Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of 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: 2005-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, road transport, toll, transport infrastructure, transport price, vehicle tax

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 7.9.2005 
COM(2005) 423 final 

2003/0175 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty 

concerning the 

common position of the Council on the adoption of 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  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2003/0175 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty 

concerning the 

common position of the Council on the adoption of 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  

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date  of  transmission  of  the  proposal  to  the  EP  and  the  Council 
[document COM(2003) 448 final – C5–0351/2003 - 2003/0175(COD)]: 

28 July 2003 

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 

3 June 2004 

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: 

20 April 2004 

Date of adoption of the common position: 

6 September 2005 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

In line with the White Paper on European transport policy for 20101 and following the request 
from  the  European  Councils  of  December  2002  and  March  2003,  the  Commission  has 
proposed  a  modified  version  of  the  directive  1999/62/EC  on  road  charges  for  heavy  goods 
vehicles.  This  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  policy  on  transport  infrastructure 
charging,  which  is  to  develop  a  harmonised  Community  approach  to  charging,  across  all 
modes of transport. The basis for transport charges should be the costs that transport currently 
impose on users, tax payers and society at large. 

Directive  1999/62/EC  provides  the  current  framework  for  road  charges  for  heavy  goods 
vehicles.  However  as  Member  States  move  away  from  charging  regimes  (vignettes)  and 
towards  tolling  regimes,  the  directive  needs  updating,  to  elaborate  and  clarify  the  basis  for 
road tolls and to ensure that the current patchwork of charging and tolling regimes develops in 
a transparent and harmonised fashion. In addition, there is a need to adjust the framework for 
road  charges  to  increase  the  scope  for  raising  funds  for  investment  in  new  transport 
infrastructure. 

The  Commission’s  proposal  for  updating  Directive  1999/62/EC  addresses  these  goals.  To 
improve and harmonise the basis of tolling it: 

1 

COM(2001) 370, 12.9.2001 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  specifies the cost basis for tolling regimes, to include the costs of constructing, operating, 

maintaining and developing the network and the uncovered costs of accidents; 

•  improves the scope for the differentiation of tolls and provides a methodology to enable the 

transparent estimation of costs;  

•  extends  the  scope  of  the  directive  to  more  commercial  vehicles  (from  3.5  tonnes)  and  to 

more roads (the Trans European road network and alternative routes).  

To help meet transport infrastructure financing needs, it: 

•  links tolls to the costs of maintaining and developing the infrastructure; 

•  requires revenues to be spent on maintaining and developing transport infrastructure;  

•  allows mark ups on tolls, the revenues of which must be spent on alternative infrastructure 

investments in the same TEN corridor.  

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

The Council made certain changes to the Commission's proposal that are acceptable because 
they ensure its aims are met: 

•  The definition of the costs of construction has been modified and elaborated to specify the 
financing costs that may be taken into consideration and to ensure that the period of costs 
does not exceed the lifetime of the infrastructure concerned. 

•  The toll differentiation permitted has been modified to improve transparency and to guard 

against any discrimination. 

•  The  conditions  for  levying  mark  ups  on  tolls  have  been  tightened  up  to  improve 
transparency  and  to  limit  the  scope  of  most  mark  ups  to  a  maximum  of  15%  rather  than 
25%. A maximum mark up of 25% is applicable only to roads in the same corridor as trans 
frontier sections of priority projects of European interest in mountainous areas.  

•  New tolling regimes are to be subject to the Commission’s control according to the core 
principles  in  Annex  III.  This  will  be  done  either  directly  for  non-concession  tolling 
regimes,  with  tolls  calculated  according  to  the  core  principles,  with  Member  States 
providing  key  values  and  parameters  for  verification.  Alternatively,  for  tolls  under 
concession regimes, the control will be undertaken indirectly. Member States must provide 
all information necessary to verify that the toll level does not exceed that calculated on the 
basis of the core principles. 

On  the  questions  of  the  inclusion  of  external  costs  and  the  coverage  of  tolls,  where  the 
Council also made changes to the Commission’s original proposal, the Commission made a 
declaration in which it: 

•  Undertook to deepen its analysis of the progressive internalisation of external costs when it 
undertakes  the  mid  term  review  of  the  White  Paper  on  transport  at  the  end  of  2005,  in 
particular in light of the Parliament’s second reading;  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  that the right of Member States to exclude certain parts of the network must be exercised in 
a  non  discriminatory  manner  and  in  conformity  with  the  Treaty.  In  this  context,  the 
Commission  stated  that  it  will  take  account  of  objective  criteria  such  as  the  need  to 
improve the accessibility of isolated regions or the level of congestion and pollution. 

Having  made  these  statements,  the  Commission  welcomed  the  Common  Position  of  the 
Council as a hard won compromise.  

Of the 42 amendments adopted by the Parliament on 20 April 2004, nine were acceptable to 
the  Commission  and  included  in  the  Common  Position;  23  were  acceptable  to  the 
Commission but not accepted by the Council; six were not acceptable to the Commission but 
incorporated into the Common Position; and four were not acceptable to the Commission or 
the Council.  

4. 

4.1. 

COMMISSION  DETAILED  COMMENTS  ON  THE  FIRST  READING 
AMENDMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  

Amendments accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full or in part in the 
common position 

Amendment  21:  The  principle  of  only  considering  the  portion  of  costs  not  amortised  is 
incorporated into the definition of construction costs.  

Amendment 22: A definition of weighted average tolls is included, though it differs from that 
of the Parliament in order to be more technically precise. 

Amendment  24:  A  definition  of  a  concession  is  included,  though  it  differs  from  that  of  the 
Parliament  in  order  to  be  more  legally  precise  (drawing  on  the  Definition  in  Directive 
2004/18/EC). 

Amendments 10 and 34: As proposed by the Parliament, all the discussion of accident costs 
was removed by the Council.  

Amendments  18  and  38:  The  Council  also  rejected  the  plan  to  establish  an  independent 
infrastructure authority. 

Amendment  39:  The  proposal  to  add  insurance  taxes  to  the  list  of  taxes  and  charges 
unaffected by the directive was accepted. 

Amendment  43:  The  table  of  Annex  II  was  amended  to  include  the  latest  EURO  emissions 
classes. However the higher values for older vehicles were not retained. 

4.2. 

Amendments  accepted  by  the  Commission  but  not  incorporated  in  the  common 
position 

Amendments  1,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7  and  8:  The  order  of  the  recitals  giving  the  general  reasoning 
behind the directive, including the various policy priorities behind proposal and the relevant 
Council conclusions and so on was not changed by the Council. 

Amendments  2  and  25:  The  Council  excluded  all  reference  to  external  costs,  including  this 
recital and definition. Whilst this was acceptable to the Commission in the course of reaching 
a compromise text, note the Commission’s declaration in the Annex. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Amendment 12: The revenue neutrality of toll variations is contained in the text though not in 
a recital. 

Amendment  13:  The  Commission  proposal  to  allow  compensation  through  the  reduction  of 
other transport taxes below minimum EU levels was not accepted by the Council. 

Amendment  20:  This  definition  of  “main  road  network”  has  become  superfluous  as  the 
Council deleted the whole reference to the main road network from Article 1(3). 

Amendments  14  and  26:  The  possibility  to  exempt  from  tolls  vehicles  of  humanitarian  and 
relief  organisations  was  not  accepted  as  only  clearly  identifiable  and  verifiable  vehicles  are 
granted exemptions under this article. In addition a recital (amendment 14) for each exempted 
category of user is not required. 

Amendments 11 and 27: It is not appropriate for a Directive of the Council and Parliament to 
instruct  Member  States  to  consult  regional  and  local  authorities:  this  is  a  matter  of 
subsidiarity, varying according to the governmental structures of each Member State. 

Amendment  28:  The  basis  for  determining  tolls  was  limited  to  infrastructure  costs  and 
external costs were excluded by the Council. 

Amendment 29: The toll differentiation proposed by the Parliament was deemed insufficient. 
The  differentiation  in  the  Common  Position  provides  certainty  and  clarity  with  a  greater 
degree of flexibility to vary tolls to reflect environmental and congestion criteria. In addition, 
the criteria of PM10 and NOx were not included as they are broadly reflected in euro emissions 
classes and are difficult to verify separately. Moreover such environmental criteria would (if 
feasible) be acceptable within the euro emissions class criteria.  

Amendments 16 and 30: Permitting toll mark ups in urban zones would be compatible with 
the role of mark ups, however the Council rejected this amendment. 

Amendment  32:  Obliging  Member  States  to  impose  the  heaviest  toll  on  vehicles  unable  to 
verify their euro emissions category was rejected by the Council. 

Amendment  36:  Articles  addressing  the  compensation  regime  (reducing  vehicle  taxes  etc.) 
were deleted by the Council. 

Amendment 42: The Council rejected the proposal for the Commission to report on the effect 
of the directive on road accidents and environmental impacts.  

4.3. 

Amendments rejected by the Commission yet incorporated in the common position  

Amendments  9,  19,  33,  52:  Concession  regimes  cannot  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the 
directive, as this would render the directive ineffective. However, the Council has introduced 
a separate enforcement structure for concession regimes, so the special nature of concessions 
is addressed and the Commission’s right of enforcement is maintained. 

Amendments 46 and 48: The allocation of revenues is made voluntary, in accordance with the 
Parliament’s text. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Amendments  rejected  by  the  Commission  and  not  incorporated  in  the  common 
position  

Amendments  17,  41  and  50:  The  Commission  should  not  be  constrained  by  a  directive  to 
undertake  such  a  work  programme  (although  consideration  of  the  future  internalisation  of 
external  costs  is  planned  in  the  White  Paper).  In  addition,  the  Council  does  not  wish  for 
references to the development of methodologies for estimating external costs.  

Amendment  37:  The  compensation  plans  for  any  given  national  tolling  regime  are  the 
responsibility  of  the  Member  State  and  so  need  not  be  discussed  in  the  framework  of  a 
directive.  

(13 amendments not listed here (15, 19, 35, 40, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53-56) were rejected at the 
Parliament’s plenary session. Amendments 23 and 31 are not relevant to the English version) 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission welcomes the common position adopted by the Council. 

As  stated  in  the  declaration  made  by  the  Commission  at  the  Council  meeting  of  25  April 
2005, the Commission 

•  will deepen its analysis of the progressive internalisation of external costs when it 
undertakes  the  mid  term  review  of  the  White  Paper  on  transport  at  the  end  of 
2005, in particular in light of the Parliament’s second reading; 

•  recalls that the right of the Member States to exclude certain parts of the network 
provided  in  the  common  position  would  have  to  be  exercised  in  a  non 
discriminatory  manner  and  in  conformity  with  the  Treaty.  In  that  context,  the 
Commission  would  take  into  account  in  particular  criteria  such  as  the  need  to 
improve  the  accessibility  of  isolated  regions  or  the  level  of  congestion  and 
pollution.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Annex: Declaration of the Commission at the Council of 21 April 2005 

INTERNALISATION DES COUTS EXTERNES ET COUVERTURE 
GEOGRAPHIQUE 

Déclaration de la Commission 

A l’occasion de la révision à mi-parcours du Livre blanc sur les transports, prévue pour fin 
2005, la Commission approfondira son analyse de l’impact d’une internalisation progressive 
des coûts externes du transport, notamment à la lumière de la deuxième lecture au Parlement 
européen sur la proposition de directive « Eurovignette ». 

La  Commission  rappelle  que  la  faculté  des  Etats  membres  d’exclure  certaines  parties  du 
réseau  doit  se  faire  de  façon  non  discriminatoire  et  en  conformité  avec  le  traité.  Dans  ce 
contexte la Commission tiendra notamment compte des critères objectifs tels que la nécessité 
d’améliorer l’accessibilité des régions isolées ou le niveau de congestion et de pollution.  

EN 

7 

   EN