Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 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 infrastructure
Date: 2004-02-11
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, toll, transport infrastructure, transport policy

C 109/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘proposal for a Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles
for the use of certain infrastructure’

(2004/C 109/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the 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 infrastructure
COM(2003) 448 final - 2003/0175 (COD);

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 12 September 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the
Article 71 and the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 19 June 2003 to instruct its Commission for Territorial
Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its draft opinion (CoR 290/2003 rev. 1) adopted on 3 December 2003 by the Commis-
sion for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Robert Neill, member of the London Assembly (UK,
EPP);

Whereas:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

Congestion and pollution in our cities and regions lead to increased costs to businesses, damage the
effectiveness of the transport system, degrade the environment and are harmful to public health;

Infrastructure charging is only one of a range of tools which can be used to ensure a more sustain-
able and effective use of the transport infrastructure;

Current levels of taxes and levies on road transport are not based on a calculation of true costs,
which contributes towards a distortion of competition between Member States, ignores environ-
mental and social costs and results in difficulties with financing of infrastructure investment;

Freight transport is a vital factor in achieving European integration and furthering the economic and
social development of the regions;

Authorities who are responsible for roads which suffer from heavy international freight traffic have
to bear the costs at present, which can leave them with a disproportionate burden;

Article 3c of the Amsterdam Treaty obliges the EU to integrate environmental protection require-
ments into the definition and implementation of Community policies with a view to promoting
sustainable development;

The Gothenburg European Council placed shifting the balance between modes of transport at the
heart of the EU's sustainable development strategy;

Part of the package of proposals for supporting the development of Trans-European networks is the
proposal for a directive on the interoperability of electronic road-toll systems in the Community
which is the subject of another opinion (CoR 185/2003 fin) (1).

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 53rd plenary session, held on 11 and 12 February 2004
(meeting of 11 February).

(1) OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 54

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/15

1) The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

1.3
welcomes the express recognition of the problem of
diversionary routes, and seeks maximum flexibility to vary the
structure of charging to ensure that minor routes are not used
as a substitute for the main /major route;

welcomes the revision of the common European framework on
the charging of heavy goods vehicles on the use of certain
roads to ensure a level-playing field with other modes of trans-
port in the internal market for heavy goods vehicles operators;

1.4
believes that Member States should not be required to
seek the Commission's assent for introducing charges on other
roads, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

believes that this framework should contribute towards the effi-
cient functioning of transport systems in the internal market,
by influencing road use and addressing congestion, the costs of
extensive road use and infrastructure maintenance as wells as
the efficient provision of new infrastructure;

asks the Commission to promote a technical dialogue
1.5
between Commission desk officers and experts from local and
regional government, during policy formulation and the
drafting phase of transport policy.

supports the ‘polluter pays’ and the territorial principle (costs
are paid where they arise): there should be an equal system of
payment for road use regardless of from where users come;

2. The charging structure

welcomes the revision of the charging system which would
more accurately reflect local social and environmental factors
but believes that the charge should be based on all external
costs;

believes that better demand management of road use will
contribute towards safer roads, and notes that road safety is the
subject of another opinion.

1. Application of the directive

agrees that a transparent charging structure is essential

2.1
to ensure its acceptability amongst users;

2.2
is disappointed however, that the Commission's propo-
sals are not in line with its original suggestion in its 2001
white paper ‘European transport policy for 2010:
time to
decide’, in that only the cost of the infrastructure and uncov-
ered accident costs can be used as the basis for calculating the
cost of infrastructure. The Committee of the Regions supported
the approach outlined in the Commission's 1998 white paper
‘Fair payment for infrastructure use’ where the model proposed
was that of charges based on marginal costs, reflecting all
external costs;

1.1
supports the limitation of the application of the Euro-
pean framework to heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and
the Trans-European networks and potential diversionary routes,
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The Committee
also welcomes the fact that the Commission proposal leaves it
up to the Member States whether they introduce tolls and user
charges on their whole road network;

2.3
calls upon the Commission to continue to seek an
agreed methodology by which all relevant external costs can be
quantified, ideally on a marginal cost basis, so that a proper
assessment can be made of the desirability and practicality of
including such costs in the charging regime, when set against
any potential adverse impacts upon business and competitive-
ness;

believes that

1.2
local and regional authorities must be
involved in the decision-making process regarding the applica-
tion of charges within their area, balancing the need to avoid
distortions of competition in the EU and local/regional
interests. Local and
economic,
regional authorities must have the freedom and flexibility to
decide whether and where to charge or not, in agreement with
the Member States. However, in the interests of a sustainable
transport policy a harmonised minimum charge for heavy
goods vehicles should be introduced throughout Europe;

environmental and social

2.4
agrees that costs should take account of the impact of
the vehicle on the infrastructure and environment. The propo-
sals refer to vehicle weights, axle configurations and engines
types/emission levels, therefore it is possible that there will be
an impact on local and regional authorities or agencies who
these vehicles or undertake enforcement
may have to test
activity to ensure
compliance with minimum standards.
However, notes that not all vehicle testing agencies will
currently have information relating to type approval or plating
of goods vehicles;

C 109/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.5
calls on the Commission, however, to re-examine the
damage class proposals as laid out in Annex III. In particular,
the apparently anomalous case where a vehicle combination
(articulated vehicles and road trains) of a maximum permissible
laden weight of between 36-40 tonnes on 3+3 axles is classed
as damage class I, the same as a two-axle motor vehicle of a
maximum permissible laden weight of between 3.5 tonnes and
7.5 tonnes. The respective real strains placed on the road
system produced by the abovementioned categories of vehicles
bear little resemblance to the relation between the proposed
level of tolls to be charged;

supports the ability to vary the charge according to local
2.6
factors, which take into account in particular areas with higher
population density, environmental sensitivity of the area;

2.12
objective,
market;

agrees that variations have to be proportionate to the
in order to prevent any unfair competition in the

2.13
tax cuts, in particular annual vehicle tax;

welcomes the ability to off-set charges by introducing

2.14
questions again whether the existing Community poli-
cies in this field are adequate enough to accelerate the use of
cleaner technologies and fuels. Considers that the Commission
should consider more integration of policies in this field and
on infrastructure charging to ensure that both policies contri-
bute directly towards the goals of reducing congestion and
lowering levels of harmful emissions;

2.7
calls on the Commission to clarify the definition of what
is a sensitive area where mark-ups of up to 50 % would be
possible; as it currently stands it is too vague and could be
open to a wide interpretation by Member States; as far as the
Alpine Region is concerned, the field of application of the
Alpine Convention, which was also ratified by the EU, provides
a criterion for defining the region;

2.15
calls on the Commission to invest in technical studies
to develop the system of charging for the use of road infra-
structure,
the calculation of marginal costs,
including all external costs in the charge.

in particular

2.8
equally supports variation according to time of day and
level of congestion to ensure optimal use of the road network
by freight operators;

3. Using the revenues from the fees

2.9
believes that the charge should be able to vary according
to the type of day as well, not only the time of day, as well as
the direction of travel, provided that the applied average costs
are in line with the EC guidelines;

believes that good transport infrastructure is essential in
3.1
contributing to the economic and social cohesion of
the
regions of Europe. Given the increasing road traffic, it is impor-
tant to change behaviour in relation to transport choice, to
encourage sustainable means of
this means that
useable and equally efficient and competitive alternatives are
essential;

transport,

2.10
calls on the Commission to remove the limit on the
variation of the charge for the purposes of congestion manage-
ment. This limit would impede the effectiveness of congestions
tolls, which in some cases would have to be set at more than
double the minimum level in order to achieve reasonably free
movement of
the
charge at an effective level, according to local circumstances.
Proportionality should be the governing principle;

traffic. Authorities should be free to set

3.2
supports hypothecation of income received from char-
ging for transport related services, as it plays a key role in
ensuring the acceptability of a road user charging system; does,
however, at the same time, propose that authorisation be given
for the use of income from road-user charges also to compen-
sate for losses incurred as a result of reducing vehicle taxes or
fuel tax;

2.11
is concerned that since the more peripheral and less
accessible areas of the EU inevitably face longer hauls for their
imports and exports, charges relating to distance travelled may
have a disproportionate impact on local economies. Variations
should be allowed to counter this impact;

however,

the CoR believes that, according to subsi-
3.3
diarity, Member States and regional and local authorities should
be free to decide how to use the revenue from the proposed
charging system on transport,
in particular in the case of
charges levied on roads for which regional and local authorities
are themselves responsible;

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/17

that

believes

3.4
the ability to cross-finance alternative
modes of transport should be expressly recognised in relation
to all charges in order to promote more sustainable modes of
transport and that this should not apply exclusively to sensitive
areas where mark- ups are applied;

calls on Member States to improve the alternative
3.5
modes of transport which will ease congestion and promote
modal shift for freight transport;

3.6
believes that the establishment of a national supervisory
authority in each Member State is not necessary. However,
should such an authority be created, it should include represen-
tatives of local and regional authorities. It should be for the
Member States and regional and local authorities to decide how
they monitor and manage the revenues generated by the
charge. They should adopt adequate transparent procedures to
account for the charges collected, and the way in which they
are spent on transport. It should be transparent for all actors
involved;

notes that the financing of TENs is the subject of a sepa-

3.7
rate opinion.

4. Urban Charging

4.1
notes that many local and regional authorities have, or
are, seeking to introduce road charging policies, that operate
both distance and time-based schemes including tolls and vign-
ettes2 respectively;

4.2
welcomes the express recognition, that in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity, that charging on other roads
and urban congestion charging schemes remains a matter for
Member States and its local and regional authorities and that
they are not constrained by the principles of the directive, only
by general Treaty law as is currently the case;

4.3
notes that the Eurovignette directive does not apply to
urban or local roads, except to the extent that charges may be

imposed on diversionary routes or that they are part of the
main trans-European network;

4.4

stresses, therefore, the following issues:

— the need to avoid double charging or overlap between
national and urban schemes, in particular where the main
road network involves urban transit sections;

— different principles of calculating the costs may apply to
local
congestion schemes, which are geared towards
demand management. Local and regional authorities may
choose to introduce charging schemes based on the
marginal costs approach rather than the average costs
approach adopted by the Commission in the Eurovignette
directive. If the scope of the directive is extended in future
to other roads and road users, then the basis of charging
will have to be revisited, as other social, economic and
environmental factors come into play.

5. Impact Assessment

Calls on the Commission to consider the effect of the

5.1
charging system in particular in relation to:

— urban and local charging schemes;

— peripheral areas;

— small freight operators whose business is mainly domestic

or localised;

when it reports to the European Parliament and the Council on
the implementation and effects of the directive in 2008. This
should not, however,
impose undue extra administrative
burdens on Member States or its regions.

2) The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Amendments

Recommendation 1

Recitals – amendment

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(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.

(5) When Member States decide to introduce tolls, they
should also take account of all external costs including
congestion, health and environmental costs and the
accident costs which are not covered by insurance but
are borne by society as a whole, to the extent to which
an agreed method of quantification can in future be
agreed, considering also the impact upon business and
competition.

C 109/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Reason

The charge should be take account of all external costs, not only accident costs, to reflect the true social,
environmental and economic costs of road use.

Recommendation 2

Recitals – amendment

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

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

appropriate

(8) Fixed taxes and charges should be replaced by a
system of charges related to use. When Member States
introduce tolls and/or user charges, they may therefore
be able to reduce the rates of annual taxes on vehicles.,
If vehicle tax is reduced it must not fall below the
minimum levels provided for in Annex I to Directive
1999/62/EC.

Reason

Vehicle taxes should not, as a matter of principle, be cut to a level below the minimum rates set out in
Annex I of Directive 1999/62/EC. Any reduction below these minimum rates would have unacceptable
drawbacks, not least the following:

— it would weaken the environmental steering effect of emission-related vehicle taxes;

— it would unduly distort the relative vehicle tax burden on private cars. Many cars might thereby be
liable for a much higher rate of vehicle tax than heavy goods vehicles. That would run counter to the
rationale behind the vehicle tax, which is levied - if not legally then materially - to meet infrastructure
costs.

Recommendation 3

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(9) With regard to infrastructure financing, efforts to
reduce congestion and complete the trans-European
network infrastructure should be stepped up. Conse-
quently, the revenue from fees must be used for main-
tenance of the road infrastructure and for the benefit
of the transport sector, in order to contribute to the
balanced development of all infrastructure in the inter-
ests of the transport network as a whole.

(9) With regard to infrastructure financing, efforts to
reduce congestion and complete the trans-European
network infrastructure should be stepped up. Conse-
quently, the revenue from fees must be used for main-
tenance of the road infrastructure and for the benefit
of the transport sector, in particular alternative sustain-
able means of transport, in order to contribute to the
balanced development of all infrastructure in the inter-
ests of the transport network as a whole. With this
aim in view, they may also be used to offset the effects
of a reduction in vehicle tax.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/19

Reason

The ability to cross-finance alternative modes of transport should be expressly recognised in relation to all
charges in order to promote more sustainable modes of transport, this should not apply exclusively to
sensitive areas where mark- ups are applied.

Recommendation 4

Recitals

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(13) In order to ensure that the requirements of the Direc-
tive 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.

(13) In order to ensure that the requirements of the Direc-
tive are correctly enforced, Member States must
adopt
the
transparent accounting procedures
balanced use of the available resources. Simple, clear
therefore be established regarding the
rules must
possibility
between
of
competing transport infrastructure modes in a single
corridor.

promoting

synergies

for

Reason

The establishment of a national supervisory authority in each Member State is not necessary. It should be
for the Member States to decide how they monitor and manage the financing. Member States should adopt
adequate transparent procedures to account for the charges collected, and the way in which they are spent
on transport.

Recommendation 5

Recitals

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendmentInsert text

(14) Further technical progress is still needed to develop
the system of charging for the use of road infrastruc-
ture. There must be a procedure allowing the
Commission to adapt the requirements of Directive
1992/62/EC to technical progress following consulta-
tion 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 Commission.

(14) Further technical progress is still needed to develop
the system of charging for the use of road infrastruc-
in particular the calculation of marginal costs
ture,
which includes all external costs. 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 imple-
ment 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 Commission.

Reason

There are many different models for calculating marginal costs which encompass all external costs, we
would like to stress the need for this to be investigated further, so that a consistent pan-European approach
can be adopted.

C 109/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Recommendation 6

Point 3 (a) amending Article 7 paragraph 2 – partly delete

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

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
the primary road
user charges
network. Without prejudice to paragraph 6,
their
extension to these other roads shall be subject to the
procedure referred to in Article 9c(5).

roads of

to other

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
the primary road
user charges
network.

roads of

to other

Reason

Member States should not be required to seek the Commission's assent for introducing charges on other
roads, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

Recommendation 7

Point 1(b) amending Article 2(b)

Commission text

CoR proposal

‘construction costs’ means the costs related to construc-
tion, including, where appropriate, the cost of the interest
on the capital invested, of new infrastructure or of infra-
structure completed not more than... [15 years before the
entry into force of this Directive];‘

’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 infrastruc-
ture completed not more than... [30 years before the entry
into force of this Directive];’

Reason

Restrictions on offsetting construction costs would be disadvantageous for those Member States that
invested early on in expanding the high-grade road network.

Recommendation 8

Point 3(f) amending Article 7(9)

Commission text

CoR proposal

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 infra-
structure operator corresponding to objective environ-
mental elements such as for example soil contamina-
tion, 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 conces-
sion contracts existing at … [date of entry into force of
this directive]

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 infra-
structure operator corresponding to objective environ-
mental and health-related elements such asranging, for
example, from 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].

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/21

Reason

Charges should factor in all external costs – not only the costs of accidents – so that they reflect the actual
social, environmental and economic costs of infrastructure use.

Recommendation 9

Point 3(h) amending Article 7(11)

Commission text

CoR proposal

11.

11.

In exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in
particularly sensitive regions,
in particular mountai-
nous 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
to the
new transfrontier projects shall be subject
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).

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

intends to seek the opinion of

In exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in
particularly sensitive regions,
in particular mountai-
nous regions and the Alpine region as covered by the
Alpine Convention, and after consulting the Commis-
sion 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
and alternative measures to ease road congestion or
environmental protection measures
same
corridor and in the same transport zone. The mark-up
may not exceed 50 % 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.
this provision to new transfrontier
Application of
projects shall be subject
the
Member States concerned.

to the agreement of

in the

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).

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

intends to seek the opinion of

Reason

The area covered by the Alpine Convention is a good yardstick for defining the sensitive Alpine region.
Moreover, cross-financing should not only be an option for improving transport infrastructure, but also for
alternative measures to ease traffic congestion or environmental protection measures. Also, the mark-up in
sensitive areas should not be strictly limited to 25 % but should be higher and more flexible.

C 109/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Recommendation 10

Point 3 (g) amending Article 7 paragraph 10 – amendment

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

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

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

(a)

(b)

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

(a)

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

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

(c)

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

the area,

(b) the type of day and direction of travel;

(c)

(d)

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

the particular road in the network, depending on
the
the environmental sensitivity of
population density, peripherality or the accident
risk;

the area,

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.

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).

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).

Reason

If the charges are to be used as an effective demand management tool, then account must be taken of all
factors which affect road use, this includes the type of day, i.e. the day of the week or holidays. It should
be possible to vary the charge according to the direction of travel at certain times of the day.

The limit on the variation of the charge for the purposes of congestion management should be removed.
This limit would impede the effectiveness of congestions tolls, which in some cases would have to be set at
more than double the minimum level in order to achieve reasonably free movement of traffic. Authorities
should be free to set the charge at an effective level, according to local circumstances. Proportionality
should be the governing principle.

The more peripheral and less accessible areas of the EU inevitably face longer hauls for their imports and
exports, charges relating to distance travelled may have a disproportionate impact on local economies.
Variations should be allowed to counter this impact.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/23

Recommendation 11

Point 4 amending Article 7b – amendment

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

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 compen-
sation 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.

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 compen-
sation for these charges, in particular by reducing the
rates of vehicle taxes.

Reason

Member States' ability to reduce fuel tax to off-set the road charges should be expressly recognised in the
directive. Reduction in fuel tax is a more equitable system for ensuring that all road users are treated
equally within the internal market regardless of their nationality.

Recommendation 12

Point (6) inserting Article 8a – partly delete and amend

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

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

6) Article 8a is inserted as follows:

“Article 8a

1.
Each Member State shall ensure that an inde-
pendent infrastructure supervision authority is desig-
nated.

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.’

The independent

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

transparency

and

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

The independent

infrastructure supervision
4.
authority shall promote synergy in financing by coor-
dinating the various transport infrastructure funding
resources.

Member States shall inform the Commission of
infrastructure
the independent
its areas of responsi-

5.
the designation of
supervision authority and of
bility.“

Article 8b

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

C 109/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Reason

The establishment of a national supervisory authority in each Member State is not necessary. It should be
for the Member States to decide how they monitor and manage the financing. Member States should adopt
adequate transparent procedures to account for the charges collected, and the way in which they are spent
on transport.

Recommendation 13

Point 6(b) amending Article 9 – amendment

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following text:

b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following text:

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

‘2.Without prejudice to Article 7(11), revenue from
tolls and/or user charges shall be used for the mainte-
the infrastructure concerned and for the
nance of
including
benefit of the transport sector as a whole,
sustainable alternative modes of
taking
account of the balanced development of the transport
networks. With this aim in view, they may also be used
to offset the effects of a reduction in vehicle tax.’

transport,

Reason

The ability to cross-finance alternative modes of transport should be expressly recognised in relation to all
charges in order to promote more sustainable modes of transport, this should not apply exclusively to
sensitive areas where mark- ups are applied.

Reference should be made to the possibility of making use of charges to finance compensatory tax reduc-
tions.

Brussels, 11 February 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB