the abovementioned communication.
Committee will therefore confine itself to outlining the main
observations and proposals made in its earlier opinion.
Furthermore,
the abovementioned
document will be examined by the Committee once again
in its own initiative opinion entitled Preparing transport
infrastructure for the future — financing — planning — new
neighbours.

the funding section of

1.3.
In its explanatory memorandum to the Proposal for a
Directive, the Commission points out that electronic road toll
systems were introduced in the 1990s on motorways operated
under a concession, where the toll serves to finance motorway
construction and maintenance. The aim was to speed up the
time required to pass the toll collection points. The collection
of tolls causes congestion, delays, accidents and incidents as a

(1) The Commission document also contains a Commission com-
munication entitled ‘Developing the trans-European transport
network:
Innovative funding solutions — Interoperability of
electronic toll collection systems’

(2) CESE 1174/2003, adopted on 25 September 2003.

result of subscribers being separated from occasional users. An
electronic toll collection lane can handle between 200 and
300 vehicles an hour, depending upon the lane’s configuration,
i.e. twice as many vehicles as a lane fitted with a credit card
machine or manual toll-collection equipment.

1.4.
Italy, France, Portugal, Switzerland, Slovenia and Nor-
way have national electronic road toll systems but these are
incompatible. Electronic road toll systems are now widely used
throughout Europe to regulate either traffic in particular areas
or certain categories of vehicle (HGVs in Germany, Austria
and Switzerland).

1.5.
Several techniques are to be employed (GPS/Galileo,
EGNOS and microwave technology), thereby creating real
problems for users travelling in Europe. In the Commission’s
view, there is thus an urgent need for operators to provide
international transport drivers with electronic boxes capable
of reading all the systems used in Europe.

1.6.
The aim of the Proposal for a Directive under review,
which was announced in the White Paper on the European
is to ‘lay down the conditions
transport policy for 2010,
necessary for a European electronic toll service to be put in
place as soon as possible on all parts of the road network
subject to tolls’, on the basis of the principle of ‘one contract
per customer, one box per vehicle’.

The Commission points out

1.7.
that by assuring the
interoperability of toll systems in the internal market, the
Directive will facilitate the implementation of a Europe-wide
infrastructure-charging policy. Furthermore, the recommended
technologies will be able to cover all types of infrastructure
(motorways, roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.) and vehicles (HGVs,
light vehicles, motorbikes, etc.).

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/37

The Commission adopts a pragmatic approach in

1.8.
proposing two solutions for achieving interoperability:

strengthening them and coordinating them more effectively.
However, this goal ties in with the existing system and does
not represent anything really new.

— a short-term solution (for the period up to 2005),
designed to take account of projects in the pipeline in a
number of Member States;

— a long-term solution (for the 2008-2012 period), design-
ed to provide a general system. The aim is to deploy the
European service from 2005, in the case of HGVs, buses
and coaches, and from 2010, in the case of cars.

The cost of the equipment for one vehicle should

1.9.
ultimately be between EUR 20 and EUR 50.

2. General comments on the Commission communi-
cation entitled: ‘Developing the trans-European trans-
port network: Innovative funding solutions — Inter-
operability of electronic toll collection systems’

The Committee has, as indicated in point 1.2, already

2.1.
stated its views on this subject in an earlier opinion (1).

The Committee joins the Commission in deploring the
2.2.
reasons for the stagnation of the trans-European transport
network (TEN-T) (lack of political will on the part of decision-
makers in the Member States, shortage of TEN funding, vast
number of separate bodies responsible for the projects). The
Committee has noted with interest the solutions proposed by
the Commission; these solutions are based on two main pillars,
namely:

— better coordination of public and private financing of the

TEN-T, and

— an effective European electronic toll service.

2.3.
The Committee does, of course, support the Com-
mission’s objective of improving the coordination of public
financing at regional, national and EU level. The Committee
agrees, however, with the Commission that this will be a
difficult task as a balance will have to be struck between
different priorities which do not necessarily fit in with each
other. Such difficulties are in fact inherent in a policy of co-
financing infrastructure, where each of the parties negotiates
its participation in the light of the local, regional or national
interests which it represents, sometimes neglecting the general
European interest. The Committee therefore thinks that the
existing financing arrangements need to be optimised by

(1) CESE 1174/2003, adopted on 25 September 2003.

