Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures {SEC(2008) 2208} {SEC(2008) 2209}
Date: 2008-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, toll, transport infrastructure, vehicle tax

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.8.2008 
COM(2008) 436 final/2 

2008/0147 (COD) 

CORRIGENDUM: version révisée par les juristes réviseurs 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of 
certain infrastructures 

{SEC(2008) 2208} 
{SEC(2008) 2209} 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL  

1.1. 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal  

In 2006, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to draw 
up  a  report  on  a  generally  applicable,  transparent  and  comprehensible  model  for 
assessing the external costs of transport, such as pollution and congestion, to serve as 
the  basis  for  calculating  infrastructure  user  charges.  The  Commission  was  asked  to 
propose a strategy for stepwise implementation of the model for all transport modes, 
accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal for revising Directive 1999/62/EC on the 
charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of infrastructure1. 

More recently, in its resolution of 11 March 2008 on sustainable European transport 
policy, Parliament urged the Commission to come up with such a model, a strategy 
for implementing it in all modes, and legislative proposals starting with a review of 
the Directive. 

A Communication comprising a model and a strategy is submitted to Parliament and 
the  Council  together  with  this  proposal  (see  COM(2008)  435).  The  goal  is  to 
correctly set transport prices so that they better reflect the costs of the actual use of 
vehicles, trains, planes or ships in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change. 

This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, but in particular the road 
sector,  given  its  influence  on  the  transport  system  and  its  contributory  effect  on 
traffic and emissions. In this sector, this implies greater recourse to tolls which vary 
according to the distance travelled, the location and the time of use in proportion of 
the external costs caused by vehicles. 

The  attached  proposal  contributes  to  this  broader  strategy.  Its  objectives  are  to 
encourage  Member  States  to  implement  differentiated  charging  to  improve  the 
efficiency  and  environmental  performance  of  road  freight  transport.  It  seeks  to 
amend Directive 1999/62/EC to establish a framework which enables Member States 
to calculate and vary tolls on the basis of the costs of traffic based pollution and of 
congestion in a way compatible with the internal market. 

Such charges will encourage transport operators to use cleaner vehicles, choose less 
congested  routes,  optimise  the  loading  of  their  vehicles,  and  ultimately  make  more 
efficient use of infrastructure. 

1.2. 

General context 

Transport plays a crucial role in the economy and society. But it relies heavily on oil 
and its use costs society in terms of health costs and loss of production due to air and 
noise  pollution  and  accidents;  time  and  fuel  wasted  in  congestion;  and  broader 
environmental damage such as climate change. 

1 

Article 11 of amended Directive 1999/62/EC. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Currently, these external costs are borne by the rest of society either through general 
taxation  to  pay  for  policing,  road  management  services,  and  hospital  treatment  or 
through the impact of noise, emissions and accidents on people’s health and quality 
of life.  

Roughly  90%  of  these  negative  impacts  is  usually  attributed  to  road  transport  and 
25% to road freight transport. Given the steady growth of road freight transport, in 
particular international road freight transport, which is forecasted to possibly double 
between 2000 and 2020, these social costs are very likely to increase. 

As outlined by the 2006 review of the European Transport Policy, a wide range of 
policy tools at EC and Member State level is required to optimise European logistics 
chains, make all forms of transport greener and more efficient, and ultimately ensure 
more sustainable transport. The right policy mix must not only act on the supply of 
transport, it must address pricing, which in a market economy is an efficient way to 
better manage transport demand and achieve more efficient use of infrastructure.  

Current levies on road freight transport reflect a wide variety of approaches between 
Member States. Some countries rely on a mix of different taxation instruments (fuel 
and  vehicle  taxes).  In  others,  the  fiscal  mix  is  more  diverse  and  includes  road  user 
charges to recover infrastructure costs from hauliers using motorways. User charges 
take  the  form  of  time-based  fees  (e.g.  the  Eurovignette2),  introduced  often  as  a 
transitional  system,  or  distance-based  charges  (tolls)  levied  on  individual  road 
sections or the full primary network.  

In  most  cases,  current  levies  by  Member  States  fail  to  send  the  right  price  signals. 
Road users are all treated alike, irrespective of the congestion or pollution they cause. 
They are not provided with effective incentives to use cleaner vehicles and to adapt 
their choice of route and mobility behaviour. While a lorry may be charged a toll to 
use a motorway crossing a rural area, it usually does not pay any user charge when 
crossing  a  densely  populated  area  even  though  the  cost  of  the  latter  in  terms  of 
pollution and congestion may typically be five times higher.  

With  the  exception  of  climate  change,  most  of  the  external  costs  are  borne  by  the 
population  and  the  local  or  national  governments  of  the  territory  where  transport 
takes place and not where the vehicle is registered, nor where the vehicle is refuelled. 
These costs vary according to the travelled distance, the environmental performance 
of  vehicle  (e.g.  Euro  emission  standards)  and  different  points  in  time  (peak  or  off 
peak) and space (densely  populated area or not). This is especially the case for the 
costs of air pollution, of noise and of congestion.  

The best pricing instruments for assigning these costs to users in a fair and efficient 
way  are  tolls.  The  main  reason  is  that  tolls  can  vary  according  to  the  main  cost 
drivers of pollution and congestion Unlike fuel taxes, they can vary according to the 
emission standards of vehicles; contrary to vehicle taxes or time-based user charges 
(vignettes), they can vary according  to the intensity,  location  and  time  of  use.  This 

2 

A vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several Member States which gives access to the 
network on each other’s territory — hence the term ‘Eurovignette’. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
allows the tolls to be set at a level which better reflects the real use of vehicles and 
therefore the external costs that users actually cause.  

The impact analysis carried out by the Commission suggests that, even with a simple 
degree of differentiation, tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of traffic-based air 
and noise pollution and of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles would 
yield  considerable  welfare  benefits  in  terms  of  saving  time,  reducing  pollution, 
improving  road  safety  and  optimising  the  use  of  infrastructure  and  of  the  transport 
system at large. By reducing the consumption of fuel wasted in congestion, it would 
also  reduce  emissions  of  CO2  from  road  transport.  Hence,  such  tolling  schemes 
would be a welcome contribution to the climate change strategy. It should be stressed 
that a toll set in a Member State on the basis of the costs of congestion and pollution 
has a direct relationship with the use of infrastructure. Its key goal is to optimise the 
transport system and make mobility more sustainable. The toll is a payment for costs 
to  the  Member  State,  to  the  infrastructure  provider  and  to  the  local  population.  In 
return, this payment gives the right to use the infrastructure and to consume scarce 
capacity  and  resources.  As  envisaged  in  the  attached  proposal,  its  revenue  will  be 
used to develop transport alternatives (cleaner vehicles, new infrastructure). Since a 
toll is payable by all users, irrespective of their Member State of registration (where 
domestic vehicle taxes are due) or of where the vehicle is refuelled (where domestic 
fuel taxes are paid), there is no risk that it distorts competition between hauliers from 
different Member States.  

As to climate change, the impact of motor vehicles is global. Its cost does not depend 
on the time and place where the vehicle is used but on fuel consumption. Hence, fuel 
taxes  are  usually  considered  a  simple  and  efficient  way  of  internalising  this  cost 
irrespective of any other measures taken to achieve the target agreed at the level of 
the  Community  for  reducing  CO2.  On  this  issue,  the  Commission  has  already 
proposed invoking Article 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to 
improve  coordination  of  taxes  on  motor  fuels,  partly  by  raising  the  minimum 
Community rate for commercial diesel fuel3. The Commission will further review the 
general energy taxation Directive to ensure that it better reflects the climate change 
and  energy  goals  of  the  Community.  However,  if  the  results  achieved  are  not 
satisfactory  by  the  end  of  2013,  the  Commission  will  assess  whether  to  further 
review  the  Directive  on  charging  heavy  goods  vehicles  so  that  it  does  not  prevent 
Member States from including a CO2 charging element in tolls.  

Lastly,  road  accidents  make  up  an  important  part  of  the  social  costs.  In  2003,  the 
Commission proposed to enable the inclusion of accident costs in the calculation of 
tolls.  But  this  particular  provision  was  eventually  rejected  by  Parliament  and  the 
Council4.  Accident  risks  are  related  not  only  to  the  distance  travelled  but  also  to 
complex factors such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or failure to 
use seat belts, hence instruments like insurance rates might be a more effective tool. 
This  issue  will  be  further  reflected  upon  in  the  review  of  the  European  road  safety 
Action Programme that the Commission intends to carry out before 2010.  

3 

4 

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards gas oil used as motor fuel 
for commercial purposes, COM(2007) 52 final. 
Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 1999/62/EC, COM(2003) 448 final. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Directive in force  

Directive  1999/62/EC  recognises  the  “user  pays”  principle  by  allowing  Member 
States  to  levy  distance-based  charges  (tolls)  to  recover  the  cost  of  construction, 
maintenance  and  operation  of  infrastructure.  The  Directive  also  authorises  time-
based charges below a maximum rate.  

Toll  rates  may  be  varied  according  to  vehicle  emission  standards  or  congestion 
levels,  but  under  a  condition  of  revenue  neutrality  on  a  biennial  basis.  However, 
other  than  in  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic,  this  option  has  hardly  been 
exercised.  One  of  the  reasons  is  the  great  complexity  involved  for  infrastructure 
operators in adjusting their charging structure to the demand in a way that keeps their 
revenue constant.  

In 2006, the Directive was amended by Directive 2006/38/EC to set out the rules for 
calculating chargeable infrastructure costs. It has allowed tolls in mountainous areas, 
to be marked-up by up to 25% to co-finance the development of a certain category of 
alternative  infrastructure,  namely  trans-European  network  priority  projects.  This 
mark-up  is  currently  applied  on  the  Brenner  motorway  (Austria)  in  order  to  co-
finance the Brenner rail base tunnel that forms part of the priority axis from Berlin to 
Palermo. The amendment also inserted a provision on regulatory charges specifically 
designed  to  combat  pollution  and  congestion  but  has  left  legal  uncertainties  about 
where and how to apply them. Consequently, Member States are reluctant to apply 
them.  

The  above  provisions  constitute  a  step  in the  right  direction  in  improving  the  price 
signal.  But  they  still  do  not  enable  Member  States  to  apply  optimal  pricing.  The 
Directive  indeed  limits  revenues  from  tolls  to  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  recover 
infrastructure costs, even in areas exposed to traffic-based pollution and congestion 
costs above the recoverable construction costs. It fails to provide effective incentives 
to differentiate charges so as to align them with the main cost drivers which are the 
time periods, the place and the types of vehicles. Moreover, it covers only the use of 
the  trans-European  network,  which  may  lead  to  inconsistent  pricing  structures 
between  the  main  corridors  and  other  inter-urban  roads  used  by  international 
transport. 

1.4. 

Unlock more efficient and greener charging  

Existing road levies have not proved effective enough to internalise external costs of 
road freight transport. Tolls could be made more effective, but the current Directive 
blocks it.  

The Commission has long advocated greater recourse to differentiated infrastructure 
charges  which  reflect  external  costs.  It  proposed  legislative  measures  as  early 
as 19965  to  authorise  Member  States  to  integrate  an  external  cost  element  in  tolls 
levied on heavy goods vehicles. At that time, Member States considered such a step 
premature  because  of  uncertainties  regarding  both  the  calculation  of  external  costs 
and the maturity of the required toll technologies.  

5 

Proposal for a Council Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, 
COM(1996) 331 final. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Those reasons are no longer valid.  

Methods of monetising the external costs of pollution, noise and congestion caused 
by  vehicles  are  now  available.  Most  are  in  fact  already  used  to  various  degrees  in 
nearly all Member States to carry out cost/benefit analyses of infrastructure projects. 
Furthermore, the model devised by the Commission following the EP’s initiative (see 
COM(2008)  …)  provides  reliable  methods  and  a  range  of  unit  values  which  can 
serve as a basis for the calculation of road user charges.  

As  to  tolling  technologies,  electronic  systems  combining  automatic  payment 
transactions  and  location  of  vehicles  are  already  in  operation  in  several  Member 
States and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective. A number of other Member 
States announced their intention to install them on their main road network by 2011. 
Full  technical  and  contractual  interoperability  for  users  is  already  provided  by 
Directive 2004/52/EC. Such systems have other advantages; they do not cause local 
queues and nuisances as do tollbooths where lorries often have to stop. 

To  unlock  greener  and  more  efficient  road  charging,  the  Commission  envisages  a 
stepped  approach.  The  step  proposed  now  is  to  enable  Member  States  to  calculate 
tolls on the basis of the costs of local pollution and, on congested roads during peak 
periods,  of  congestion.  It  also  provides  incentives  to  both  differentiate  toll  rates 
accordingly and install toll collection systems without tollbooths.  

The proposed framework leaves it to Member States to decide whether or not to levy 
tolls based on external costs. There are still uncertainties about the cost/benefit of the 
required  toll  systems  on  some  Member  States’  lesser-used  networks.  In  these 
circumstances,  a  phasing-in  approach  enabling  pilot  schemes  and  encouraging  a 
gradual build-up and sharing of experience is preferable to a binding approach based 
on  mandatory  user  charges.  However,  the  Commission  will  review  this  strategy  in 
2013  to  identify  whether  a  more  binding  approach  towards  the  internalisation  of 
external costs is conceivable in light of further likely falls in the cost of technology to 
enforce tolls. Depending on progress in defining a common fuel tax element related 
to  climate  change  in  the  Energy  Taxation  Directive,  the  review  will  also  assess 
whether the cost of CO2 emissions should be allowed to be included in tolls.  

To  ensure  that  tolls  based  on  external  costs  are  applied  homogeneously  within  the 
internal  market,  the  attached  proposal  lays  down  certain  rules  akin  to  those  in  the 
current Directive concerning tolls to recover infrastructure costs. These rules prevent 
any discrimination between domestic hauliers and foreign hauliers. They ensure that 
tolls  neither  create  disproportionate  obstacles  to  freedom  of  movement,  nor  entail 
controls  or  checks  at  the  internal  borders.  In  particular,  they  establish  common 
charging  principles  and  mechanisms  to  avoid  overcharging  by  infrastructure 
monopolies.  They  impose  the  use  of  a  common  and  transparent  method  of 
calculating  chargeable  costs.  Furthermore,  they  promote  recourse  to  electronic  toll 
systems which do not create hindrance to the free flow of traffic. Lastly, they make 
sure that a document indicating the amount of the charge is issued to the haulier so 
that the latter can easily pass on the cost to the shipper.  

Sustainable  transport  requires  recourse  to  better  pricing  instruments  but  also 
considerable investment in research and development and infrastructure. Funding is 
particularly needed to reduce road pollution at the source, improve CO2 and energy 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
performance  of  vehicles  and  offer  a  wider  choice  of  realistic  alternatives  for  users. 
Charging  will  be  more  effective  when  these  needs  are  properly  addressed.  The 
current  Directive  recommends  that  revenue  from  infrastructure  charges  should  be 
used  to  benefit  the  transport  sector  and  optimise  the  entire  transport  system.  In  the 
case of the mark-up in mountainous areas, the legislator specified that such a mark-
up on tolls paid by users coming from all over the Community could be levied but 
only  where  revenues  were  clearly  earmarked  to  specific  projects  of  the  trans-
European  network,  meaning  transport  projects  with  a  general  Community  interest. 
Inspired by the same principle, the Commission proposes that any additional revenue 
from the part of a toll which is related to pollution and congestion is used to make 
transport more sustainable, hence with a Community interest and long-term benefits 
for transport users at large. 

On a final note, it should be stressed that failing to enable more efficient and greener 
road  pricing  is  not  an  option,  neither  for  sustainable  mobility,  nor  for  the  internal 
market.  Given  the  growing  environmental  impact  of  transport,  time  is  pressing  and 
efficient pricing is a good way to reduce the negative impact of transport at least cost 
to  the  economy.  Local  governments  in  areas  exposed  to  high  congestion  and 
pollution  caused  by  international  transport  could  be  left  with  no  alternative  but  to 
take  up  other  sorts  of  measures  in  an  uncoordinated  way,  such  as  sectoral  traffic 
bans.  This  would  disrupt  supply  chains  and  create  disproportionate  obstacles  to 
freedom of movement.  

1.5. 

Consistency with the other policies and the objectives of the Union  

is  part  of 

The  proposed  directive 
the  Commission’s  work  programme 
(TREN/2008/073) and of the ‘Greening Transport’ package. From a general point of 
view, it contributes to both the EU Lisbon agenda and the Sustainable Development 
Strategy  as  it  enables  action  to  better  manage  congestion,  to  curb  transport  air 
emissions and as it encourages the development of cleaner transport technologies. 

2. 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT  

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

The public consultation and the impact assessment covered both the broader strategy 
related to all transport modes and the attached proposal. 

An internet consultation was carried out between 29 October and 31 December 2007 
and followed by a hearing of stakeholders on 31 January 2008.  

The  respondents  supported  the  principle  of  internalising  the  external  costs  of 
transport,  considered  that  air  pollution  and  congestion  were  the  two  biggest 
nuisances  in  road  transport  and  that  the  best  economic  instruments  to  tackle  these 
costs  were  differentiated  user  charges.  As  to  climate  change,  the  use  of  energy 
taxation,  or  the  integration  of  transport  in  the  Emission  Trading  System,  were 
that  revenue  from 
considered  as  more  appropriate.  It  was  generally  felt 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
internalisation  should  be  invested  into  alternative  transport  infrastructures,  cleaner 
technologies or used more generally to reduce the negative externalities of transport6.  

The  impact  assessment  gives  an  overview  of  the  external  expertise  that  provided 
methodological  or  modelling  support  for  drafting  the  proposal.  In  particular,  the 
Commission  carried  out  a  study  to  review  the  state  of  the  art  in  the  theory  and 
practice of estimating and internalising external costs7 . 

The  assessment  confirmed  that  the  “business  as  usual”  scenario,  namely,  no  new 
actions to encourage efficient pricing, would fail to achieve sustainable mobility. It 
was  shown  that  differentiated  user  charges  were  more  efficient  than  the  usual 
transport taxes to tackle air pollution, noise costs and congestion in road transport.  

The  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  mandatory  versus  optional  charging  schemes 
for road freight transport were compared. It was found that while there are clear and 
immediate benefits to be reaped in Member States with a lot of traffic, the financial 
viability  of  charging  systems  for  external  costs  in  Member  States  with  low  traffic 
requires further studies.  

Levying  a  specific  CO2  charge  or  tax  on  top  of  the  air  pollution  and  noise  charges 
was looked at as well. The conclusion was that, although this could deliver additional 
benefits,  it  would  be  better  addressed  through  a  more  coordinated  approach  at 
Community  level  to  reduce  greenhouse  emissions  based  on  either  the  Emission 
Trading System or a common fuel tax element in the Energy Taxation Directive. 

The  impact  of  levying  a  congestion  charge  on  congested  links  was  also  assessed. 
This  option  would  reduce  congestion  but  would  also  significantly  reduce  both 
pollution  and  CO2  emissions,  particularly  if  similar  charges  are  applied  to  cars  as 
well. 

It  was  also  found  that  extending  the  scope  of  the  charging  schemes  for  the  trans-
European  network  to  other  interurban  roads  may  avoid  the  problem  of  potential 
traffic diversion from toll motorways to non-toll interurban roads.  

The advantages and disadvantages of earmarking revenue from external cost charges 
were also examined from both an economic point of view and in terms of facilitating 
better understanding and support among transport users.  

If all Member States opt for road charging as allowed by the proposal, the assessment 
estimates  a  significant  reduction  in  emissions  of  local  pollutants  and  of  carbon 
dioxide  from  road  freight  transport,  and  reductions  in  congestion  and  in  road 
fatalities. Variation of charges according to the vehicles’ Euro emission standard will 
accelerate  fleet  renewal,  resulting  in  improved  environmental  performance.  The 
positive effects on congestion will also deliver a reduction in consumption of diesel 
by lorries of 8% and therefore of CO2 emissions. It would be a clear contribution to 

6 

7 

EN 

The summary of the contributions received and a report of the hearing are available on the following 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/road_market_en.htm.  
“Handbook 
the 
external 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm. 

estimation 

transport 

sector”: 

cost 

the 

on 

of 

in 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reducing  pollution  and  fighting  climate  change.  There  would  be  no  impact  on  the 
general level of mobility (see SEC(2008) 2208 for more details).  

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1. 

Summary of the proposed action  

The proposed Directive enables Member States to integrate an amount which reflects 
the  cost  of  air  pollution  and  noise  pollution  caused  by  traffic  into  tolls  levied  on 
heavy goods vehicles. During peak periods, it also allows tolls to be calculated on the 
basis of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles. The amounts will vary 
with  the  travelled  distance,  location  and  time  of  use  of  roads  to  better  reflect  these 
external  costs.  The  proceeds  will  have  to  be  used  by  Member  States  for  making 
transport  more  sustainable  through  projects  such  as  research  and  development  on 
cleaner  and  more  energy  efficient  vehicles,  mitigating  the  effect  of  road  transport 
pollution or providing alternative infrastructure capacity for users.  

Member  States  which  opt  for  it  must  respect  common  charging  principles  together 
with  mechanisms  for  notifying  and  reporting  tolling  schemes  to  the  Commission. 
Member States must designate independent authorities to set the chargeable costs by 
using  a  common  method  which  can  be  easily  monitored  and  adapted  to  scientific 
progress. This will ensure that charging schemes are transparent, proportional to the 
objective pursued and do not discriminate against the nationality of hauliers.  

The  charge  must  be  collected  through  electronic  systems  which  do  not  create 
hindrance to the free flow of traffic and local nuisance at tollbooths, and which can 
be extended to other part of the network at a later stage without significant additional 
investments. A transition period for the current systems with barriers is planned. To 
avoid undue charging of users, other conditions must be met when a charge based on 
the costs of congestion and pollution is combined with a charge to recover the cost of 
infrastructure.  

The proposal extends the scope of the current Directive beyond the trans-European 
network  to  avoid  inconsistent  pricing  schemes  between  major  corridors  and  other 
interurban  roads.  It  makes  the  provisions  in  the  current  Directive  on  the  mark-up 
levied  in  mountainous  areas  to  co-finance  EU  labelled  priority  projects  more 
practicable.  

It does not prevent Member States from applying regulatory charges on urban roads 
specifically  designed  to  reduce  traffic  congestion  or  combat  environmental  impacts 
in built up areas. 

3.2. 

Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality principles 

The  proposal  is  based  on  Article  71  of  the  Treaty,  as  improving  the  efficiency  and 
environmental  performance  of  road  freight  transport  is  a  key  goal  of  the  common 
transport policy.  

It  complies  with  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  Given  the 
importance of transport for the internal market, its growing cross-border dimension 
and external cost, common charging principles must be established for all interurban 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
roads,  including  the  trans-European  network,  to  enable  Member  States  to  recover 
external  costs  through  tolls.  This  can  only  be  achieved  by  modifying  an  existing 
directive and therefore cannot be achieved by the Member States alone. 

The  proposal  leaves  Member  States  the  freedom  to  decide  whether,  and  on  which 
roads,  to  levy  tolls  and  whether  or  not  to  incorporate  local  environmental  and 
congestion costs in the tolls. The choice of projects to be financed with the proceeds 
of  such  charging  is  also  left  to  the  discretion  of  Member  States  provided  that  the 
projects  chosen  contribute  to  sustainable  mobility.  The  proposal  therefore  does  not 
exceed what is required to achieve its objective.  

The proposed instrument is a directive since a regulation might unnecessarily restrict 
the margin of discretion of Member States.  

It  concerns  a  matter  relevant  to  the  European  Economic  Area  and  should  therefore 
extend to it.  

It will not affect the Community budget. 

4. 

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSAL 

Article  2  adds  new  definitions  relating  to  tolls,  infrastructure  cost  charges,  external 
cost  charges,  costs  of  traffic  based  air  and  noise  pollution  and  costs  of  congestion. 
The former concept of weighted average toll is replaced by the concept of weighted 
average infrastructure charge.  

Article  7  specifies  that  a  Member  State  cannot  impose  both  country  wide  tolls  and 
user charges, and must therefore choose between the two systems.  

Article 7a specifies the proportions to apply between the daily, weekly, monthly and 
annual  rates  of  time-based  charges  (vignettes)  to  ensure  that  charges  paid  do  not 
discriminate against occasional users, which are usually foreign hauliers.  

Article 7b enables Member States to levy tolls either through a charge based on the 
cost  of  traffic-based  air  and  noise  pollution  and  congestion  or  through  a  charge  to 
recover the construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure, or both.  

Article  7c  imposes  a  variation  of  the  charge  based  on  external  costs  according  to 
types of vehicles, roads and time periods. The amount of the charge will be set by an 
independent authority according to the method of Annex IIIa. 

Article 7e allows a mark-up on alternatives of the main route on which a mark-up in 
mountainous  area  is  levied  and  introduces  a  rule  to  avoid  double  charging  when  a 
charge based on external costs is levied in combination with a mark-up.  

Article 7f(5) avoids double charging which would result of a double variation of both 
the charge related to infrastructure cost and the charge based on external costs.  

Article 7g updates the notification requirements. 

Article 7h prohibits discounts or reductions in charges based on external costs. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Article 7i requires the collection of a charge based on external costs by means of an 
electronic  toll  system  which  avoids  hindrance  to  the  free  flow  of  traffic  and  which 
can be subsequently extended without the need for barriers which imply significant 
additional  roadside  investment.  A  transition  period  is  planned  for  existing  tolls.  A 
document  indicating  the  amount  of  the  charge will also have to be delivered to the 
haulier. 

Article  8b  ensures  that  the  Commission  is  involved  when  several  Member  States 
cooperate in introducing a toll system. 

Article 9(1a) specifies that regulatory charges are allowed on urban roads in built up 
areas. 

Article  9  earmarks  the  part  of  the  toll  based  on  external  costs  to  various  measures 
contributing to sustainable transport.  

Article 9b-c empowers the Commission to adapt to scientific progress the method to 
calculate the charges. 

Article 11 introduces reporting requirements for Member States and the Commission. 
A report on a further extension of the Directive is due by 31 December 2013. 

Other articles repeat existing provisions and are inserted for the sake of legal clarity.  

(Articles refer to the amended Directive and not to the amending Directive). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
2008/0147 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of 
certain infrastructures 

(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) thereof,  

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 

Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee2, 

Having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions3, 

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  promotion  of  sustainable  transport  is  a  key  element  of  the  common  transport 
policy. To this end, the negative impacts of transport, in particular congestion, which 
impedes mobility, pollution, which creates health and environmental damage, and its 
contribution  to  climate  change  must  be  reduced.  Moreover  environmental  protection 
requirements  must  be  integrated  into  the  definition  and  implementation  of  other 
Community policies, including the common transport policy.  

The objective of reducing the negative impacts of transport should be achieved in such 
a  way  as  to  avoid  disproportionate  obstacles  to  the  freedom  of  movement  in  the 
interest of sound economic growth and the proper functioning of the internal market.  

To optimise the transport system accordingly, the common transport policy must use a 
variety  of  instruments  to  improve  the  transport  infrastructure  and  technologies  and 
enable  a  more  efficient  management  of  transport  demand.  This  calls  for  further 
recourse  to  the  “user  pays”  principle  and  the  development  of  the  “polluter  pays” 
principle in the transport sector.  

1 
2 
3 

OJ […], […], p. […]. 
OJ […], […], p. […]. 
OJ […], […], p. […]. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

4 

Article  11  of  Directive  1999/62/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council4 
called on the Commission to present a model for the assessment of all external costs 
arising  from  use  of  the  transport  infrastructure  to  serve  as  the  basis  for  future 
calculations of infrastructure charges. This model was to be accompanied by an impact 
analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy 
for  a  stepwise  implementation  of  the  model  and,  if  appropriate,  by  proposals  for 
further revision of that Directive. 

In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better 
reflect  the  costs  related  to  traffic-based  air  pollution,  traffic-based  noise  pollution, 
climate change and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or 
ships  as  a  means  of  optimising  the  use  of  infrastructure,  reducing  local  pollution, 
managing  congestion  and  fighting  against  climate  change  at  least  cost  for  the 
economy.  This  calls  for  a  stepwise  approach  in  all  transport  modes,  taking  into 
account their particular characteristics.  

In the road transport sector, tolls as distance based charges for the use of infrastructure 
constitute a fair and efficient economic instrument to achieve this objective since they 
have  a  direct  relation  with  the  use  of  infrastructure  and  can  vary  according  to  the 
distance travelled, the environmental performance of vehicles and the place and time 
of use of vehicles and therefore can be set at a level which reflects the cost of pollution 
and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles. Moreover, tolls do not create any 
distortion  of  competition  within  the  internal  market  since  they  are  payable  by  all 
operators  irrespective  of  their  Member  State  of  origin  or  establishment  and  in 
proportion to the intensity of use of the road network.  

The  impact  analysis  shows  that  applying  tolls  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 
pollution, and, on congested roads, on the basis of the cost of congestion, would have 
a positive effect on the transport system and contribute to the Community strategy to 
fight  climate  change.  It  would  reduce  congestion  and  local  pollution  by  encouraging 
the  use  of  cleaner  vehicle  technologies,  optimising  logistic  behaviour  and  reducing 
empty returns. It would indirectly play an important role in reducing fuel consumption 
and  contributing  to  the  fight  against  climate  change.  Tolls  which  integrate  a  cost 
element related to congestion for using congested roads into their calculation will be 
more  effective  in  reducing  congestion  if  Member  States  include  other  road  users 
outside the scope of this Directive in a scheme of a similar nature.  

The costs of traffic-based air and noise pollution and congestion, such as health costs, 
including medical care, crop losses and other loss of production, and welfare costs, are 
borne  within  the  territory  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  use  of  transport  takes 
place.  The  polluter  pays  principle  will  be  implemented  through  the  external  cost 
charging and this will also contribute to the reduction of external costs. 

The model devised by the Commission for calculating the costs of traffic-based air and 
noise pollution and congestion external costs provides reliable methods and a range of 
unit values which can already serve as a basis for the calculation of road user charges. 

OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2006/103/EC (OJ L 363, 
20.12.2006, p. 344). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(10)  There  are  still  uncertainties  about  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  systems  required  to 
enforce differentiated usage charges on roads with low traffic. Until such uncertainties 
are dealt with, a flexible approach at Community level appears most appropriate. This 
flexible approach should leave Member States to decide whether and on which roads 
to introduce external cost charges on the basis of the local and national characteristics 
of the network.  

(11)  Time-based  user  charges  and  tolls  should  not  be  applied  simultaneously  within  the 
territory of a Member State in order to avoid a fragmentation of the charging schemes 
with negative effects for the transport industry, except in certain specific cases where 
this is necessary to finance the construction of tunnels, bridges or mountain passes.  

(12)  Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should not 
discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely 
to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ratio between daily, weekly, monthly and 
annual rates should therefore be fixed.  

(13) 

Inconsistent charging schemes should be avoided between the trans-European network 
and  other  parts  of  the  road  network  which  may  be  used  by  international  traffic.  The 
same  charging  principles  should  therefore  be  applied  to  the  entire  interurban  road 
network.  

(14)  Tolls based on distance travelled should be allowed to include an external cost element 
based on the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution. Furthermore, on roads that 
are  usually  congested  and  during  peak  periods  congestion  costs  which  are  mostly 
borne at local level should also be allowed to be recovered through the external cost 
charge. The external cost element included in tolls should be allowed to be added to 
the  cost  of  infrastructure,  provided  that  certain  conditions  are  respected  in  the 
calculation of costs so as to avoid undue charging.  

(15)  To better reflect the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, and congestion, the 
external cost charge should vary according to the type of roads, type of vehicles and 
time  periods  such  as  daily,  weekly  or  seasonal  peak  and  off  peak  periods  and  night 
period.  

(16)  The  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market  requires  a  Community  framework  in 
order to ensure that road charges set on the basis of the local cost of traffic-based air 
and  noise  pollution 
and 
non-discriminatory.  This  requires  common  charging  principles,  calculation  methods 
and unit values of external costs based on acknowledged scientific methods together 
with mechanisms for notifying and reporting tolling schemes to the Commission.  

transparent,  proportionate 

congestion 

and 

are 

(17)  The authority which sets the external cost charge should also have no vested interest in 
setting  the  amount  at  an  undue  level  and  should  therefore  be  independent  from  the 
body  which  collects  and  manages  toll  revenue.  Experience  has  shown  that  adding  a 
mark-up to tolls in mountainous areas in order to finance priority projects of the trans-
European network is not a practicable option for infrastructure operators if the traffic 
diversion which may result from an increase of the toll is such that it implies a loss of 
revenue. To remedy this situation, a mark-up should be allowed on alternative routes 
to which traffic could otherwise be diverted.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(18) 

In  order  to  give  the  precedence  to  the  construction  of  priority  projects  of  European 
interest, Member States which have the possibility of applying a mark-up should use 
this  option  before  levying  an  external  cost  charge.  To  avoid  an  undue  charging  of 
users,  an  external  cost  charge  should  not  be  combined  with  a  mark-up  unless  the 
external costs  exceed  the  amount of  the mark-up already levied. In such a case, it is 
thus appropriate that the amount of the mark-up should be deducted from the external 
cost charge. 

(19)  Where differentiated external cost charges are levied, a variation in the infrastructure 
charge for the purpose of reducing congestion, optimising the use of the infrastructure, 
minimising infrastructure damage or road safety would represent an undue burden on 
certain categories of users and should accordingly be precluded.  

(20)  Discounts  or  reductions  of  the  external  cost  charge  should  not  be  permitted  as  there 
would  be  a  significant  risk  that  they  would  unduly  discriminate  against  certain 
categories of users.  

(21)  Charging  external  costs  through  tolls  will  be  more  effective  in  influencing  transport 
decisions  if  users  are  aware  of  these  costs.  They  should  accordingly  be  identified 
separately  on  a  statement,  a  bill  or  an  equivalent  document  from  the  toll  operator. 
Furthermore, such a document may make it easier for hauliers to pass on the cost of 
the external cost charge to the shipper or any other clients.  

(22)  The use of electronic tolling systems is essential to avoiding disruption to the free flow 
of traffic and to preventing adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues 
at  toll  barriers.  It  is  therefore  appropriate  to  ensure  that  the  external  cost  charge  is 
collected by means of such a system, subject to compliance with the requirements of 
Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 
on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community5 that foresees 
appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that technical, legal, commercial and 
data protection and privacy concerns are properly addressed in the implementation of 
electronic  tolling.  Furthermore  such  systems  should  be  designed  without  roadside 
barriers and in a way which allows subsequent extension to any parallel roads at low 
cost. Provision should however be made for a transitional period in order to permit the 
necessary adaptations to take place.  

(23)  For  reasons  of  legal  clarity,  it  should  be  specified  where  regulatory  charges 
specifically  designed  to  reduce  traffic  congestion  or  combat  environmental  impacts, 
including poor air quality are permitted. 

(24) 

In  accordance  with  the  transport  policy  objectives  of  this  Directive,  the  additional 
revenue  generated  from  an  external  cost  charge  should  be  used  for  projects  with  a 
broad Community interest and designed to promote sustainable mobility at large. Such 
projects should therefore relate to facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport 
pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of 
vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users. It includes, for 
example, research and development on cleaner vehicles and the implementation of the 
the  action  plans  under  Council  Directive  96/62/EC  of 
transport  part  of 

5 

OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 124. Corrected version in OJ L 200, 7.6.2004, p. 50. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
27 September 1996  on  ambient  air  quality  assessment  and  management6  and 
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 
relating  to  the  assessment  and  management  of  environmental  noise7,  which  may 
comprise  measures  to  mitigate  traffic-based  noise  and  air  pollution  around  large 
infrastructure  and  in  agglomerations.  Earmarking  this  revenue  does  not  release 
Member States from the obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty to notify 
the Commission of certain national measures, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any 
procedures initiated under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty. 

(25) 

In  order  to  promote  interoperability  of  tolling  arrangements,  two  or  more  Member 
States should be allowed to cooperate in introducing a common system of tolls, subject 
to compliance with certain conditions. 

(26)  A  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  experience  acquired  in  those  Member  States 
which apply an external cost charge in accordance with this Directive should be sent in 
due  time  by  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  This 
assessment should also include an analysis of progress in the strategy to fight climate 
change, including in defining a common fuel tax element related to climate change in 
Council  Directive  2003/96/EC  of  27  October  2003  restructuring  the  Community 
framework  for  the  taxation  of  energy  products  and  electricity8,  including  of  the  fuel 
used  by  heavy  goods  vehicles.  In  the  light  of  this  progress,  the  question  of  carbon 
dioxide emissions should be included and an analysis of any other further appropriate 
actions should be continued.  

(27)  Article 55(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down 
general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social 
Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/19999 provides 
that  the  revenue  generated  by  charges  borne  directly  by  users  must  be  considered  in 
the  determination  of  the  funding-gap  in  the  case  of  a  revenue-generating  project. 
However,  since  the  revenue  generated  by  an  external  cost  charge  is  earmarked  for 
projects aimed at reducing road transport pollution at the source, mitigating its effects, 
improving  CO2  and  energy  performance  of  vehicles,  and  developing  alternative 
infrastructure for transport users, it should not be considered in the calculation of the 
funding-gap.  

(28)  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.  

(29) 

In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and 
IV to technical and scientific progress, and Annexes I and II to inflation. Since those 

6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1). 
OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12. 
OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/75/EC (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, 
p. 100. Corrected version in OJ L 195, 2.6.2004, p. 31). 
OJ  L  210,  31.7.2006,  p.  25.  Regulation  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1989/2006  (OJ  L  411, 
30.12.2006, p. 6). 
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 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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.  

(30)  Since the objectives of the action which are to encourage differentiated charging based 
on  external  costs  as  a  means  towards  sustainable  transport  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved by the Member States alone, and can therefore, by reason of the importance 
of the cross-border dimension of transport, 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, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Directive 1999/62/EC is amended as follows: 

(1) 

In Article 2, points (b) and (ba) are replaced by the following: 

“(b)  ‘toll’  means  a  specified  amount  payable  for  a  vehicle  based  on  the  distance 
travelled  on  a  given  infrastructure  and  comprising  an  infrastructure  charge 
and/or an external cost charge;  

(ba)  ‘infrastructure charge’ means a charge levied through a toll for the purpose of 
recovering the costs incurred by a Member State related to infrastructure;  

(bb)  ‘external cost charge’ means a charge levied through a toll for the purpose of 
recovering  the  costs  incurred  by  a  Member  State  related  to  traffic-based  air 
pollution, traffic-based noise pollution and congestion;  

(bc)  ‘cost of traffic-based air pollution’ means the cost of the damage caused by the 
release  of  certain  harmful  air  emissions  in  the  course  of  the  operation  of  a 
vehicle;  

(bd)  ‘cost of traffic-based noise pollution’ means the cost of the damage caused by 
the noise emitted by a vehicle or created by the interaction of a vehicle and the 
road surface;  

(be)  ‘cost  of  congestion’  means  the  additional  cost  in  terms  of  time  loss, 
increased  fuel  consumption  and  vehicle 
unreliability  of 
maintenance  costs  imposed  upon  other  vehicles  when  the  infrastructure  use 
approaches capacity limits;  

travel 

time, 

(bf)  ‘weighted  average  infrastructure  charge’  means  the  total  revenue  of  an 
infrastructure  charge  over  a  given  period  divided  by  the  number  of  vehicle 
kilometres  travelled  on  the  road  sections  subject  to  the  charge  during  that 
period; 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(bg)  ‘weighted average external cost charge’ means the total revenue of an external 
cost  charge  over  a  given  period  divided  by  the  number  of  vehicle  kilometres 
travelled on the road sections subject to the charge during that period.” 

(2) 

Articles 7, 7a and 7b are replaced by the following: 

“Article 7 

1.  Member  States  may  maintain  or  introduce  tolls  and/or  user  charges  on  their 
road  network  or  on  certain  sections  of  that  network  under  the  conditions  laid 
down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this article and in Articles 7a to 7j. 

2.  Member  States  shall  not  impose  within  their  territory  both  tolls  and  user 
charges  on  any  given  category  of  vehicle.  However,  a  Member  States  which 
imposes  a  user  charge  on  its  network  may  also  impose  tolls  for  the  use  of 
bridges, tunnels and mountain passes. 

3. 

Tolls  and  user  charges  shall  not  discriminate,  directly  or  indirectly,  on  the 
grounds of the nationality of the haulier, the Member State or the third country 
of establishment of the haulier or of registration of the vehicle, or the origin or 
destination of the transport operation. 

4.  Member  States  may  provide  for  reduced  toll  rates  or  user  charges  or 
exemptions  from  the  obligation  to  pay  tolls  or  user  charges  for  vehicles 
exempted  from  the  requirement  to  install  and  use  recording  equipment  under 
Council  Regulation (EEC)  No 3821/85*,  and  in  cases  covered  by,  and  subject 
to the conditions contained in, Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of this Directive.  

5.  Until  31  December  2011,  a  Member  State  may  choose  to  apply  tolls  and/or 
user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of 
not less than 12 tonnes. From 1 January 2012, tolls and/or user charges shall be 
applied  to  all  vehicles  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(d)  unless  a  Member 
State considers that an extension to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would: 

(a) 

(b) 

create  significant  adverse  effects  on  the  free  flow  of  traffic,  the 
environment, noise levels, congestion or health; or 

involve administrative costs of more than 30% of the additional revenue 
which would have been generated by that extension. 

Article 7a 

1.  User  charges  shall  be  in  proportion  to  the  duration  of  the  use  made  of  the 
infrastructure and shall be available for the duration of a day, week, month and 
a  year.  In  particular,  the  annual  rate  shall  be  no  less  than  80  times  the  daily 
rate,  the  monthly  rate  shall  be  no  less  than  13  times  the  daily  rate  and  the 
weekly rate shall be no less than five times the daily rate.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
A  Member  State  may  only  apply  annual  rates  for  vehicles  registered  in  that 
Member State. 

2.  User charges, including administrative costs, for all vehicle categories shall be 
set  by  the  Member  State  concerned  at  a  level  which  is  no  higher  than  the 
maximum rates laid down in Annex II. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Article 7b  

The  infrastructure  charge  shall  be  based  on  the  principle  of  the  recovery  of 
infrastructure costs. The weighted average infrastructure charge shall be related 
to the construction costs and the costs of operating, maintaining and developing 
the  infrastructure  network  concerned.  The  weighted  average  infrastructure 
charge may also include a return on capital or a profit margin based on market 
conditions.  

The  external  cost  charge  shall  be  related  to  the  cost  of  traffic-based  air 
pollution,  the  cost  of  traffic-based  noise  pollution,  or  both.  On  road  sections 
subject  to  congestion  the  external  cost  charge  may  also  include  the  cost  of 
congestion during the periods when these road sections are usually congested.  

The costs taken into account shall relate to the network or a part of the network 
on which tolls are levied and to the vehicles that are subject thereto. Member 
States may choose to recover only a percentage of these costs. 

Article 7c  

The  external  cost  charge  shall  vary  according  to  the  type  of  road  and  EURO 
emission class, and also according to the time period in cases where the charge 
includes the cost of congestion or traffic-based noise pollution.  

The  amount  of  the  external  cost  charge  for  each  combination  of  class  of 
vehicle,  type  of  road  and  time  period  shall  be  set  in  accordance  with  the 
minimum  requirements,  the  common  formulae  and  the  maximum  chargeable 
external costs in Annex IIIa.  

