Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on road infrastructure safety management {SEC(2006) 1231} {SEC(2006) 1232}
Date: 2006-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: road network, road safety, transport infrastructure, transport network

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.10.2006 
COM(2006) 569 final 

2006/0182 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

on road infrastructure safety management 

(presented by the Commission) 

{SEC(2006) 1231} 
{SEC(2006) 1232} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1) 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

The European Commission announced it would take an initiative on road infrastructure safety 
in its 2001 White Paper on European Transport Policy for 20101 and in its Communication on 
a European Road Safety Action Programme of June 2003. The European Parliament invited 
the Commission to provide guidelines for high-risk spot management and road safety audits2. 

Besides  action  on  the  driver  and  the  vehicle,  infrastructure  should  be  the  third  pillar  of  any 
comprehensive  road  safety  programme.  Physical  features  of  a  road  network  together  with 
associated traffic volumes are important contributing factors to accidents.  

Much progress has been made in terms of vehicle safety. Car occupants run a much lower risk 
of  death  or  injury  in  case  of  crash  than  ten  years  ago.  Test  and  training  requirements  have 
been gradually increased to ensure that European drivers can cope with the dangers of road 
traffic. Because speeding, non-wearing of seat belts and drink-driving are the main causes of 
death on European roads, enforcement of traffic rules has been stepped up3. 

However,  for  road  safety  infrastructure,  no  such  joint  effort  has  yet  been  carried  out  at 
European level, although the legislator called for a high level of safety on roads in the trans-
European  network  Guidelines  of  1996.  Apart  from  research  and  the  creation  of  an  internal 
market for construction products, the European Community has not yet taken necessary action 
in this field.  Progresses in terms of road safety have been registered for the roads equipped 
with  traffic  management  and  control  systems  based  on  Information  and  Communication 
Technologies (ICT), but the implementation of ICT tools is not yet systematic. 

While  the  general  trend  is  to  decrease  budgets  for  road  infrastructure,  road  users  pay  more 
attention to the quality and level of safety of roads. Many road authorities are in a dilemma 
because they have to provide an infrastructure corresponding to the latest state of safety under 
budgetary  constraints.  Road  authorities  are  taken  to  court  by  citizens  who  have  suffered 
injuries in road accidents.  

Against  this  background,  the  objective  of  the  proposed  directive  is  to  ensure  that  safety  is 
integrated in all phases of planning, design and operation of road infrastructure in the Trans-
European Network (TEN-T). It shall ensure that safety is regarded in its own right in parallel 
with economic and environmental analysis. This directive will ensure that managers of road 
infrastructure are given the guidelines, training and information required to increase safety in 
the road network to the best benefits of road users and the public at large. It will: 

•  increase  the  safety  of  new  roads  through  continuous  adaptation  to  the  latest  safety 

requirements; 

1 

2 
3 

Commission White Paper of 12 September 2001: “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide”, 
COM (2001) 370 
European Parliament Resolution A5-0381/2000 of 18 January 2001 
Commission Recommendation of 2003 on enforcement in the field of road safety , OJ 111 of 17 April 
2004, p. 75 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  bring about a common high level of safety of roads in all EU Member States; 

•  create  an  awareness  for  safety  in  order  to  achieve  informed  decisions  on  planning  and 

design; 

•  make safety implications of decisions more transparent; 

•  allow the collection and the distribution of the available expertise in order to better exploit 

research results; 

•  use limited funds for more efficient and safer construction and maintenance of roads; 

•  allow for a better collection, treatment and dissemination of safety-related information. 

General context 

In  2001  the  European  Union  set  itself  the  ambitious  objective  of  halving  the  number  of 
fatalities on European roads by 2010 from 50 000 to 25 000. While progress is being made 
(see  Mid  Term  Review  of  the  2003  Road  Safety  Action  Plan4),  road  accidents  have  still 
caused 41 500 victims on EU roads in 2005. 

Many lives could be saved and many accidents avoided if the existing road infrastructure was 
managed according to the latest best practice of safety engineering. Action should be taken on 
a selection of high risk road sections (or black spots) on the basis of local accident records. 
Unfortunately,  today,  safety  data  take  too  long  to  reach  the  authorities  in  charge  of 
maintaining the road network and taking remedial action. 

If roads are usually designed according to a number of criteria such as objectives of urban or 
regional planning, travel time, user comfort and convenience, fuel consumption, construction 
cost and environmental impact, safety is often implicitly assumed to be achieved by simply 
adhering to prescribed standards of alignment and layout. Experience shows that abiding by 
those  standards  is  not  sufficient  to  avoid  hazardous  features.  Moreover,  case  studies  have 
shown  that  more  than  half  of  the  safety  deficiencies  resulted  from  a  disrespect  of  design 
guidelines and norms5. 

Present  road  layouts  result  from  many  decades  of  construction  and  maintenance,  in  a  time 
when  safety  issues  were  not  always  considered  to  the  same  extent.  Today,  several  road 
features  no  longer  meet  the  latest  safety  requirements.  Moreover,  traffic  conditions  have 
changed since the road was designed and built.  

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

4 

5 

Commission Communication of 22 February 2006: “Mid Term Review of the 2003 Road Safety Action 
Plan”, COM(2006) 74 
European Transport Safety Council, 1997, 'Road Safety audit and safety impact assessment', p. 11 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

The objective of the present directive is to ensure that infrastructure makes its contribution to 
improving  road  safety  and  reducing  mortality  and  accidents  on  the  trans-European  road 
network of the Union, as indicated by the European Commission in 2001 in its White Paper 
on European Transport policy for 2010 and further in its Communication on a European Road 
Safety Action Programme in 2003. 

2) 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents 

In order to provide for experts input at an early stage and with regard to transparency policy, 
the  Commission  has  established  a  working  group  on  infrastructure  safety,  which  met 
several  times  in  2002  and  2003.  The  results  of  this  Group  have  influenced  the  present 
proposal considerably. 11 Member States participated in this Group and gave detailed advice 
on the situation and practices in their countries.  

From  12  April  2006  to  19  May  2006,  the  services  of  the  inland  transport  directorate  of  the 
Directorate  General  for  Energy  and  Transport  of  the  European  Commission  launched  an 
internet  public  consultation  to  call  for  comments  on  their  approach  to  road  infrastructure 
safety  management  and  on  their  initiative  to  preparing  a  proposal  for  a  Council  and 
Parliament Directive on this matter. The Commission received 51 responses. 

Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account 

Main  conclusions  of  the  working  group  on  infrastructure  safety  can  be  summarised  as 
follows: 

•  All  procedures  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  this  directive  have  proven  their 

effectiveness in more than one Member State; 

•  Several  of  these  countries  will  have  to  introduce  only  minor,  but  effective,  changes  or 
additions to their current practice in order to meet the requirements of the present directive; 

•  There is a widespread deficit of feedback concerning the effectiveness of the management 

systems, which makes any improvement on a purely "best practice" basis ineffective; 

•  A more coherent regulatory framework is therefore necessary. 

Main conclusions of the internet public consultation can be summarised as follows: 

•  All comments agree on the definition of the problem and on the necessity of an action at 

European level; 

•  The proposed measures and instruments are widely recognised as effective; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
•  A significant number of comments suggest to extend the provisions of the Directive also to 

roads not part of the trans-European road network; 

•  The  Commission  is  expected  to  assist  less  experienced  MS  in  the  implementation  of  the 

Directive, providing them with framework to develop methodology and know-how; 

•  The  overwhelming  majority  of  the  comments  welcome  the  approach  envisaged  by  the 
Commission, to leave Member States free to adopt own legislation on a set of mandatory 
procedures; 

Further  details  of  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  can  be  found  in  the  Impact 
Assessment, accompanying this proposal.  

The comments sent are available on http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/index_en.htm. 

Collection and use of expertise 

Scientific/expertise domains concerned 

National governments, road safety research institutes and experts, health, transport and road 
safety organisations, users and road operators associations. 

Methodology used 

Public  consultation,  high  level  experts  consultation,  analysis  of  already  existing  procedures, 
conferences and workshops. 

Main organisations/experts consulted 

51 comments were received: 

•  15 from national governments; 

•  11 from research institutes and experts in the field of road safety; 

•  10 from health, transport and road safety organisations; 

•  9 from users associations; 

•  6 from road operators’ associations. 

Summary of advice received and used 

The  existence  of  potentially  serious  risks  with  irreversible  consequences  has  not  been 
mentioned. 

•  All comments agree on the definition of the problem and on the necessity of an action at 

European level; 

•  The proposed measures and instruments are widely recognised as effective; 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
•  A significant number of comments suggest to extend the provisions of the Directive also to 

roads not part of the trans-European road network; 

•  The  Commission  is  expected  to  assist  less  experienced  MS  in  the  implementation  of  the 

Directive, providing them with framework to develop methodology and know-how; 

Means used to make the expert advice publicly available 

The  comments  sent  are  available  on  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/index_en.htm.Impact 
assessment 

Impact assessment 

In  2003,  the  thematic  network  ROSEBUD6  undertook  an  impact  analysis  for  the  present 
proposal. It found it realistic to estimate the reduction potential for the implementation of the 
infrastructure  safety  Directive  to  the  TEN  roads  to  more  than  600  fatalities  and  about  7000 
injury accidents per year. For the TEN roads, this corresponds to 12%-16% of fatalities and 
7%-12% of injury accidents. 

ROSEBUD  also  estimated  that  400  lives  per  year  could  be  saved  if  the  safety  management 
was  applied  to  motorways,  and  additional  900  lives  could  be  saved  every  year  if  it  was 
applied  to  the  main  road  network,  i.e.  interurban  roads  or  national  roads  (without 
motorways)7.  As  a  result,  the  Directive  is  estimated  to  reduce  the  number  of  fatalities  on 
motorways and main roads by 1.300 every year or 12 % of the fatalities occurring in this part 
of the network. 

3) 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

The  present  directive  explicitly  limits  the  requirements  to  a  minimum  set  of  elements 
necessary  to  achieve  a  safety  effect  and  spread procedures  that  have  shown  to  be  effective. 
This  comprehensive  system  of  road  infrastructure  safety  management8  is  centring  on  the 
following four procedures: 

(1) 
Road  safety  impact  assessments  will  help  strategic  decision-making  about  the  safety 
implications of new roads or major changes of operation of existing roads, especially on the 
adjacent network.  

Road safety audits shall provide for an independent control and recommendations for 

(2) 
technical verification of the design of either a new road or a rehabilitation of a road.  

6 

7 
8 

ROSEBUD  is  an  acronym  for  Road  safety  and  Environmental  Benefit-Cost  and  Cost-Effectiveness 
Analysis for Use in Decision-Making. Among the ROSEBUD partners are road research institutes from 
11 Member States as well as from Israel and Norway http://partnet.vtt.fi/rosebud/ 
Calculation for EU25 plus Bulgaria, Romania and Switzerland 
The  procedures  put  forward in  the  present  directive were  recommended  by  the  High Level  Group  on 
Road Safety, established by the Commission to assist it in developing a European Road Safety Policy 
and  in  coordinating  national  policies.  The  Final  Report  on  ‘Recommended  Safety  measures  for  short 
term application on trunk roads’ drafted by Working Party 4 was adopted on 12 May 1995 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 
Network  safety  management  is  to  target  remedial  measures  to  parts  of  the  network 
with  high  concentrations  of  accidents  (high  risk  road  sections  or  black  spots)  and/or  a  high 
potential to avoid them in the future.  

Safety  inspections  as  part  of  regular  road  maintenance  will  allow  detecting  and 

(4) 
reducing in a preventive way risks of accidents through cost-efficient measures. 

These  procedures  already  exist  and  are  applied  at  varying  degrees  in  some  Member  States. 
Aim of this proposal for a directive is therefore to extend these measures to the whole of the 
EU, without defining technical standards or requirements, but leaving the Member States free 
to  keep  already  existing  procedures  or  to  introduce  their  own.  The  application  of  the 
comprehensive  package  of  measures  will  make  sure  that  road  safety  is  included  and 
considered in the whole life of a road of European importance, from planning to operation. 

Legal basis 

The measure is proposed on the basis of Article 71 of the EC Treaty. 

Subsidiarity principle 

The  subsidiarity  principle  applies  insofar  as  the  proposal  does  not  fall  under  the  exclusive 
competence of the Community. 

The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States for the 
following reasons. 

The directive will ensure a common high level of safety of roads in all EU Member States. All 
Member States, but especially new Member States, which are in the process of upgrading and 
extending their road networks, will be given the opportunity to develop their road networks in 
full consideration of safety. 

Exchange of best practices as a solution to improve road infrastructure safety is not, in itself, 
sufficient.  Indeed,  exchange  of  best  practices  through  research  projects,  working  groups, 
conferences and workshops has been going on now for several years in the European Union 
and  in  the  international  arena.  A  general  improvement  in  road  infrastructure  safety 
performance  could  not  be  registered.  Furthermore,  Member  States  needing  to  upgrade  their 
road safety record are positive about regulatory measures. This is a strong indication that they 
find best practices insufficient to improve their safety performance. 

The  trans-European  road  network  needs  common  and  high  safety  standards  throughout  the 
European Union, as acknowledged by the Community legislator itself. Wherever a road user 
travels  on  the  network,  he  or  she  is  entitled  to  the  same  high  level  of  safety,  in  line  with 
Article  2,  para.  2,  lit.  a  of  Council  and  Parliament  Decision  1692/19969  Without  a  binding 
methodology  and  legal  commitment  throughout  the  European  Union,  Member  States  alone 
are  not  in  a  position  to  safeguard  this  common  high  level  of  safety,  as  the  very  disparate 
safety records of the single Member States show. 

Community action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following reasons. 

9 

This section reads: « The network must (a) ensure the sustainable mobility of persons and goods within 
an area without internal frontiers under the best possible social and safety conditions,… 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  directive  will  create  the  basis  for  establishing  safety  procedures  that  will  help  Europe 
achieve its ambitious objective to drastically reduce the number of road fatalities in the trans-
European  network.  It  will  allow  road  infrastructure  safety  management  to  become  a 
comprehensive  system based on a thorough analysis of accidents, the  identification of risky 
designs, revised guidelines and training curricula, as well as the implementation of effective 
remedial measures. It will also mitigate the risk of judicial action against road managers. 

The directive will improve the effectiveness of the exchange of best practice by introducing a 
common basic set of procedural requirements and by promoting and enabling its codification 
through comitology. 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons. 

The present proposal strikes a balance between proposing proven methods for improving road 
infrastructure  safety  and  limiting  administrative  and  other  implementation  costs,  while 
respecting  the  different  traditions  and  instruments  in  the  Member  States.  The  proposal 
explicitly limits the requirements to a minimum set of elements necessary to achieve a safety 
effect  and  spread  procedures  that  have  shown  to  be  effective.  Aim  of  this  proposal  for  a 
directive  is  therefore  to  extend  these  measures  to  the  whole  of  the  EU,  without  defining 
technical  standards  or  requirements,  but  leaving  the  Member  States  free  to  keep  already 
existing procedures or to introduce their own. The application of the comprehensive package 
of measures will make sure that road safety is included and considered in the whole life of a 
road of European importance, from planning to operation. 

Cost  increases  will  be  marginal  and  often  be  offset  within  a  short  while  due  to  reduced 
number and cost of accidents as well as reduced costly correction being avoided once roads 
are  in  operation.  The  measures  proposed  will  not  create  additional  delays  in  the  approval 
procedure  and  the  design  process  of  roads,  as  safety  impact  assessment  and  audits  will  be 
undertaken  in  parallel  with  them.  This  directive  does  not  require  the  creation  of  any  new 
offices or posts, but relies on a more efficient use of existing resources. 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments:  directive requiring the adoption of guidelines  on infrastructure  safety 
management and leaving the details of their implementation to Member States. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reasons. 

Exchange of best practices as a solution to improve road infrastructure safety has been going 
on  now  for  several  years  in  the  European  Union  and  in  the  international  arena.  A  general 
improvement in road infrastructure safety performance could not be registered. Moreover, this 
option  does  not  offer  any  guarantee  that  road  safety  will  be  further  enhanced  by  Member 
States.  Experience  has  shown  that  relying  on  exchange  of  best  practice  alone  does  not 
advance  the  objective  of  higher  road  infrastructure  safety.  Member  States  most  in  need  of 
upgrading  their  infrastructure  safety  are  asking  for  a  structured  EC  legal  approach  on  this 
issue, which shows that they have not benefited from exchange of best practices. 

The  harmonisation  of  Member  States  legislation  on  road  safety  assessment,  audits, 
management  and  inspections,  would  provide  common  instruments  to  strengthen  safety  to 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
maximise the benefit to road users and the public at large. However, obtaining an extended 
harmonisation would face the opposition of the Member States creating them many obstacles 
and difficulties: 

•  most  of  the  Member  States  would  have  to  reorganise  their  road  safety  practices  and 

legislation, even if already adopted and effective; 

•  the  large  differences  between  the  already  existing  road  safety  approaches  would  create 

political conflicts among Member States and the Commission; 

•  harmonised  guidelines  would  not  take  into  account  organisational  and  socio-cultural 

differences between the Member States; 

•  the  harmonisation  process  would  require  time  to  be  finalised;  the  consequent  number  of 
lives saved would only be appreciated years later and would only partially justify the huge 
efforts and costs for Member States. 

4) 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

If  only  applied  to  the  TEN  roads,  the  Directive  is  estimated  to  reduce  the  number  of  EU 
citizens dying in this part of the network by more than 600 fatalities per year and the injury 
accidents by about 7000 per year. According to the monetary estimations of the White Paper, 
the welfare benefit of these reductions corresponds to more than 2,4 billions € per year. If the 
Directive will be applied on motorways and main roads, the reduction of fatalities is estimated 
around 1.300 every year; this corresponds to more than 5 billions € per year. These estimates 
exceed costs by a considerable factor. 

Estimations of the budgetary implications of the four procedures are as following: 

•  Road  Safety  Impact  Assessment:  A  rough  estimation  of  the  costs  for  the  production  of 
road  safety  impact  assessments  can  be  made  considering  the  costs  of  the  analogous 
environmental impact assessments (EIA). In general, EIA costs amount to less than 0,5% 
of  the  overall  capital  cost  of  a  construction  project.  Costs  in  excess  of  1%  are  the 
exception. For projects with capital costs in excess of 100 millions of €, EIA costs may be 
as low as 0,2%, ie 200.000 €. 

•  Safety  audits  are  performed  in  parallel  with  the  design  and  construction  process  of  the 
road, and are therefore not expected to cause any delay. Audit costs range between 600 and 
6.000 € per stage. In general, the estimations in the different countries indicate that audit 
costs, related to the time spent to complete it, are far less than 1% of the construction cost 
of the whole project.  

•  Road safety inspection: Where inspections are carried out on a regular basis, costs range 
between 600 and 1.000 € per km of motorway. Considering the roads where the Directive 
will be mandatory, one can estimate that for a large sized country, with about 5.000 km of 
trans-European  road  network,  this  means  costs  for  inspections  ranging  between  3  and  5 
millions of €. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
•  Network  safety  management  costs  can  be  assumed  comparable  to  costs  of  routine  road 

safety inspections.  

5) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period 

There was or there will be a transitory period for the proposal. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
2006/0182 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

on road infrastructure safety management 

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) (c) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission10, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee11, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions12, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty13, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

15 
16 

The  trans-European  road  network  defined  in  Decision  1692/96/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  of  23  July  1996  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  on  Community  guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  Trans-European 
network14,  is  of  paramount  importance  in  supporting  European  integration  and 
cohesion as well as ensuring a high level of well-being. In particular, a high level of 
safety should be guaranteed. 

In its White Paper of 12 September 2001 "European transport policy for 2010: time to 
decide"15 the Commission expressed the need to carry out safety impact assessments 
and road safety audits, in order to identify and manage high-risk road sections within 
the Community. It also set the target of halving the number of deaths on Community 
roads between 2001 and 2010. 

In its Communication “European Road Safety Action Programme, Halving the number 
of  road  accident  victims  in  the  European  Union  by  2010:  A  shared  responsibility”16 
the Commission identified road infrastructure as the third pillar of road safety policy, 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ  L  228,  9.9.  1996,  p.1.  Decision  as  last  amended  by  Decision  884/2004/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 167, 30.4.2004, p. 1). 
COM(2001) 370 final 
COM (2003) 311 final 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

which should make an important contribution to the Community's accident reduction 
target. 

The setting up of appropriate procedures is an essential tool for improving the safety 
of  road  infrastructure  within  the  Trans-European  road  network.  Road  safety  impact 
assessments should demonstrate, on a strategic level, the implications on road safety of 
different planning alternatives of a infrastructure project. Moreover, road safety audits 
should identify, in a detailed way, unsafe features of a road infrastructure project. It is 
therefore appropriate to establish procedures to be followed in those two fields with an 
aim  of  increasing  safety  of  road  infrastructures  on  the  trans-European  road  network, 
whilst  at  the  same  time  excluding  road  tunnels  which  are  covered  by  Directive 
2004/54/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on 
minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network17. 

Safety performance of existing roads should be raised by targeting investments to the 
road  sections  with  the  highest  accident  density  or  the  highest  accident  reduction 
potential. To be able to adapt their behaviour and increase compliance to traffic rules, 
in  particular  speed  limits,  drivers  should  be  made  aware  before  entering  a  high  risk 
road section. 

Network  safety  management  has  a  high  potential 
its 
implementation. Once high risk road sections have been treated and remedial measures 
have  been  taken,  safety  inspections  as  a  preventive  measure  should  assume  a  more 
important  role.  Regular  inspections  are  an  essential  tool  for  preventing  possible 
dangers for all users of the road, including vulnerable users, also in case of roadworks.  

immediately  after 

Training and certification of safety personnel by means of training curricula and tools 
for  qualification  validated  by  the  Member  States  should  ensure  that  practitioners  get 
the necessary up-to-date knowledge. 

In  order  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  road  safety  of  Member  States  should  apply 
guidelines on infrastructure safety management The notification of those guidelines to 
the  Commission  and  regular  reporting  on  their  implementation  should  pave  the  way 
for  a  systematic  improvement  of  infrastructure  safety  at  the  Community  level  and 
provide  a  basis  for  the  evolution  towards  a  more  effective  system  over  time.  The 
reporting on their implementation should, furthermore, allow other Member States to 
identify  the  most  effective  solutions,  while  the  systematic  collection  of  data  from 
before/after  studies  should  allow  selecting  the  most  effective  measure  for  future 
action.  

Since the objectives of the action to be taken namely the establishment of procedures 
to ensure a consistently high level of road safety throughout the Trans-European road 
network cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by 
reason  of  the  effects  of  the  action,  be  better  achieved  at  Community  level,  the 
Community  may  adopt  measures,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  as 
set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, 
as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order 
to achieve those objectives. 

17 

OJ L 167, 30.4.2004, p. 39. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(10)  The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in 
accordance  with  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC  of  28  June  1999  laying  down  the 
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission18, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Subject matter and scope 

1. 

2. 

This  Directive  establishes  procedures  relating  to  road  safety  impact  assessments, 
road safety audits and safety inspections. 

This  Directive  shall  apply  to  roads  which  are  part  of  the  trans-European  road 
network, whether they are at the design stage, under construction or in operation. 

It shall not apply to road tunnels covered by Directive 2004/54/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council.  

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: 

“trans-European  road  network“  means  the  road  network  identified  in  Section  2  of 

(1) 
Annex I to Decision 1692/96/EC; 

(2) 
“competent  entity”  means  any  public  or  private  organisation  set  up  at  national, 
regional  or  local  level,  involved  in  the  implementation  of  this  Directive  by  reason  of  its 
competences; 

(3) 
“road safety impact assessment” means a strategic comparative analysis of the impact 
of new road or a substantial modification to the existing network on the safety performance of 
the road network; 

(4) 
“road safety audit” means a detailed systematic and technical safety check relating to 
the  design  characteristics  of  a  road  infrastructure  project  and  covering  all  stages  from 
planning to entry into operation; 

(5) 
“high-risk  road  section”  means  a  section  of  the  road  network  which  has  been  in 
operation for more than one year and upon which a large number of fatal and severe accidents 
have occurred; 

“safety development of the road network in operation" means the reduction of future 
(6) 
accidents  by  targeting  remedial  treatment  to  parts  of  the  network  where,  respectively, 

18 

OJ  L  184,  17.7.1999, p.23. Decision  as  amended  by  Decision 2006/512/EC  (OJ L  200, 22.7.2006,  p. 
11). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accidents  occurred  most  frequently  during  previous  years  and  accident  cost  reduction 
potential is the highest; 

(7) 

“safety inspection” means a periodical safety review of a road in operation; 

"guidelines"  means  measures  adopted  by  Member  States  or  the  relevant  competent 
(8) 
entities,  which  lay  down  the  steps  to  be  followed  and  the  elements  to  be  considered  in 
applying the safety procedures set out in this Directive; 

(9) 
"infrastructure project" means a project for the construction of new infrastructure or 
the rehabilitation of an existing infrastructure likely to have a significant effect on road safety. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Article 3 

Road safety impact assessment 

Member States shall ensure that a road safety impact assessment is carried out for all 
variants of any infrastructure project. 

The  road  safety  impact  assessment  shall  be  carried  out  at  the  initial  planning  stage 
before the infrastructure project is approved in accordance with the criteria set out in 
Annex I.  

The  safety  impact  assessment  shall  indicate  the  road  safety  considerations  which 
have led to the choice of the proposed solution. It shall further provide all relevant 
information necessary for a cost-benefit analysis of the different variants assessed.  

Article 4 

Road safety audits 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  road  safety  audits  are  carried  out  for  all 
infrastructure projects. 

Road  safety  audits  shall  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  criteria  set  out  in 
Annex II.  

Member States shall ensure that an auditor is appointed to carry out an audit of the 
design characteristics of a infrastructure project. 

The  audit  shall  form  an  integral  part  of  the  design  process  of  the  infrastructure 
project at the stage of feasibility, draft design, detailed design, pre-opening and early 
operation. 

Member States shall ensure that the auditor sets out safety critical design elements in 
an  audit  report  for  each  stage  of  the  infrastructure  project,  as  well  as  proposals  to 
remedy  any  unsafe  features  identified.  Where  unsafe  features  are  identified  in  the 
course  of  the  audit  but  the  design  is  not  rectified  before  the  end  of  the  appropriate 
stage as referred to in Annex II, the reasons shall be stated by the competent entity in 
an annex to that report.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Article 5 

Safety development of the road network in operation 

Member States shall ensure the safety development of the road network in operation. 
They  shall  ensure  that  management  of  high-risk  road  sections  and  network  safety 
management is carried out on the basis of an annual review of the operation of the 
road network in accordance with Annex III. 

Member  States  shall  rank  every  road  section  on  the  trans-European  road  network 
within their territory according to accident cost reduction potential. 

Member States shall ensure that high risk road sections and sections with the greatest 
accident  cost  reduction  potential  are  evaluated  by  inspection  teams.  At  least  one 
member  of  the  inspection  team  shall  meet  the  requirements  for  auditors  set  out  in 
Article 9. 

For  each  section  referred  to  in  paragraph  3,  Member  States  shall  estimate  the 
potential  of  remedial  measures  provided  for  in  points  3(e)  and  (f)  of  Annex  III  to 
reduce severe injuries and fatalities for the following three years as well as the costs 
of each such measure.  

Member States shall prioritise the measures referred in point 3(f) of Annex III on the 
basis of their cost-benefit ratio.  

Member States shall ensure that road users are warned of the existence of a high risk 
road  section  by  all  appropriate  measures.  If  signposting  is  used,  this  shall  comply 
with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of 1968.  

Member States shall make available to the public a list of the locations of high risk 
road sections. 

Article 6  

Safety inspections 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  safety  inspections  are  undertaken  in  respect  of  the 
roads referred to in Article 1(2) in order to identify the road safety risks and prevent 
accidents. 

Safety inspections shall comprise routine inspections and inspections of road works. 
They shall be carried out in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex III.  

Member States shall ensure that routine inspections are undertaken regularly by the 
competent  entity.  Such  inspections  shall  be  sufficiently  frequent  to  safeguard 
adequate safety levels for the road infrastructure in question. 

Without  prejudice  to  the  guidelines  adopted  pursuant  to  Article  8,  Member  States 
shall  adopt  guidelines  on  temporary  safety  measures  applying  to  road  works.  They 
shall also implement an appropriate inspection scheme to ensure that those guidelines 
are properly applied. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
Article 7 

Data management and tools 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Member States shall ensure that for each accident involving one or more fatalities or 
severe  injuries  occurring  on  a  road  referred  to  in  Article  1(2),  a  complete  accident 
report  is  drawn  up  by  the  competent  entity.  This  report  shall  include  each  of  the 
elements listed in Annex IV.  

Member  States  shall  calculate  the  average  social  cost  of  a  fatal  accident  and  the 
average social cost of a severe accident occurring in its territory. Member States may 
choose  to  further  differentiate  the  cost  rates,  which  shall  be  updated  at  least  every 
five years.  

Article 8 

Adoption and communication of guidelines 

In order to assist the competent entities in the application of this Directive, Member 
States shall ensure that guidelines are adopted within three years from its entry into 
force. These guidelines shall be made available to all interested parties. 

Member  States  shall  communicate  the  guidelines  adopted  at  national  level  to  the 
Commission within three months of their adoption or amendment.  

The Commission shall make them available on the Internet. 

Article 9 

Appointment and training of auditors and inspectors  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  training  curricula  for  road  safety  auditors  are 
adopted within three years after the entry into force of this Directive. 

Member States shall ensure that where road safety auditors carry out functions under 
this Directive, they undergo an initial training within five years of the entry into force 
of  this  Directive  resulting  in  the  award  of  a  certificate  of  competence,  and  follow 
periodic re-training at least every seven years.  

Member States shall ensure that road safety auditors hold a certificate of competence. 
Certificates awarded before the entry into force of this Directive shall be taken into 
account. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  auditors  are  appointed  in  compliance  with  the 
following requirements: 

(a) 

they  have  experience  in  road  design,  road  safety  engineering  and  accident 
analysis; 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
(b) 

(c) 

from  two  years  after  the  adoption  by  the  Member  States  of  the  guidelines 
pursuant  to  Article  8,  road  safety  audits  shall  only  be  undertaken  by  auditors 
meeting the requirements provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3; 

for  the  purpose  of  the  infrastructure  project  audited,  the  auditor  shall  not  be 
involved in the conception or operation of the relevant infrastructure project.  

Where audits are undertaken by teams, at least one member of the team shall meet 
the requirements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3. 

Article 10 

Reporting on the implementation 

Member  States  shall  report  to  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  this 
Directive five years after its entry into force and thereafter every four years.  

This report shall include: 

the 

(a) 
implementation of the guidelines; 

identification  of 

the  organisation  structures 

responsible 

for 

the 

(b) 
an  assessment  of  the  need  to  amend  guidelines  on  road  design,  signing  and 
signalling  including  a  list  and  a  description  of  road  designs  that  have  shown  to  be 
very high risk or that have a high potential to reduce risk; 

information  on  the  rates,  the  procedures  and  cost  elements  used  to  calculate 

(c) 
such rates according to Article 7(2); 

(d) 

contact data of the competent entities,  

A  common  format  for  reporting  may  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
referred to in Article 11(2). 

The Commission shall analyse the reports and information obtained and provide as 
appropriate  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
implementation of this Directive. 

Where  necessary  to  ensure  a  consistently  high  level  of  road  safety  throughout  the 
Trans-European  road  network,  minimum  requirements  for  the  content  of  the 
guidelines  referred  to  in  Article  8(1)  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure referred to in Article 11(2).  

Article 11 

Committee procedure 

The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Articles  5  and  7  of  Decision 
1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three 
months. 

3. 

The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure. 

Article 12 

Transposition 

1.  Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  […].  They  shall  forthwith  communicate  to  the 
Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and 
this Directive.  

When Member States adopt those provisions they shall contain a reference to this Directive or 
be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official  publication.  Member 
States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2.  Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the  main  provisions  of 

national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 13 

Entry into force 

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

Article 14 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I  

Road Safety Impact Assessment 

1. Elements of a road safety impact assessment: 

(a) problem definition; 

(b) current situation and “do nothing” scenario ; 

(c) road safety objectives; 

(d) analysis of impacts of the proposed alternatives; 

(e) comparison of the alternatives, including cost-benefit analysis; 

(f) presentation of the best solution. 

2. Elements to be taken into account: 

(a) casualties and accidents; reduction targets against "do nothing" scenario; 

(b) route choice and traffic patterns; 

(c) presence of intersections with the existing networks (exits, junctions, level crossings); 

(d) vulnerable users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorised two wheelers); 

(e) traffic flows (number of vehicles by vehicle type). 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II 

Road Safety Audits 

1. Criteria at the feasibility stage: 

(a) geographical location (exposition to landslides, flooding, avalanches, etc.); 

(b) types and distance of junctions; 

(c) number and type of lanes; 

(d) kinds of traffic admissible to the new road. 

2. Criteria at the draft design stage: 

(a) design speed; 

(b) cross-sections (width of carriageway, cycle tracks, foot paths, etc.); 

(c) visibility; 

(d) junctions layout; 

(e) bus and tramway line stops; 

(f) road/rail level crossings. 

3. Criteria for the detailed design stage: 

(a) layout; 

(b) horizontal and vertical alignments; 

(c) road signs and markings; 

(d) lighting; 

(e) road side equipment; 

(f) road side environment including vegetation; 

(g) fixed obstacles at the road side. 

4. Criteria for the pre-opening stage: 

(a) users comfort under different conditions such as darkness and bad weather; 

(b) readability of road signs and markings; 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
(c) grip of pavements. 

5. Criteria for early operation: assessment of patterns of usage in the light of actual behaviour 
of users. 

Audits at any stage may involve the need to revisit criteria of previous stages.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX III 

Management of high-risk road sections, network safety management and safety 
inspection 

1. Identification of high-risk road sections 

The identification of high-risk road sections takes into account at least the number of fatal and 
severe  injury  accidents  that  have  occurred  in  previous  years  per  unit  of  road  length  and,  in 
case of intersections, the number of such accidents per location of intersections. 

2. Identification of sections for further analysis in network safety management 

(a) basic accident cost rates for a best practice road section of a certain category is calculated 
in accident cost per kilometre; 

(b)  for  each  section  of  a  certain  road  category,  the  accident  cost  reduction  potential  per 
kilometre  is  calculated  as  the  difference  of  the  actual  accident  cost  per  kilometre  for  the 
section considered and the basic accident cost rate. 

3. Criteria and elements for reporting by the inspection team and measures: 

(a) the delimitation of the road section; 

(b) a reference to a possible previous report on the same road section; 

(c) the analysis of the accident reports; 

(d) the number of accidents fatalities and severely injured in the three previous years; 

(e) a set of remedial measures for realisation within one year considering for example: 

–  removal or protection of fixed road side obstacles; 

–  speed limits and local speed enforcement; 

–  visibility under different weather and light conditions; 

–  safety condition of road side equipment like road restraint systems; 

–  visibility,  readability  and  position  of  road  markings  (incl.  application  of  rumble 

strips), signs and signals; 

–  rocks falling ; 

–  grip / roughness of pavements; 

(f)  a  set  of  remedial  measures  for  realisation  within  more  than  one  year  considering  for 
example: 

–  redesign of road restraint systems; 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
–  median protection; 

–  overtaking layout; 

–  junction improvement including road/rail level crossings; 

–  change of alignment; 

–  change of width of road, addition of a hard shoulder; 

–  installation of traffic management and control system; 

–  potential conflict with vulnerable road users; 

–  upgrading the road to current design standards; 

–  restoring or replacing of pavements. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX IV 

Accident data contained in accident reports 

Accident reports include the following data: 

1) precise location of the accident; 

2) pictures and diagrams of the accident site; 

3) date and hour of accident; 

4) information on the road such as area type, road type, junction type incl. signalling, number 
of  lanes,  markings,  road  surface,  lighting  and  weather  conditions,  speed  limit,  road  side 
obstacles; 

5)  accident  severity,  including  number  of  fatalities,  hospitalised  and  slightly  injured.  In  this 
context, persons killed are all those killed as a result of the accident within 30 days from the 
day  of  the  accident  and  persons  hospitalised  are  all  those  being  hospitalised  for  at  least  24 
hours as a result of the accident; 

6) characteristics of the persons involved like age, sex, nationality, alcohol level, use of safety 
equipment or not; 

7) data on the vehicles involved (type, age, country, eventually safety equipments); 

8) accident data (accident type, collision type, vehicle and driver manoeuvre). 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL: 

Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  road 
infrastructure safety management 

2. 

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy Area(s) concerned and associated Activity/Activities: 

Land Transport – Road safety 

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget  lines  (operational  lines  and  related  technical  and  administrative 
assistance lines (ex- B..A lines)) including headings: 

BGUE-B2006-06.010211.00.03.C1-TREN.PMO 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

5 years 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics : 

Budget line 

Type of 
expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

BGUE-B2006-
06.010211.00.03.
C1-TREN.PMO 

Non-
comp 

Non-
diff19 

NO 

NO 

NO 

No 5 

19 

Non-differentiated appropriations hereafter referred to as NDA 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial Resources 

4.1.1. 

Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Expenditure type 

Section 
no. 

n + 1

n + 2

n + 3

n + 4 

Year 
n 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 

Operational expenditure20 

Commitment Appropriations 
(CA) 

8.1. 

Payment 
(PA) 

Appropriations 

a 

b 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount21 

Technical  &  administrative 
assistance (NDA) 

8.2.4. 

c 

TOTAL REFERENCE AMOUNT 

Commitment 
Appropriations 

Payment Appropriations 

a+c

b+c

Administrative expenditure not included in reference amount22 

Human 
associated 
(NDA) 

resources 

and 
expenditure 

Administrative  costs,  other 
than  human  resources  and 
not 
associated 
included 
reference 
in 
amount (NDA) 

costs, 

8.2.5. 

d 

8.2.6. 

e 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0 

0,217 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention 

TOTAL CA including cost 
of Human Resources 

TOTAL  PA  including  cost 
of Human Resources 

a+c
+d
+e 

b+c
+d
+e 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0 

0,217 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0 

0,217 

20 
21 
22 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned. 
Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within chapter xx 01 other than articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Co-financing details 

If  the  proposal  involves  co-financing  by  Member  States,  or  other  bodies  (please 
specify  which),  an  estimate  of  the  level  of  this  co-financing  should  be  indicated  in 
the table below (additional lines may be added if different bodies are foreseen for the 
provision of the co-financing): 

Co-financing body 

NO 

TOTAL  CA  including  co-
financing 

f 

a+c
+d
+e
+f 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
n 

n + 1

n + 2

n + 3

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0 

0,217 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with Financial Programming 

X 

Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming. 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial 
perspective. 

Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement23 (i.e. flexibility instrument or revision of the financial perspective). 

4.1.3.  Financial impact on Revenue 

X 

Proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

(cid:133) 

Proposal has financial impact – the effect on revenue is as follows: 

Budget line 

Revenue 

EUR million (to one decimal place) 

Situation following action 

[Yea
r n] 

[n+1] [n+2]  [n+3

] 

[n+4] [n+5]

24 

Prior to
action 
[Year 
n-1] 

a) Revenue in absolute terms 

b) Change in revenue 

 Δ 

23 
24 

See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional agreement. 
Additional columns should be added if necessary i.e. if the duration of the action exceeds 6 years 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2. 

Human Resources FTE (including officials, temporary and external staff) – see 
detail under point 8.2.1. 

Annual requirements 

Year n 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total  number  of  human 
resources 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

5.1. 

Need to be met in the short or long term 

A Committee shall assist the Commission in the adoption of minimum requirements 
for the guidelines required by the Directive. These minimum requirements should be 
adopted within five years after entry into force of the Directive. 

5.2. 

Value-added  of  Community  involvement  and  coherence  of  the  proposal  with 
other financial instruments and possible synergy 

Minimum  requirements  will  be  identified  on  the  basis  of  guidelines  previously 
adopted by the Member States. The involvement of the Community will make sure 
that needs of the singular Member states are properly considered and interpreted. 

5.3. 

Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context 
of the ABM framework 

Reports on the implementation of the Directive and on the effect on the decrease in 
the  number  of  fatal  accidents  will  be  regularly  provided  by  Member  States  to  the 
Commission.  Minimum  requirements  for  the  guidelines  required  by  the  Directive 
will finally be adopted. 

5.4.  Method of Implementation (indicative) 

Show below the method(s)25 chosen for the implementation of the action. 

(cid:133)  Centralised Management 

(cid:133) 

directly by the Commission 

(cid:133) 

indirectly by delegation to: 

(cid:133) 

executive Agencies 

(cid:133) 

bodies set up by the Communities as referred to in art. 185 of the 
Financial Regulation 

25 

If  more  than  one  method  is  indicated  please  provide  additional  details  in  the  "Relevant  comments" 
section of this point 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
X 

national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission 

(cid:133) 

Shared or decentralised management 

(cid:133)  with Member states 

(cid:133)  with Third countries 

(cid:133) 

Joint management with international organisations (please specify) 

Relevant comments: 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1.  Monitoring system 

The Committee will be managed and chaired by the relevant Commission officials. 
Therefore,  the  evolution  and  the  progresses  of  the  Committee  will  be  constantly 
monitored. 

6.2. 

Evaluation 

6.2.1.  Ex-ante evaluation 

Not applicable 

6.2.2.  Measures taken following an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons learned from 

similar experiences in the past) 

Not applicable 

6.2.3.  Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

The Committee will meet twice per year 

7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES  

The Committee will be managed and chaired by the relevant Commission officials. 
Therefore,  the  evolution  and  the  progresses  of  the  Committee  will  be  constantly 
monitored. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
8. 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

of 

(Headings 
Objectives, 
and 
actions 
outputs should be 
provided) 

Type of 
output 

Av. cost 

Year n 

Year n+1 

Year n+2 

Year n+3 

Year n+4 

Year n+5 and 
later 

TOTAL 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
output
s 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE No.1 
26 

Reduction of the 
number of 
fatalities on EU 
roads 

Action 1 

Road 
infrastructure 
safety 
management 
Committee 

Sub-total 
Objective n 

TOTAL COST 

Guidelines on 
minimum 
requirements 

0,0217 

per Committee 
meeting 
700€ x 31  
(25 Member 
States + BG, 
RO, CH, NO, 
HR, TR) 

2 

0,0434 

2 

0,0434 

2 

0,0434 

2 

0,0434 

2 

0,0434 

0 

0 

10 

0,217 

2 

2 

0,0434 

0,0434 

2 

2 

0,0434 

0,0434 

2 

2 

0,0434 

0,0434 

2 

2 

0,0434 

0,0434 

2 

2 

0,0434 

0,0434 

10 

0,217 

10 

0,217 

26 

As described under Section 5.3 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2. 

Administrative Expenditure 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

Types of post 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action using existing and/or 
additional resources (number of posts/FTEs) 

Year n 

Year n+1  Year n+2  Year n+3  Year n+4  Year n+5 

Officials or 
temporary 
staff27 (XX 01 
01) 

A*/AD 

B*, 
C*/AST 

Staff  financed28  by  art. 
XX 01 02 

Other  staff29  financed by 
art. XX 01 04/05 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

Management of the Committee 

8.2.3. 

Sources of human resources (statutory) 

X 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced 
or extended 

Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n 

Posts to be requested in the next APS/PDB procedure 

Posts  to  be  redeployed  using  existing  resources  within  the  managing  service 
(internal redeployment) 

Posts required for year n although not foreseen in the APS/PDB exercise of the 
year in question 

27 
28 
29 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 
Cost of which is included within the reference amount 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2.4.  Other  Administrative  expenditure  included  in  reference  amount  (XX  01  04/05  – 

Expenditure on administrative management) 

Budget line 

(number and heading) 

Technical 

1 
and 
assistance (including related staff costs) 

administrative 

Executive agencies30 

Other 

technical 

and 

administrative 

assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 

Total  Technical  and  administrative 
assistance 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Year 
n+5  

and 
later 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8.2.5.  Financial cost of human resources and associated costs not included in the reference 

amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of human resources 

Year n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Officials  and  temporary  staff 
(XX 01 01) 

Staff  financed  by  Art  XX  01 
02  (auxiliary,  END,  contract 
staff, etc.) 

(specify budget line) 

cost 

Total 
of  Human 
Resources  and  associated 
costs 
in  reference 
amount) 

(NOT 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Year 
n+5 

and later 

0 

0 

0 

30 

Reference should be made to the specific legislative financial statement for the Executive Agency(ies) 
concerned. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation – Officials and Temporary agents 

Not applicable 

Calculation– Staff financed under art. XX 01 02 

Not applicable 

8.2.6. Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Year 
n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions 

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees31  

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

XX 01 02 11 04 – Studies & consultations 

XX 01 02 11 05 - Information systems 

2 

Total 

Other  Management 

Expenditure (XX 01 02 11) 

3  Other 

expenditure 

administrative 
including reference to budget line) 

nature 

of 

an 
(specify 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Year 
n+5 

and 
later 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,217 

0 

0 

0 

0 

expenditure, 
than  human  resources  and 
in 

Total  Administrative 
other 
associated  costs  (NOT 
reference amount) 

included 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0,0434 

0 

0,217 

31 

Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

Not applicable 

EN 

35 

   EN