2.4.
On the subject of public-private partnerships (PPPs),
the Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as
regards the limitations of wholly private funding of major
infrastructure projects. Joint financing cannot, however, be the
sole solution, since private investors quite rightly insist on
receiving guarantees and making a definite profit on their
investments. This puts up costs. Other considerations also
have to be taken into account:

— for each TEN-T project

involving several European
countries a ‘European company’ should be set up in order
to bring the necessary transparency to the financing
arrangements for the project;

— a PPP cannot reasonably be arranged unless there is a
balance between the funding provided by the public and
private sectors. It is difficult to imagine a PPP in which
the private sector holds only a small minority interest. It
is therefore not realistic to envisage that the private sector
will be able to provide the funding necessary for the
implementation of the majority of the projects;

— limits must be set in order to avoid the unforeseen
consequences deriving from a gradual abandonment of
the supreme power traditionally vested in states or public
authorities in respect of spatial planning for key public
infrastructure.

The Committee thinks that PPPs are clearly an interesting
proposition for financing transport infrastructure in a number
of specific cases; however, they are by no means a panacea.

3. General comments on the Proposal for a Directive on
the widespread introduction and interoperability of
electronic road toll systems in the Community

3.1.
The Committee supports the measures proposed by
the Commission with a view to making electronic toll systems
in the single market interoperable within a very short space of
time. Users should be provided with a system which is both
straightforward and simple to use.

3.2.
The Committee does however, wonder, what are the
objectives of this technical Directive, which has been presented
by the Commission as part of a communication seeking to
establish innovative funding solutions for the development

C 32/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

of trans-European transport networks. Existing and future
electronic toll systems provide users with a service to facilitate
payment of tolls and to enable traffic to flow more smoothly,
but they do not in any way represent a new way of financing
TEN-Ts. The introduction of a more effective tool for levying
charges does not provide any new resource, particularly in
view of the fact that the Commission does not express any
views on the use to be made of the income from tolls; each
State or region will continue to use this income, in accordance
with its own rules, for maintaining and improving its own
network, without taking account of the requirements imposed
by the increase in EU traffic and therefore disregarding the
general interest.

3.3.
The Committee fully understands the Commission’s
viewpoint that the widespread introduction of electronic road
toll systems will make it easier to compare the cost of tolls
more effectively. The Committee does, however, highlight the
fact that it is hard to imagine harmonisation taking place in
this field, as each State continues to be free to determine the
level of charge per kilometre travelled in relation to vehicle
types and terrain (undulating of flat).

3.4.
The European electronic toll service is to be introduced
from 1 January 2005, in the case of HGVs, buses and coaches,
and from 1 January 2010, in the case of the other vehicles.
The Committee has noted that operators will have to make
interoperable receivers available to users who want them. It
points out that it is very important not to make this equipment
obligatory for the following reasons:

— in order to enable users to pay by credit card, for which

bank charges are harmonised;

— in order to keep the scheme optional so as to enable
operators to continue to perfect their system, with a view
to attracting new users;

— in order not to record the whereabouts of vehicles and
users at any given time by storing this data; this would
infringe the principles of freedom of the individual. The
Committee therefore calls on the Commission to draw
attention, in an article of the Proposal for Directive, to
the principles of freedom of the individual (Charter of
Fundamental Rights).

Brussels, 29 October 2003.

The Committee does not wish to make any comments
3.5.
on all the technical aspects of the Proposal for a Directive and
its implementation. In the Committee’s view, the proposal as
a whole is a balanced proposal.

4. Conclusions

The consultation of the EESC comprises two parts:

4.1.
Innovative funding solutions for TEN-T projects: the
Committee will give its comprehensive view on the financing
of transport infrastructures in a separate opinion on this issue
before the end of 2003. The Committee draws attention to the
fact that,
in three different opinions which it adopted in
January, June and September 2003, respectively (1), it proposed
that a ‘European Transport Infrastructure Fund’ be set up in
respect of such projects. With effect from 2006, the proposed
fund would be financed by a levy, in EU-25, of one cent per
litre on fuel consumed by all categories of vehicle using roads
and motorways in the EU. Over a period of 20 to 50 years,
this ‘dedicated’ fund would make it possible to finance, either
directly or through loans, the sums required to establish
infrastructure for use by future generations.

4.2.
The interoperability of electronic toll collection sys-
tems: the Committee endorses the Proposal for a Directive but
would like attention to be drawn in Article 3 of the Directive
to the principles of safeguarding the freedom of the individual,
with specific reference being made to the Charter of Fundamen-
tal Rights.

tax arrangements for diesel

(1) Opinion of the EESC on the Proposal for a Council Directive
amending Directive 92/81/EEC and Directive 92/82/EEC to
fuel used for
introduce special
commercial purposes and to align the excise duties on petrol and
diesel fuel — OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.
Opinion adopted by the EESC in June 2003 on the Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European
Road Network — OJ C 220, 16.9.2003, p. 6.
Opinion adopted by the EESC in September 2003 on the revision
of the list of trans-European network (TEN) projects up to 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH