Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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 infrastructures (COM(2003) 448 final – 2003/0175 (COD))
Date: 2004-06-03
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, road transport, transport infrastructure

C 241/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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 infrastructures’

(COM(2003) 448 final – 2003/0175 (COD))

(2004/C 241/16)

On 12 September 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, 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 infrastructures’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2004. The rapporteur was Mr
Simons.

At its 409th plenary session of 2 and 3 June 2004 (meeting of 3 June) the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 109 votes to 82 with seven abstentions.

1. Introduction

On 23 July 2003 the European Commission adopted a
the ‘Eurovignette

1.1
proposal amending Directive 1999/62/EC,
Directive’.

1.2
The proposal is in response to the request of the Euro-
pean Councils of 12 and 13 December 2002 and 20 and 21
March 2003 that the Commission submit a proposal for a new
Eurovignette Directive by mid-2003.

1.3
It is also in response to a call by the European Parlia-
ment which, when adopting the report on the conclusions of
the White Paper of 12 February 2003, concluded that charges
should be levied for infrastructure use.

1.4
The main aim of the Commission proposal is to ensure
that the costs of using infrastructure are more efficiently allo-
cated to users. The principle that the user should pay the costs
for which he is responsible can be applied more effectively
under the proposed system than through the Eurovignette
Directive, as the new system offers greater flexibility to vary
charges according to the type of vehicle and the time and place
of use.

1.5
It is clearly not the intention that the overall burden of
taxes and charges borne by the transport sector should rise, but
rather to obtain a clearer picture so that the costs of various
forms of use can be more effectively reflected in the price.

At

this stage the Commission is restricting itself

to
1.6
charges for the use of road transport infrastructure by heavy
goods vehicles. It reserves the right, however, to submit propo-
sals at a later date in the form of sectoral directives for the use

of air, inland waterway and maritime transport infrastructure
and indicates that the Member States and cities should adopt
their own approaches to passenger vehicles.

1.7 With regard to the railways, the Commission assumes
that charging for the use of infrastructure has already been
dealt with in the rail package.

2. General comments

The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal
2.1
amending the Eurovignette Directive 1999/62/EC on the char-
ging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastruc-
tures, as it will allow more effective application of the principle
that the user should pay the cost of his infrastructure use.

2.2
In the Committee's view, a secondary advantage of this
proposal is that it attempts to put an end to the patchwork of
charging systems increasingly being introduced or already in
force in the Member States.

2.3
The Committee considers that the Commission is being
too ambitious in attempting, with its proposal for amendment
of Directive 1999/62/EC, to solve six different problems simul-
taneously. The problems in question are:

— foreign-registered vehicles not contributing enough to

covering infrastructure costs in certain countries;

— the patchwork of different national systems of charges
existing in the EU at present which are not based on Com-
munity principles;

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/59

— financing of transport infrastructure;

— charging for congestion costs;

— charging for the costs of road accidents;

— charging for environmental costs.

2.4
It would be the first time that such an undertaking has
succeeded. It is made all the more unrealistic by the fact that
the calculations for the last three objectives differ from each
other and require an entirely different approach to that
required for the first three.

2.5
In its Opinion on the White Paper (COM(1998) 466
final) (1) the Committee stated that the ‘user pays’ principle
could only be implemented if there were a thorough analysis of
the relative value of the different cost components and a level
playing field for all transport modes. The ESC added that before
introducing the ‘user pays’ principle, things needed be clear
about income neutrality and the way it was put into practice.
The Committee foresees many problems here, as the obvious
way of compensating for this, the partial or total abolition of
the tax on motor vehicles would in many countries not appear
sufficient, and certainly not as long as there is a compulsory
EU minimum level.

Another consideration is

2.6
the current
mosaic of national rules and systems, albeit with a different
pattern, would remain in place.

the fact

that

The Commission proposal establishes a framework
2.7
within which the Member States can set up a system for taxing
heavy goods vehicles of over 3,5 tonnes. This is an extension
of scope. In the current Eurovignette Directive the minimum
threshold is 12 tonnes. As transport-related costs such as
safety, congestion and noise-abatement measures are being
brought within the ambit of
the proposal, and as private
passenger vehicles and light goods vehicles of less than 3,5
tonnes also contribute to these costs, the Committee believes
that these vehicles too should be brought within the scope of
the proposed directive. The Commission states this in so many
words in its White Paper entitled European transport policy for
2010: time to decide, which appeared in 2001. The Commis-
sion has produced numerous amendments, some of
them
the original measures,
significantly extending the scope of
which would suggest that there is no impediment to light
goods vehicles and passenger vehicles being added to the scope
of
the
Member States and cities to adopt their own approaches in this
area, partly because of the overwhelmingly national character
of such measures,
is reason enough for the Committee to
endorse the Commission's approach. The proposed amendment
is not the right instrument for adding passenger vehicles and
light goods vehicles of less than 3,5 tonnes.

the directive. However,

the Commission's call

for

(1) EESC Opinion on the Commission White Paper - Fair Payment for
Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport infra-
structure charging framework in the EU, OJ C 116, 28.4.1999.

2.8
If the Commission persists in its view that legislating for
goods vehicles only, and not for private passenger vehicles, will
be sufficient to ensure the proper operation of the internal
it would be logical to retain the current 12 tonne
market,
minimum threshold for goods vehicles.
In any case, as the
Commission itself points out in the explanatory memorandum,
the proportion of light goods vehicles in cross-border transport
is so small that their effect on the operation of the internal
market is negligible, as is that of passenger vehicles.

2.9
The Committee endorses the idea that every infrastruc-
ture user should pay the costs for which he is responsible, on
the condition set out in point 2.3, that there be a thorough
analysis of the relative value of the different cost components.
It can also go along with the fact that road haulage is the first
part of the road transport mode to be confronted with this
kind of framework. It feels in principle, however, that the same
system should apply to the other parts of road transport and
other modes of transport.

The Commission proposal does not

2.10
the
optional character of charges such as the Eurovignette or tolls.
It is up to the Member States to opt for toll systems or a
system of user charges. The Committee feels that this freedom
of choice is not conducive to transparency. The Committee
also considers interoperability of collection systems to be a sine
qua non.

change

The proposal covers the trans-European road network
2.11
and other parts of the trunk road network which closely follow
the route of a motorway. On secondary roads which are not
necessary vital to the proper operation of the internal market
tolls or user charges may be levied but they are not subject to
the directive. The Committee realises that,
in line with the
subsidiarity principle, the proposed amendment in Article 7
does not prevent the Member States from applying tolls/user
charges
this
approach, in view of the fact that the trunk road network is
still underdeveloped in the countries which will soon be
joining the Union. They will of course have to comply with
existing law and policy.

in different ways. The Committee endorses

In its proposal the Commission establishes a direct link
2.12
between the user charge to be introduced and investment in
and maintenance of infrastructure. In this way it intends to
prevent the Member States using the proceeds of the user
charge to fill government coffers. Rules are also laid down in
the proposal for the calculation of the charge. The Committee
considers this approach sensible, as in this way users of specific
infrastructure will know that the charges they are paying may
be used for investment in infrastructure.

C 241/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

The Commission suggests that in exceptional cases a
2.13
mark-up not
consulting the
exceeding 25 % may, after
Commission in conformity with the appropriate procedure, 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 or in particularly sensitive regions.
The Committee feels that this option should be used as spar-
ingly as possible and that no transport infrastructure should be
excluded. In order to ensure that the project for which the
increased tolls have been levied is actually carried out, this
revenue should be paid, upon receipt,
into a Community
account and repaid, without interest, to the Member State only
on completion of the project.

2.14
Finally, the Commission proposes that an independent
infrastructure supervision authority should be set up in every
Member State to monitor the correct handling of road trans-
port costs and revenues from tolls and user charges in the
Community. The Committee endorses the establishment of
independently operating national authorities of this kind which,
in view of their Community task, should be supervised by the
Commission in accordance with the Treaty.

In the interests of clarity,

2.15
it should be stated in the
explanatory memorandum to the proposal amending Directive
1999/62/EC that, independently of the charge system or super-
in future
visory authority opted for, the Member States will
remain responsible for maintaining a suitable road network.
The repair and maintenance of infrastructure remains a key
task of government.

3. Specific comments

3.1
A link is established in the Commission proposal
between road use charges and the cost of constructing, oper-
ating, maintaining and developing the relevant road infrastruc-
ture network. The cost of constructing infrastructure will
include only those costs arising directly from the construction
of new infrastructure. By this the Commission means infra-
structure which is less than 15 years old.
In this way the
Commission sets out to prevent existing infrastructure, which
has already been paid for, being included in the scope of the
directive. The Committee considers this criterion to be very fair
and feels that this is the right approach.

3.2
Under investment costs the proposal includes the cost of
noise abatement infrastructure, such as noise barriers along
motorways. The Committee would point out, however, that the
costs of noise nuisance, and thus of the construction of noise
barriers, are to a great extent caused by categories of road user
not covered by the directive. The cost of constructing

noise barriers should therefore be fairly distributed among the
various categories of road user.

3.3
The Commission also proposes including in the charge
an amount in respect of accident costs not covered by insur-
ance. Although in theory this approach makes sense,
the
Committee considers that in practice it would be difficult, in
view of the high degree of uncertainty inherent in the calcula-
tion of indirect effects, such as legal damages. As things stand
at present, the insurance companies, for example, in practice
rarely reimburse social security costs.

In order to develop a suitable approach to the costs arising
from road accidents, the Committee feels that a study is needed
into their causes. In this context, it would refer to its Opinion
on the European Commission's Communication on halving the
number of road accident victims by 2010. (1)

The Committee considers that

the inclusion of an
3.4
option for the Member States to use congestion as a parameter
for the calculation of the infrastructure charge is, quite apart
from the lack of a definition of
the wrong
approach, as congestion is mainly caused by passenger vehicle
traffic.

‘congestion’,

that

The Committee agrees with the basic premise underlying
3.5
the Commission's proposal
the
amended directive must not increase the total financial burden
on the road transport sector. It considers, however, that the
reduction or abolition of the tax on motor vehicles will be
insufficient to guarantee fiscal neutrality. A reduction in excise
duty on diesel fuel should logically also be considered.

the introduction of

3.6
The Committee also concurs with the option offered the
Member States of differentiating user tariffs in line with the
environment-friendliness of the vehicle (EURO classification)
and with the damage to roads caused by the vehicle.

Finally,

3.7
the Committee wholeheartedly endorses the
Commission's intention of establishing a harmonised charging
method for infrastructure use,
thus putting an end to the
existing patchwork of toll and charge systems.

4. Summary and conclusions

4.1
The Committee values the Commission's initiative for
practical implementation of the principle that the user pays the
cost of infrastructure use.

It considers, however,

4.2
much too ambitious in attempting, with its proposal
amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC,
different problems simultaneously.

that the Commission is being
for
to solve too many

(1) EESC Opinion, OJ C 80, 30.3.2004, p. 77.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/61

4.3
In its Opinion on the White Paper (COM(1998) 466
final) the Committee stated that the ‘user pays’ principle could
only be implemented if there were a thorough analysis of the
relative value of the different cost components and a level
playing field for all transport modes.

4.4
One of the Commission's guiding principles is that char-
ging for infrastructure use should not lead to new and/or
higher taxes. It therefore proposes to give the Member States
the opportunity to offer compensation in the form of the total
or partial abolition of the annual tax on motor vehicles. The
Committee points out that many countries are already at or
below the current EU minimum level and that this does not
therefore offer sufficient compensation. Fiscal neutrality could
only be guaranteed by reducing, where necessary, excise duty
on diesel fuel.

4.5
The Committee also notes that the current mosaic of
national rules and systems would remain in place, which
means that the Commission's objective, achieving a harmonised
method of charging for infrastructure use, would unfortunately
not be achieved.

The Committee considers that the Commission is being
4.6
inconsistent in its argument when it proposes that, on the one
hand, the minimum threshold should be reduced to include
goods vehicles of 3,5 tonnes, whilst on the other hand
including in its proposal factors such as congestion costs, the
cost of road accidents and environmental costs but not the
private passenger vehicles which are responsible for the latter.

relevant

4.8
The Commission argues that road transport charges
should be related to the cost of constructing, operating, main-
taining and developing the
road infrastructure
include
network. The cost of constructing infrastructure will
only those costs arising directly from the construction of new
infrastructure links. New infrastructure is taken to mean infra-
structure less than 15 years old. The Committee endorses this
fair approach as a way of ensuring that charges are not used to
cover the costs of existing infrastructure which has already
been paid for.

4.9
The Commission suggests that a mark-up not exceeding
25 % may, in strict conditions, be added to the tolls to finance
the investment costs of other transport infrastructures of a high
European interest in the same corridor or in particularly sensi-
tive regions. The Committee feels that this option should be
used as sparingly as possible and that no transport infrastruc-
ture should be excluded. And if this is done, the proceeds
should be paid into a Community account pending completion
of the project.

the

scope of

The Committee also endorses

4.10
the
proposal, e.g. the inclusion in the proposal of TENs and part of
the trunk road network close to these, as well as the considera-
tion given, albeit outside the scope of
to
secondary roads which are not necessary vital to the proper
operation of the internal market, and the proposal to set up an
independent supervisory authority in each Member State to
ensure fair distribution of costs and revenues from tolls and
user charges.

the directive,

4.7
link
In its proposal the Commission makes a direct
between the charge to be introduced and investment in infra-
structure. Revenues are intended to be channelled back to the
sector from which they come and are not to be used to swell
state coffers. The Committee endorses
the Commission's
approach.

4.11
Finally, the Committee is critical of the inclusion of
costs arising from congestion and road accidents and environ-
mental costs, as they are to a great extent caused by private
cars, a category of vehicle excluded from the scope of the direc-
tive, as there is no clear analysis of the causes of road accidents
and no definition of sensitive areas.

Brussels, 3 June 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

C 241/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the
discussion (Rule 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure).

Points 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8

To be deleted and replaced by:

‘2.3. The Committee considers that the Commission lacks ambition. A fair and efficient pricing system should
cover infrastructure, environmental and social costs, such as damage on roads and the environment, accidents,
health and congestion. All those costs should be evaluated on a scientific base. Therefore, the Directive should
establish a common methodology as well as a timetable for Member States in order to include all external
costs into the calculation of road-user charges. Member States which have already done this exercise, should
be allowed to charge costs immediately. Moreover, internalising the external costs of transport will improve
market efficiency, bolster the competitiveness of the European economy and reduce environmental pollution
and network congestion.’

Reason

We want to include all costs into the user charges, on the one hand, the investment and maintenance costs, on the other
hand, the external costs, environmental and social ones. Some Member States have already done an exercise to elaborate
these costs. Moreover, the European Commission-funded study UNITE reviews the available existence of appropriate
values for external costs and concludes that although there is still no unanimity on ‘correct’ values, the underlying cost
concepts and methodology have been broadly accepted. Why do we want to include all those costs? Because we think
that it is important to apply the user and polluter-pays principle in EU legislation.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

77

86

Abstentions: 9

Point 2.12

Delete the two last sentences and replace as follows:

‘The Committee considers that this approach has to be broadened to the whole transport infrastructure. Revenues
should not be earmarked to the road transport. They may be used to finance sustainable transport modes as well as
a better enforcement of social legislation for road-transport workers.’

Reason

Earmarking all revenues for the road-transport sector would clearly prevent the best use of public money and will not
contribute to a more sustainable transport system as required in the European Commission's 2001 White Paper on
common transport policy.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

86

89

Abstentions: 9

Point 2.13

Delete the two last phrases and replace as follows:

‘The Committee feels that this option of mark-up not exceeding 25 % may be largely insufficient in certain sensitive
regions. Therefore it proposes to increase the mark-up so that it can cover the costs of infrastructure in sensitive
regions.’

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/63

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

86

99

Abstentions: 6

Point 3.1

Amend as follows:

‘3.1 A link is established in the Commission proposal between road use charges and the cost of constructing, oper-
ating, maintaining and developing the relevant road infrastructure network. The cost of constructing infrastruc-
ture will include only those costs arising directly from the construction of new infrastructure. By this the
Commission means infrastructure which is less than 15 years old. In this way the Commission sets out to
prevent existing infrastructure, which has already been paid for, being included in the scope of the directive.
The Committee considers this criterion to be very fair and feels that this is the right approach. On the other
hand road-building projects are financed over long periods. Such a short write-off period would exclude a
major part of the costs of past projects and thus falsify the cost analysis. The Committee therefore considers
that the Member States should be allowed to take account of building costs, independently of the age of their
network and of the arrangements used to finance the network.’

Reason

Not all investment costs of infrastructure, built more than 15 years ago, have been recuperated.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

84

100

Abstentions: 1

Points 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5

Delete.

Reason

If we agree with internalising the external costs, then we cannot accept those paragraphs.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

89

93

Abstentions: 3

Point 4.2

Delete and replace as follows:

‘4.2 The Committee considers that the Commission omitted to introduce a common methodology based on a scien-
tific approach as well as a timetable, to calculate the external costs linked to the use of the road infrastructure.’

Reason

According to our opinion the Commission isn't ambitious enough.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

89

93

Abstentions: 3

C 241/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

Point 4.6

Delete and replace as follows:

‘4.6 The Committee is of the opinion that commercial vehicles, used for the carriage of goods, and in particular the

courier and express deliveries, also those of less than 3.5 tonnes should contribute to the user charges’.

Reason

Why speaking about private passenger vehicles and omitting commercial vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes, as the courier
and express deliveries, which, by the way, are responsible for a significant number of accidents?

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

89

93

Abstentions: 3

Point 4.7

After the first phrase, delete and replace as follows:

‘Revenues shouldn't just be earmarked for the road transport sector. They should be used to finance sustainable
transport modes as well as a better enforcement of social legislation regarding the road transport workers.’

Reason

In conformity with our amended point 2.12.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

89

93

Abstentions: 3

Point 4.8

Delete and replace by the following:

‘4.8 The Committee therefore considers that the Member States should be allowed to take into account the
construction costs, independently of the age of their network and of the arrangements used to finance the
network, as in practice projects are financed over long periods.’

Reason

In conformity with our amended point 3.1.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

89

93

Abstentions: 3

Points 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11

Delete.

Reason

In conformity with the previously proposed deletion of points 3.2 to 3.4.

Result of the vote:

For:

Against:

89

93

Abstentions: 3