Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety {SEC(2008) 350} {SEC(2008) 351}
Date: 2008-03-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, accident prevention, action programme, approximation of laws, cooperation policy, cross-border cooperation, road safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 19.3.2008 
COM(2008) 151 final 

2008/0062 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety 

(presented by the Commission) 

{SEC(2008) 350} 
{SEC(2008) 351} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1) 

110 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

Since 2001, the aim of EU road safety policy has been to halve the number of road 
fatalities  by  the  year  2010.  In  2001,  54 000  people  died  on  the  roads  in  the  27 
countries,  which  are  today  Member  States  of  the  European  Union,  and  many 
measures  have  been  taken  since  then  in  order  to  achieve  the  objective  of  a  50% 
reduction.  In  2007,  for  the  first  time  since  2001,  no  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
reduction of deaths on the roads in the EU. The reduction of the number of fatalities 
each  year  was  6  %  in  2004,  5%  in  2006  and  0%  in  2007.  In  2007,  the  number  of 
deaths was still 43.000, equivalent to five medium-sized passenger planes crashing in 
the EU every week. Over the period from 2001 to 2007, the number of fatalities has 
decreased by 20%, while a 37% reduction would have been necessary to achieve the 
objective of halving the number of road fatalities. Because enforcement has proven to 
be a very effective instrument for reducing the number of fatalities, the Commission 
has, as part of its Work Programme for 2007, adopted a proposal for a directive in this 
area. 

Currently,  traffic  offences  are  often  not  sanctioned  if  they  are  committed  with  a 
vehicle which is registered in another Member State than the Member State where the 
offence  has  been  committed.  The  problem  is  particularly  acute  for  offences  that  are 
registered  automatically  using  road-side  cameras,  where  there  is  no  direct  contact 
between  the  driver  and  the  police.  Public  acceptance  of  enforcement  is  vital  to  the 
ongoing  effort  to  reduce  casualties  and  evasion  by  non-resident  drivers  could 
undermine this acceptance. 

The share of non-residents in road traffic appears to be around 5% for the countries 
where  this  information  is  available1.  The  share  of  non-resident  drivers  in  speeding 
offences  shows  a  range  of  2.5%  to  30%2.  These  figures  suggest  that  non-resident 
drivers are relatively more involved in speeding offences than resident drivers3. 

A number of bilateral agreements have been concluded between Member States, but 
these  have  proved  difficult  to  implement.  Moreover,  failure  to  pursue  cross-border 
enforcement  throughout  the  EU  not  only  results  in  the  impunity  of  non-resident 
offenders  who  are  not  covered  by  any  bilateral  agreement,  but  also  discriminates 
against resident traffic offenders. 

1 

2 

3 

Source: Eurostat. The 5% is based on the evidence from a selected group of countries. It means that of 
the vehicle-kms made on the roads, some 5% is made by vehicles registered in another country. Results 
show 5.5 % in France (30 billion vehicle-kilometres), 3.9 % in Germany, 4.1 % in the Netherlands, and 
3.9 % in the UK. 
2.5%  in Denmark,  4%  in  Finland, 6%  in  the  Netherlands,  8%  in  Catalonia  (Spain), 14%  in  Belgium, 
15% in France, and 30% in Luxembourg. 
In France, their share in traffic is 5.5%, but their share in offences 15%. The corresponding figures in 
the Netherlands are 4.1% traffic share, but 6% share in offences (Centraal Justitieel Incasso Bureau, the 
Netherlands). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  objective  of  this  proposal  is  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  sanctions  against 
drivers  who  commit  an  offence  in  another  Member  State  than  the  one  where  their 
vehicle  is  registered.  The  purpose  of  this  system  is  to  ensure  that  enforcement  with 
respect  to  such  offences  takes  place  regardless  of  where  in  the  European  Union  the 
offence has been committed and regardless of the place of registration of the vehicle 
with which it has been committed. 

The  offences  covered  by  the  proposal  are  speeding,  driving  under  the  influence  of 
alcohol (hereinafter referred to as "drink-driving"), not using a seat belt, and failing to 
stop at a red light. These are the traffic offences which cause the greatest number of 
accidents and deaths on the roads.  

The proposal aims at setting up an EU electronic data exchange network in order to 
identify  the  holder  of  a  vehicle  so  that  the  authorities  in  a  Member  State,  where  an 
offence has been committed, can send out a notification to the holder of the vehicle 
involved in the offence.  

Such  a  system  is  of  particular  value  in  relation  to  road  traffic  offences  detected  by 
automated  devices  where  the  identity  of  the  offender  cannot  immediately  be 
established, such as speeding or failing to stop at a red traffic light. It is also useful in 
order to enable the follow-up of offences where verification of the vehicle registration 
details  may  be  necessary,  in  the  case  where  the  vehicle  has  been  stopped.  This  is 
notably the case for drink driving.  

The  proposal  does  not  deal  with  harmonising  road  traffic  rules,  nor  with 
harmonisation of penalties for road traffic offences, since these matters are best left to 
the Member States. It merely contains provisions of a purely administrative nature for 
putting in place an effective and efficient system of cross-border enforcement of the 
main road traffic offences. It does not interfere with Member States qualifications of 
these traffic offences, which can be either of an administrative or of a penal nature. 
Neither does it interfere with Member States' laws in terms of who should be liable 
for the offences in question.  

The  text  applies  without  making  any  distinction  between  the  offences  concerned  in 
terms  of  their  legal  qualification  as  being  criminal  or  administrative,  since  this  is 
different in the different Member States; it can readily be applied irrespective of such 
a qualification. 

Considering all these limitations, the proposal takes the principle of subsidiarity fully 
into account. 

The proposed system remains in line with the traditional way of dealing with cross-
border  offences:  they  are  pursued  by  the  Member  State  where  the  offence  has  been 
committed.  Its  added  value  is  the  introduction  of  a  mechanism,  which  does  not 
currently exist, with which the authorities concerned can identify and pursue foreign 
offenders. 

The proposal does not interfere with the application of Council Framework Decision 
2005/214/JHA  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  financial 
penalties  (third  pillar).  The  proposed  directive  applies  to  the  phases  before  a  final 
sanction has been imposed, whereas the framework decision starts to apply when the 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
offender has not paid the fine and a final decision has been taken obliging him to do 
so.  

120 

•  General context 

Progress in reducing the number of deaths has been decreasing over the period between 
2001  and  2007.  In  2007,  no  progress  has  been  made;  the  percentage  of  reduction  of 
fatalities was 0% for the EU. 

The available data indicate that the main causes of fatal accidents are speeding, drink-
driving  and  non-use  of  a  seat  belt.  This  was  already  the  case  in  1999  and  has  not 
changed since then.  

According  to  the  impact  assessment  study  completed  in  2007,  which  gives  estimates 
for the year 2004, 30% of road deaths were caused by speeding, 25% by drink-driving, 
17% by non-use of seat belts, and around 4% by failing to stop at a red traffic light. In 
other  words,  some  75%  of  all  road  deaths  are  caused  by  one  (or  more)  of  these  four 
traffic offences.  

On  21  October  2003  the  Commission  adopted  a  Recommendation  on  enforcement  in 
the field of road safety (2004/345/EC) which contains best practices for enforcement in 
relation to these three main offences. It would appear from the trend in the number of 
road deaths to date that this recommendation, which is a non-binding instrument, is not 
sufficient to achieve the objective of cutting road deaths by half. 

If nothing is done, it is highly likely that the objective will not be achieved. 

130 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The Commission Recommendation of 21 October 2003 on enforcement in the field of 
road safety in the areas of speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat belts focuses on 
best enforcement practices and deals in less detail with cross-border enforcement. The 
current proposal focuses on the cross-border issues; it does not deal with enforcement 
practices as such. The main similarity is that both of these acts deal with enforcement 
of mainly the same traffic offences. 

140 

•  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

The proposed action is in line with EU policies on human health and the environment. 
It  will  also  complement  Council  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  on  the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, which sets out 
a  mechanism  for  cross-border  recognition  and  enforcement  of  final  decisions 
concerning financial penalties, among others for traffic offences. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
2) 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

211 

Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents 

Stakeholders have been consulted from the early stages of the project. In 2004, under 
the  SARTRE  3  project  (Social  Attitude  to  Road  Traffic  Risks  in  Europe)  24 000  EU 
citizens were asked for their views on road safety enforcement.  

On  20  July  2006  a  meeting  was  held  with  the  expert  group  set  up  following  the 
Commission Recommendation of 21 October 2003 on enforcement in the field of road 
safety to discuss the objectives and the scope of regulatory action at EU level.  

In addition, various bilateral meetings have been held with a number of stakeholders, 
especially Member States and enforcement authorities. 

A  public  consultation,  via  the  Commission's  "Europa"  website,  was  held  from  6 
November  2006  to  19  January  2007,  in  accordance  with  applicable  Commission 
standards. A total of 54 comments were received from various stakeholders. All of the 
comments  are  published  on  the  Road  Safety  Site  of  the  "Europa"  portal  of  the 
Commission.  

A  stakeholders'  meeting  was  held  on  27  February  2007  to  which  all  authors  of 
comments and all Member States were invited. 

The Commission drew up a questionnaire directed at the traffic police forces of Europe 
in  order  to  gather  information  on  road  traffic  enforcement  in  Europe.  Twenty-one 
countries replied to the questionnaire, and those replies were used as a basis for a panel 
discussion  to  which  the  traffic  police  forces  were  invited  in  order  to  give  their 
comments with a view to action by the EU. 

212 

Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account 

All  participants  agreed  on  the  problem  definition  and  intended  EU  action:  increasing 
road  safety  through  better  enforcement,  both  in  substance  and  in  procedural  matters. 
However,  disagreement  remained  as  to  what  constituted  the  appropriate  legal 
framework. The responses have been taken into account.  

213 

An  open  consultation  was  conducted  over  the  internet  from  6  November  2006  to  19 
January  2007.  The  Commission  received  54  responses.  The  results  are  available  on 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/enforcement/introduction_en.htm#consultation.

•  Collection and use of expertise 

221 

Scientific fields/areas of expertise concerned 

Road safety and road safety enforcement 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
222 

Methodology used 

Meetings  with  experts  from  the  Member  States;  consultation  of  and  meetings  with 
stakeholders; various research projects; other projects and studies. 

223 

Main organisations/experts consulted 

Transport  policy  officials  and  road  traffic  enforcement  officers  from  the  Member 
States, TISPOL (European Traffic Police Network) and the European Transport Safety 
Council. 

2249 

Summary of advice received and used 

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

225 

It was unanimously agreed that, unless further action in the form of better road safety 
enforcement  was  undertaken,  it  would  not  be  possible  to  reduce  the  unacceptable 
number of deaths on the roads, in accordance with the objective supported by all the 
EU  Institutions.  There  was  disagreement  over  the  appropriate  legal  means  to  pursue 
that objective. 

226 

Means used to make the expert advice publicly available 

The  reactions  from  stakeholders  to  the  consultation  paper  were  published  on  the 
Commission website: 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/enforcement/introduction_en.htm#consultation 

230 

•  Impact assessment 

The  impact  assessment  considers  five  options,  each  of  which  addresses  both  cross-
border  enforcement  and  good  enforcement  practices  to  be  implemented  in  Member 
States. 

The first option consists in maintaining the current situation unchanged. 

In  the  second  option,  non-resident  offenders  are  prosecuted  on  their  return  to  the 
country  of  offence,  based  on  cooperation  with  the  country  of  residence.  This  option 
involves non-regulatory measures which could be taken without any need to change the 
existing  laws  or  to  introduce  new  legislation  at  EU  level.  The  Commission 
Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC) encourages 
Member  States  to  apply  best  enforcement  practices.  In  terms  of  cross-border 
enforcement, national rules are improved. 

The third and fourth options also involve non-regulatory measures for the purposes of 
enforcement,  based  on  the  existing  Commission  Recommendation.  As  regards  cross-
border  enforcement,  option  3  consists  in  setting  up  an  EU  electronic  data  exchange 
network  in  order  to  identify  the  holder  of  the  vehicle;  option  4  is  based  on  mutual 
recognition of evidence and transmission of the relevant data to the authorities of the 
State where the vehicle is registered, for enforcement of offences and implementing of 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
sanctions by these authorities. 

The fifth option is also based on the transmission of evidence to the State of residence 
for  cross-border  enforcement.  It  differs  from  options  2,  3  and  4  in  that  it  comprises 
regulatory measures for the application of good enforcement practices by all Member 
States.  This  option  also  includes  measures  on  the  standardisation  of  enforcement 
devices. 

The last option brings more social, economic and environmental benefits than the other 
options  (social:  fewer  people  killed  and  injured  on  the  roads;  economic:  significant 
financial benefits owing to fewer accidents, hence less personal and material damage, 
and via financial penalties; environmental: due to less speeding, thus less pollution and 
lower fuel consumption).  

However,  at  the  present  stage  of  development  of  Community  law,  option  5  is  not 
practicable because, on substance, it is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and, on 
procedure,  it  overlaps  with  Council  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  on  the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Consequently, 
the  proposed  action  is  based  on  option  3.  It  aims  at  setting  up  a  system  for  the 
exchange  of  relevant  data  between  Member  States  with  a  view  to  facilitating  the 
sanctioning of certain traffic offences committed in one Member State with a vehicle 
registered in another Member State. Contrary to option 4, it leaves action to follow-up 
on offences to the Member State where the offence has been committed. It covers the 
phases from when an offence is recorded up to sending the offence notification to the 
holder  of  the  vehicle  registration  certificate.  It  does  not  deal  with  cases  where  the 
addressee  has  refused  to  pay  and  is  convicted  to  do  so  by  a  final  decision,  since  the 
above mentioned Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA provides for the mutual 
recognition and enforcement of such final decisions. 

The Commission carried out an impact assessment as set out in the Work Programme; 
the impact assessment report can be accessed on SEC(2008) 351. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

The proposal introduces the technical mechanisms and legal instruments necessary for 
carrying  out  cross-border  enforcement  with  respect  to  road  traffic  offences  that 
endanger road safety.  

The proposed procedure envisages that the exchange of information between Member 
States  starts  when  an  offence  has  been  committed  in  a  Member  State  with  a  vehicle 
that  is  registered  in  another  Member  State.  The  Member  State  where  the  offence  has 
been committed sends the vehicle  registration number and other relevant information 
to  the  other  Member  States  or  the  State  of  residence  if  this  can  be  identified  and 
requests  information  on  the  vehicle  holder.  The  exchange  of  information  between 
Member States takes place via an electronic network. Once the State where the offence 
was committed has received the requested information, it sends an offence notification 
to the vehicle holder using the standard form in annex.  

231 

3) 

305 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
This document contains the necessary information for payment of the amount due and 
information on the possibilities of contestation and appeal. As a last resort, in the case 
of  non-payment  by  the  offender,  Council  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  on  the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties can be applied. 
The proposal covers the offences of speeding, drink-driving, non-use of seat belts and 
failing to stop at a red traffic light.  

Lastly, the Commission will be assisted by a Committee on road safety enforcement, 
which  will  deal  with  the  development  of  common  rules  concerning  the  exchange  of 
information  by  electronic  means.  This  Committee  will  also  be  involved  in  possible 
adaptations of the model offence notification. 

310 

•  Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  taking  measures  at  EU  level  in  the  field  of  road  safety  is  Article 
71(1)  ECT,  which  states  that  "…  the  Council  shall,  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure  referred  to  in  Article  251  ….,  (c)  lay  down  measures  to  improve  transport 
safety."  

320 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

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

321 

It  appears  that,  despite  the  Commission  Recommendation  on  best  enforcement 
practices  (October  2003),  EU  Member  States  will  not  manage  to  reach  the  common 
objective of halving the number of people killed on the roads in 2010. Currently, the 
risk of being killed on the roads is nearly five times higher in some Member States than 
in  others.  Countries  which  apply  good  enforcement  practices  generally  have  a  better 
road safety record than countries which do not apply such practices.  

Automated devices have proven to be an important element in improving enforcement 
and it is important to facilitate their operation. With respect to speeding, for instance, 
countries that use large numbers of automated speed devices, such as the Netherlands 
and  the  UK,  tend  to  have  low  numbers  of  road  fatalities  (46  and  56  per  million 
inhabitants respectively), whereas countries with few if any such devices, e.g. Poland 
and  the  Czech  Republic,  generally  have  much  higher  death  rates  (143  and  126  per 
million  inhabitants  respectively).  (The  numbers  are  for  the  year  2005).  Similarly,  for 
drink-driving, countries that carry out many tests for drink-driving tend to have better 
road safety records than countries carrying out fewer tests.  

However,  since  under  the  subsidiarity  principle  the  application  of  enforcement 
practices by Member States in their own territory is considered to be primarily within 
their  competence,  the  proposal  does  not  seek  to  impose  requirements  for  road  safety 
enforcement  methods  as  such.  The  proposal  focuses  on  enabling  cross-border 
enforcement, which Member States have been unable to achieve through unilateral or 
bilateral  activity  to  date.  The  admittedly  incomplete  set  of  available  data  shows  that 
considerable  numbers  of  offences  are  committed,  but  remain  unsanctioned,  thereby 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
undermining the effectiveness and credibility of automated enforcement. 

Without  the  application  of  automated  speed  enforcement  and  efficient  follow-up 
procedures,  adequate  cross-border  enforcement  of  the  large  numbers  of  speeding 
offences  that  take  place  will  not  be  possible.  The  same  applies  to  cross-border 
enforcement of drink-driving offences without the application of random breath testing. 

As  revealed  in  the  Impact  Assessment,  it  is  expected  that  the  implementation  of  the 
proposed provisions on cross-border enforcement will also result in the application by 
Member  States  of  effective  practices  for  the  enforcement  on  their  territory  of  purely 
national offences.  

to 

respect 

laws  and 

cross-border 

existing  bilateral 

and  other 
enforcement, 
With 
intergovernmental initiatives by Member States are not optimally effective and result in 
insufficient  application  of  national 
in  administrative  and  financial 
inefficiency.  Although  some  of  these  agreements  result  in  improved  cross-border 
enforcement  between  the  countries  concerned  (notably  the  Dutch  –  German  and  the 
Dutch  –  Belgian  agreements),  others  have  very  little  added  value.  The  result  is  less-
than-optimal  road  safety  in  all  Member  States  and  unequal  treatment  between  non-
resident offenders who are not sanctioned and national offenders who are. The proposal 
aims at setting up an EU-wide system for cross-border enforcement which solves the 
problems inherent in the existing agreements and avoids the further development of a 
patchwork of different bilateral or other intergovernmental agreements which would be 
time and resource consuming and, ultimately, less effective. 

Moreover,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  in  road  safety  performance  within  all 
Member  States;  dramatically  in  the  Member  States  that  currently  have  a  bad  road 
safety  record,  but  also  in  Member  States  that  are  already  performing  well.  Failure  to 
take the proposed measures, would be deleterious to the interest that all Member States 
have in reducing wherever possible the number of people dying on their roads.  

Effective  enforcement  methods  can,  if  applied  by  all  Member  States,  significantly 
contribute  to  halving  the  number  of  crashes  on  the  roads/serious  road  accidents.  The 
Impact Assessment study found that up to 5 000 lives could be saved every year by the 
application of such methods. 

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

Only an EU instrument can bring about consistent and efficient EU-wide cross-border 
enforcement of road traffic offences, through the exchange of relevant information via 
an electronic system.  

The proposal does not deal with harmonising road traffic rules, nor with harmonisation 
of  penalties  for  road  traffic  offences,  since  these  matters  are  best  left  to  the  Member 
States.  It  merely  contains  provisions  of  a  purely  administrative  nature  for  putting  in 
place  an  effective  and  efficient  system  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  the  main  road 
traffic offences. It does not interfere with Member States qualifications of these traffic 
offences, which can be either of an administrative or of a penal nature. Neither does it 
interfere with Member States' laws in terms of who should be liable for the offences in 
question.  Member  States  have  different  laws  for  instance  with  respect  to  the  liability 

323 

324 

327 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
concerning speeding offences: in a number of Member States the holder of the vehicle 
registration certificate is liable, in other Member States it is the driver. Member States 
should  make  every  effort  to  ensure  that  drivers  from  other  Member  States  who  are 
driving  on  their  territory  are  aware  of  the  major  road  traffic  rules  in  force,  such  as 
speed – and alcohol limits.  

The offence notification which has to be sent to the holder of the vehicle registration 
certificate requests this holder to give details concerning the driver of the vehicle when 
the offence was detected if the holder does not accept to pay the penalty. If it appears 
from the answer of the holder of the vehicle registration certificate that the offence had 
been  committed  by  a  driver  other  than  the  holder,  it  is  left  to  the  State  of  offence  to 
decide whether or not to subsequently pursue the driver.  

•  Proportionality principle 

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

331 

The form of a directive is the simplest form possible for achieving the objectives of the 
proposal.  

The proposal deals only with enforcement with respect to road traffic offences, and not 
with  harmonising  road  traffic  rules,  criminal  procedure  or  sanctions,  since  this  is  not 
necessary  for  achieving  the  required  results.  The  proposal  does  not  deal  with  cases 
where the addressee has refused to pay a financial penalty but is convicted to do so in a 
final decision, since Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of 
the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  financial  penalties  provides  for  mutual 
recognition and execution of such final decisions. 

As  shown  in  the  Impact  Assessment,  the  financial  and  administrative  burden  of  this 
proposal is very limited. Moreover, an already existing EU information system will be 
used  and  expanded  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging  information  for  cross-border 
enforcement. This will also reduce costs. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: directive. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reasons. 

The  existing  Commission  Recommendation  has  proved  not  to  be  sufficient  for 
achieving the objective. The same applies, but even more so, to co-regulation and self-
regulation. A regulation would be unnecessarily prescriptive and would not necessarily 
fit within the existing bodies of national law.  

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The  proposal  has  budgetary  implications  for  the  setting  up  and  the  running  of  a 
Committee to manage the Directive. 

332 

341 

342 

4) 

401 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
5) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

•  Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period 

505 

510 

511 

513 

The system for exchange of information will be developed and tested at the latest two 
years after the entry into force of the Directive. 

•  Simplification 

The  proposal  provides  for  simplification  of  administrative  procedures  for  public 
authorities  (EU  or  national),  e.g.  by  streamlining  the  exchange  of  information  in  a 
single protocol. 

In  order  to  effectively  follow  up  very  high  numbers  of  road  traffic  offences,  such  as 
speeding, there is a need to establish simplified procedures to follow up these offences 
consistently with penalties. Currently, many Member States have not established such 
procedures, or the procedures they do have differ according to the existing bilateral or 
multilateral  agreements.  These  Member  States  will  be  encouraged  to  introduce  such 
procedures  as  a  spin-off  from  the  expected  increase  in  the  use  of  automated  speed 
devices resulting from the proposed measures.  

550 

•  Correlation table 

Member  States  are  required  to  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  national 
provisions  transposing  the  Directive  as  well  as  a  table  of  correlation  between  those 
provisions and this Directive. 

560 

•  European Economic Area 

The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European 
Economic Area. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
2008/0062 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

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 Commission4, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee5, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions6, 

After consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty7, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The European Union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety with the objective of 
reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. Consistent enforcement of sanctions 
for road traffic offences which are known to considerably jeopardize road safety is an 
important instrument for achieving this objective. 

However, sanctions in the form of financial penalties for certain road traffic offences 
are  often  not  enforced  if  they  are  committed  with  a  vehicle  which  is  registered  in  a 
Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place because of a 
lack of appropriate mechanisms. 

In  order  to  improve  road  safety  throughout  the  European  Union  and  to  ensure  equal 
treatment  between  resident  and  non-resident  offenders,  enforcement  should  be 
facilitated irrespective of the Member State in which the vehicle with which an offence 
has been committed is registered. To this end,  a  system  of  cross-border  exchange  of 
information should be put in place. 

4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Such  a  system  is  of  particular  value  in  relation  to  road  traffic  offences  detected  by 
automated  devices  where  the  identity  of  the  offender  cannot  immediately  be 
established, such as speeding or failing to stop at a red traffic light. It is also useful in 
order to enable the follow-up of offences where verification of the vehicle registration 
details  may  be  necessary,  in  the  case  where  the  vehicle  has  been  stopped.  This  is 
notably the case for drink driving.  

The  types  of  road  traffic  offences  to  be  covered  by  this  system  should  reflect  their 
seriousness in terms of endangering road safety and should cover offences which are 
qualified  as  traffic  offences  in  the  laws  of  all  Member  States.  It  is  accordingly 
appropriate to make provision in relation to speeding, drink-driving, non-use of a seat-
belt, and failing to stop at a red traffic light. The Commission will continue to monitor 
developments  across  the  EU  in  respect  of  other  road  traffic  offences  with  serious 
implications for road safety and if appropriate will consider proposing a revision of the 
Directive in order to cover them within its scope, such as driving under the influence 
of drugs, use of mobile phones while driving and uninsured driving. 

In order to ensure its effectiveness, the system of enforcement should cover the phases 
between the detection of an offence and the sending of an offence notification, based 
on  a  standard  model,  to  the  holder  of  the  registration  certificate  of  the  vehicle 
concerned.  Once  a  final  decision  has  been  taken,  the  Council  Framework  Decision 
2005/214/JHA  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  financial 
penalties8 applies. 

Further,  the  cross-border  exchange  of  information  should  be  carried  out  rapidly  by 
electronic means. To this end, an EU electronic network should be set up. 

Since the data relating to the identification of an offender is personal, Member States 
must take the measures necessary to ensure that Directive 95/46/EC of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  1995  on  the  protection  of  individuals 
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data9 
is complied with. 

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 Commission10. 

In  particular,  power  should  be  conferred  on  the  Commission  to  adopt  measures 
concerning the adaptation of the Annex. Since those measures are of general scope and 
are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, they must be adopted 
in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of 
Decision 1999/468/EC. 

(11)  Since  the  objectives  of  the  action  to  be  taken,  namely  facilitating  the  cross-border 
enforcement  of  sanctions  for  certain  road  traffic  offences,  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved by the Member States themselves and can therefore, by reason of their scale 

8 
9 
10 

OJ L 76, 22.3.2005, p. 16. 
OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p.31 
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 

 
                                                 
and  effects,  be  better  achieved  at  Community  level,  the  Community  may  adopt 
measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the 
Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality set out in that Article, this 
Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.  

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

CHAPTER I 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Article 1 
Subject matter and scope 

1. This Directive establishes a system to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of sanctions 
for the following road traffic offences: 

(a) speeding; 

(b) drink-driving; 

(c) non-use of a seat-belt; 

(d) failing to stop at a red traffic light. 

2. This Directive only applies insofar as the sanction to be imposed for the offence concerned 
is or includes a financial penalty.  

For the purpose of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: 

Article 2 
Definitions 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

"holder" means the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle 
concerned; 

"State  of  offence"  means  the  Member  State  where  the  offence  has 
been committed; 

"State of residence" means the Member State where the vehicle with 
which the offence has been committed is registered; 

"competent  authority"  means  the  authority  in  charge  of  the  national 
database on the registration documents for vehicles.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

"speeding"  means  exceeding  speed  limits  in  force  in  the  State  of 
offence for the road or type of vehicle concerned; 

"drink-driving" means driving with a blood alcohol level higher than 
the maximum level in force in the State of offence; 

"non-use of a seat belt" means failing to comply with the requirement 
to  wear  a  seat-belt  or  use  a  child  restraint  in  cases  where  the  use  of 
such  equipment  is  mandatory  in  accordance  with  Council  Directive 
91/671/EEC11 or the national law in the State of offence; 

"failing  to  stop  at  a  red  traffic  light"  means  the  offence  of  driving 
through  a  red  traffic  light  as  it  is  defined  in  the  law  of  the  State  of 
offence. 

CHAPTER II 

PROVISIONS FACILITATING CROSS-BORDER ENFORCEMENT 

Article 3 
Procedure for the exchange of information between Member States 

1. When an offence has been committed in a Member State with a vehicle which is registered 
in  another  Member  State,  and  the  case  is  not  sanctioned  and  closed  immediately  by  an 
authority  which  is  in  charge  of  pursuing  the  offence  in  the  State  of  offence,  the  competent 
authority in that State shall send the vehicle registration number and information concerning 
the place and date of the offence to the competent authority in the other Member States or the 
State of residence if this can be identified. It shall do so in the same circumstances and under 
the  same  conditions  in  which  it  would  pursue  that  offence  if  committed  with  a  vehicle 
registered in its own territory.  

2. The competent authority in the State of residence shall transmit immediately the following 
information only to the competent authority in the State of offence: 

(a) the make and model of the vehicle which has the registration number concerned; 

(b)  in  cases  where  the  holder  of  the  registration  certificate  of  the  vehicle  concerned  is  a 
natural person, the name, address, date and place of birth; 

(c) in cases where the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned is a legal 
person, the name and address. 

3. The competent authorities of the other Member States shall not store the information sent 
by the State of offence.  

11 

Council Directive 91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member 
States  relating  to  compulsory  use  of  safety  belts  in  vehicles  of  less  than  3,5  tonnes  (OJ  L  373, 
31.12.1991, p. 26), as amended by Directive 2003/20/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 
(OJ L 115, 9.5.2003, p. 63). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 4 
Use of an electronic network 

1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the exchange of information 
described  in  Article  3  is  carried  out  by  electronic  means.  For  this  purpose,  Member  States 
shall take all necessary measures to ensure that an EU electronic network based on common 
rules is set up no later than 12 months after the date mentioned in Article 9 (1).  

2.  Common  rules concerning  the  implementation  of  paragraph  1  shall  be  adopted  by  the 
Commission  by  the  date  mentioned  in  Article  9(1)  in  accordance  with  the  regulatory 
procedure provided for in Article 8(2).  

These common rules shall include in particular provisions on the following: 

(a) the format of the data exchanged; 

(b) the technical procedures for electronic exchange of the data between Member States. 

Article 5 
Offence notification  

1.  Upon  receipt  of  the  information  described  in  Article  3(2),  the  authority  in  the  State  of 
offence  which  is  in  charge  of  pursuing  the  offences  covered  by  this  Directive  shall  send  an 
offence  notification  to  the  holder.  The  notification  shall  be  established  on  the  basis  of  the 
model set out in the Annex.  

2.  The  offence  notification  shall  contain  a  description  of  the  relevant  details  of  the  offence 
concerned  and  the  amount  of  the  financial  penalty  that  the  holder  is  required  to  pay,  the 
possibilities  for  the  holder  to  contest  the  grounds  for  the  offence  notification  and  to  appeal 
against a decision imposing a financial penalty, and the procedure to be followed in case of 
dispute or appeal.  

3. The offence notification shall inform the holder that he must complete a reply form if he 
does not intend to pay the penalty.  

4.  The  offence  notification  shall  be  communicated  to  the  holder  in  the  official  language  or 
languages of the State of residence, as specified by this State.  

5.  The  Commission  may  adapt  the  model  offence  notification  in  order  to  take  account  of 
technical  developments.  Those  measures  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this 
Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred 
to in Article 8(3). 

Article 6 
Central authorities 

1. Each Member State shall designate a central authority to assist with the application of this 
Directive. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
2. Each Member State shall communicate to the Commission within six months of the entry 
into  force  of  this  Directive  the  names  and  addresses  of  the  central  authorities  designated 
pursuant to this Article. 

3. The Commission shall communicate the information described in paragraph 2 to the other 
Member States. 

Article 7 
Right of access, correction and deletion 

1. Without prejudice to the right of data subjects under national legislation pursuant to Article 
12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC, any person shall have the right to obtain communication of their 
personal  data  recorded  in  the  State  of  residence  which  was  transmitted  to  the  requesting 
Member State.  

2.  Without  prejudice  to  the  observance  of  the  procedural  requirements  for  appeal  and  the 
redress  mechanisms  of  the  Member  State  concerned,  any  person  concerned  shall  have  the 
right  to  obtain  the  correction  of  any  inaccurate  personal  data  or  the  deletion  of  any  data 
recorded unlawfully without delay.  

3. Data subjects can exercise the rights mentioned in paragraph 2 before the central authority 
of their country of residence.  

CHAPTER III 

COMMITTEE PROCEDURE 

Article 8 
Committee 

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee on road safety enforcement 

2. 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. 

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

3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 
1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
CHAPTER IV 

FINAL PROVISIONS 

Article 9 
Transposition 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive at the latest twelve months after 
its entry into force. 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. 

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

Article 10 

Article 11 

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 
FORM for the offence notification 

referred to in Article 5 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
[Name, address and telephone number of sender] 

[Name and address of addressee] 

[COVERPAGE] 

NOTIFICATION 

Of a traffic offence committed in .......... [name of Member State where the offence has 
been committed] 

[the above text appears on this coverpage in all the official EU languages]  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 2 

On [date ...... ] a traffic offence committed with the vehicle with registration number .............., 
make .........., model ............ was detected by .................[name of the the responsible body].  

You are registered as the holder of the registration certificate of the abovementioned vehicle. 

The relevant details of the offence are described on page 3 below.  

The amount of the financial penalty due for this offence is .........€ / national currency. 

Deadline for the payment is ....................... 

If you do not pay this financial penalty, you are obliged to complete the attached reply form 
(page 4) and send it to the address shown. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
page 3 

Relevant details concerning the offence 

(a) 

Data concerning the vehicle with which the offence has been committed: 

Registration number: 

Country of registration: 

Make and model: 

(b) 

Data concerning the offence 

Place, date and time where it occurred: 

Nature and legal classification of the offence:  

speeding, drink-driving, non-use of seatbelt or child restraint system, failing to stop at 

a red traffic light12 

Detailed description of the offence:  

Reference to the relevant legal provision(s): 

Description of or reference to the evidence for the offence:  

(c )  Data concerning the device that has been used for detecting the offence13 

Type of device for detection of speeding, drink-driving, failing to stop at a red traffic 

light or non-use of seat belt14: 

Specification of the device: 

Identification number of the device:  

Expiry date for the last gauging: 

(d) 

The result of the application of the device: 

[example for speeding; other offences to be added:]  

The maximum speed: 

The measured speed: 

The measured speed corrected for margin of error: 

12 
13 
14 

Delete what is not applicable. 
Not applicable if no device has been used. 
Delete what is not applicable. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Reply form  

(please complete using block capitals and mark the applicable option) 

page 4 

A. Identity of the driver: 

- Name and first name: 

- Place and date of birth: 

- Number of driving licence:...delivered (date):...and at (place): 

- Address:  

B. List of questions: 

(1) 

Is the vehicle, make... registration number...registered in your name? 

yes/no 

If not, the holder of the registration certificate is:  

(name, first name, address) 

(2) 

Do you acknowledge that you committed the offence? 
 yes/no 

(3) 

If you do not acknowledge this, please explain why:  

Please  send  the  completed  form  within  60  days  from  the  date  of  this  notification  to  the 
following authority: 

at the following address: 

INFORMATION 

This case will be examined by the competent authority in the State where the offence has been 
committed. 
If this case is not pursued, you will be informed within 60 days after receipt of the reply form. 

If this case is pursued, the following procedure applies: 

[to be filled in by the State of offence - what the further procedure will be, including details of 
the possibility and procedure of appeal against the decision to pursue the case. These details 
shall in any event include: Name and address of the authority in charge of pursuing the case; 
deadline  for  payment;  name  and  address  of  the  body  of  appeal  concerned;  deadline  for 
appeal]. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL: 

Proposal for  a  Directive of the  European  Parliament and of the Council facilitating 
cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety 

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: 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

Unlimited duration 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics : 

Budget 
line 

Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial Resources 

4.1.1. 

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

Expenditure type 

Section 
no. 

Year 
2012 

2013

2014

2015

2016 

2017 
and 
later 

Total 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Operational expenditure15 

Commitment Appropriations 
(CA) 

8.1. 

Payment 
(PA) 

Appropriations 

a 

b 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount16 

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 amount17 

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 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

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 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

15 
16 
17 

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 

25 

   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): 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
2012 

2013

2014

2015

2016 

2017 
and 
later 

Total 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

0,0936 

Co-financing body 

NO 

TOTAL  CA  including  co-
financing 

f 

a+c
+d
+e
+f 

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 
Agreement18 (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]

19

Prior to
action 
[Year 
n-1] 

a) Revenue in absolute terms 

b) Change in revenue 

 Δ 

18 
19 

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 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2. 

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

Annual requirements 

Year 
2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 
and 
later 

Total  number  of  human 
resources 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

5.1. 

Need to be met in the short or long term 

A Committee shall assist the Commission in several tasks described in the Directive, 
namely:  the  adoption  of  common  rules  for  an  EU  electronic  network  for  the 
exchange  of  information,  adapting  the  Annex  containing  a  model  for  an  offence 
notification destined for the holder of a vehicle with which a traffic offence has been 
committed.  

5.2. 

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

With  a  view  to  improving  road  safety  throughout  the  European  Union  and  to 
ensuring  equal  treatment  between  resident  and  non-resident  offenders,  the  proposal 
aims at establishing a system to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of sanctions 
for  certain  road  traffic  offences.  Whereas  this  proposal  deals  with  the  phases  from 
recording the offence until the sending of an offence notification to the holder of the 
the  Council  Framework  Decision 
registration  certificate  of 
2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial 
penalties20 applies once a final decision has been taken. 

the  vehicle, 

5.3. 

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

Objective:  contribute  to  minus  50%  road  deaths  in  the  EU  in  2010  and  after.  The 
results  of  the  Directive  will  be  monitored.  Expected  result:  decrease  of  road  traffic 
offences,  in  particular  those  committed  by  non-resident  offenders  but  also  offences 
committed by resident offenders, as a general effect of drivers becoming aware that 
such offences do not remain without sanctions.  

20 

Dated 24 February 2005 (OJ L 76, 22.3.2005, p. 16). 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.4.  Method of Implementation (indicative) 

(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 

(cid:133) 

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

X 

Shared or decentralised management 

X  with Member states 

(cid:133)  with Third countries 

(cid:133) 

Joint management with international organisations (please specify) 

Relevant comments: 

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 

An  Impact  Assessment  Report  concerning  the  draft  Directive  has  been  established 
and the Impact Assessment Board has been consulted on it.  

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

similar experiences in the past) 

6.2.3.  Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

The Committee will meet twice per year 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
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 

29 

   EN 

 
8. 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost: 

NA 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

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. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

of 

(Headings 
Objectives, 
actions 
and 
outputs should be 
provided) 

OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE  No.1 
21……… 

Action 
1………………. 

- Output 1 

- Output 2 

Action 
2………………. 

- Output 1 

Sub-total 
Objective 1 

21 

As described under Section 5.3. 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE  No.2 
1……… 

Action 
1………………. 

- Output 1 

Sub-total 
Objective 2 

OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE  No.n 
1 

Sub-total 
Objective n 

TOTAL COST 

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 2012  Year 2013  Year 2014  Year 2015  Year 2016  Year 2017 

A*/AD 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

B*, 
C*/AST 

Officials or 
temporary 
staff22 (XX 01 
01) 

Staff  financed23  by  art. 
XX 01 02 

Other  staff24  financed by 
art. XX 01 04/05 

TOTAL 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

Management of the Committee 

A Committee shall assist the Commission in several tasks described in the Directive, 
namely:  the  adoption  of  common  rules  for  an  EU  electronic  network  for  the 
exchange  of  information,  adapting  the  Annex  containing  a  model  for  an  offence 
notification destined for the holder of a vehicle with which a traffic offence has been 
committed.  

8.2.3. 

Sources of human resources (statutory) 

(cid:133) 

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

(cid:133) 

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

x 

Posts to be requested in the relevant next APS/PDB procedure 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

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 

22 
23 
24 

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) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
2012 

Year 
2013 

Year 
2014 

Year 
2015 

Year 
2016 

Year 
2017  

and 
later 

TOTAL 

Technical 

1 
and 
assistance (including related staff costs) 

administrative 

Executive agencies25 

Other 

technical 

and 

administrative 

assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 

Total  Technical  and  administrative 
assistance 

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 
2012 

Year 
2013 

Year 
2014 

Year 
2015 

Year 
2016 

Year 
2017 

and later 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

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 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

0,0585 

25 

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

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents 

0,5 agent x 117000 EUR : 58500 EUR (0,0585 EUR million) per year 

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 
2012 

Year 
2013 

Year 
2014 

Year 
2015 

Year 
2016 

Year 
2017 

and 
later 

TOTAL 

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions 

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences 

XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees26  

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

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 

expenditure, 
than  human  resources  and 
in 

Total  Administrative 
other 
associated  costs  (NOT 
reference amount) 

included 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

0,0351 

The  needs  for  human  and  administrative  resources  have  to  be  covered  within  the 
current resources or within the allocation that can be granted to the managing DG in 
the  framework  of  the  annual  allocation  procedure  in  the  light  of  budgetary 
constraints 

26 

Committee under the Council Decision 2006/512/EC (comitology). The amount (0,0351 EUR million) 
is calculated : 650 EUR per expert x 27 Member States x 2 meetings a year.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
DG  Budget  takes  note  of  the  statement  that  "an  already  existing  EU  information 
system  will  be  used  and  expanded  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging  information  for 
cross-border  enforcement"  and  derives  from  it  that  a  possible  need  to  modify  the 
existing  system  will  be  financed  from  the  budget  line  from  which  the  original 
development of the system has been financed.  

EN 

35 

   EN