The amount of the external cost charge shall be set by an authority designated 
by  the  Member  State  for  this  purpose.  The  authority  shall  be  legally  and 
financially  independent  from  the  organisation  in  charge  of  managing  or 
collecting part or all of the charge. However, if that organisation is controlled 
by  the  Member  State,  the  authority  may  be  an  administrative  entity  of  that 
State. 

Article 7d 

1.  Member  States  shall  calculate  the  infrastructure  charge  using  a  methodology 

based on the core calculation principles set out in Annex III. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

3. 

1. 

For  concession  tolls,  the  maximum  level  of  the  infrastructure  charge  shall  be 
equivalent to, or less than, the level that would have resulted from the use of a 
methodology based on the core calculation principles set out in Annex III. The 
assessment of such equivalence shall be made on the basis of a reasonably long 
reference period appropriate to the nature of that concession contract. 

Tolling  arrangements  which  were  already  in  place  on  10 June  2008  or  for 
which  tenders  or  responses  to  invitations  to  negotiate  under  the  negotiated 
procedure  were  received  pursuant  to  a  public  procurement  process  before 
10 June 2008 shall not be subject to the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 and 
2 for as long as these arrangements remain in force and provided that they are 
not substantially amended. 

Article 7e 

In  exceptional  cases  concerning  infrastructure  in  mountainous  regions,  and 
after informing the Commission, a mark-up may be added to the infrastructure 
charge levied on specific road sections which are subject to acute congestion, 
or  the  use  of  which  by  vehicles  is  the  cause  of  significant  environmental 
damage, on condition that: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

the  revenue  generated  from  the  mark-up  is  invested  in  financing  the 
construction  of  priority  projects  of  European  interest,  identified  in 
Annex III  to  Decision  No 1692/96/EC,  which  contribute  directly  to  the 
alleviation  of  the  congestion  or  environmental  damage  and  which  are 
located in the same corridor as the road section on which the mark-up is 
applied;  

the mark-up does not exceed 15% of the weighted average infrastructure 
charge calculated in accordance with Article 7b(1) and Article 7d except 
where  the  revenue  generated  is  invested  in  cross-border  sections  of 
priority  projects  of  European 
in 
infrastructure 
mountainous regions, in which case the mark-up may not exceed 25%; 

involving 

interest 

the  application  of  the  mark-up  does  not  result  in  unfair  treatment  of 
commercial traffic compared to other road users; 

a description of the exact location of the mark-up and proof of a decision 
to finance the construction works referred to in point (a) are submitted to 
the Commission in advance of the application of the mark-up; and 

the  period  for  which  the  mark-up  is  to  apply  is  defined  and  limited  in 
advance and is consistent, in terms of the expected revenue to be raised, 
with  the  financial  plans  and  cost-benefit  analysis  for  the  projects  co-
financed with the revenue from the mark-up. 

The first subparagraph shall apply to new cross-border projects subject to the 
agreement of all Member States involved in that project. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
2.  After  informing  the  Commission,  a  mark-up  may  also  be  applied  to  a  road 
section  which  constitutes  an  alternative  route  to  that  covered  by  the  mark-up 
referred to in paragraph 1, if:  

– 

– 

the application of a mark-up on a road would result in a significant share 
of traffic being diverted to this alternative route; and 

the  conditions  set  out  in  points  (a)  to  (e)  of  the  first  subparagraph  of 
paragraph 1 are complied with. 

3.  A mark-up may be applied to an infrastructure charge which has been varied in 

accordance with Article 7f.  

4.  When the Commission receives the required information from a Member State 
intending  to  apply  a  mark-up,  it  shall  make  this  information  available  to  the 
members  of  the  Committee  referred  to  in  Article 9c.  If  the  Commission 
considers  that  the  planned  mark-up  does  not  meet  the  conditions  set  out  in 
paragraph  1,  or  if  it  considers  that  the  planned  mark-up  will  have  significant 
adverse  effects  on  the  economic  development  of  peripheral  regions,  it  may 
reject or request amendment of the plans for charges submitted by the Member 
State  concerned,  in  accordance  with  the  consultation  procedure  referred  to  in 
Article 9c(2). 

5.  On  road  sections  where  the  criteria  for  applying  a  mark-up  pursuant  to 
paragraph 1 are met, the Member States may not levy an external cost charge 
unless a mark-up is applied.  

6. 

The amount of the mark-up shall be deducted from the amount of the external 
cost charge calculated in accordance with Article 7c.  

Article 7f 

1. 

Toll  rates  which  comprise  only  an  infrastructure  charge  shall  be  varied 
according  to  EURO  emission  class  in  such  a  way  that  no  toll  is  more  than 
100%  above  the  toll  charged  for  equivalent  vehicles  meeting  the  strictest 
emission standards.  

2.  Where  a  driver  is  unable  to  produce  the  vehicle  documents  necessary  to 
ascertain  the  EURO  emission  class  of  the  vehicle  in  the  event  of  a  check, 
Member States may apply tolls up to the highest level chargeable. 

3. 

Tolls which comprise only an infrastructure charge may also be varied for the 
purpose  of  reducing  congestion,  minimising  infrastructure  damage  and 
optimising the use of the infrastructure concerned or promoting road safety, on 
condition that:  

(a) 

(b) 

the variation is transparent, openly published and available to all users on 
equal terms; 

the  variation  is  applied  according  to  the  time  of  day,  type  of  day  or 
season; and 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
(c) 

no  toll  is  more  than  100%  above  the  toll  charged  during  the  cheapest 
period of the day, type of day or season.  

4. 

The  variations  referred  to  in  paragraphs  1  and  3  are  not  designed  to  generate 
additional  toll  revenue.  Any  unintended  increase  in  revenue  shall  be 
counterbalanced  by  changes  to  the  structure  of  the  variation  which  must  be 
implemented within two years from the end of the accounting year in which the 
additional revenue is generated.  

5. 

If  a  toll  includes  an  external  cost  charge,  paragraphs  1  and  3  shall  not  be 
applied to the part of the toll consisting of an infrastructure charge.  

Article 7g  

1.  At  least  six  months  before  the  implementation  of  a  new  infrastructure  charge 

tolling arrangement, Member States shall send to the Commission: 

(a) 

for tolling arrangements other than those involving concession tolls: 

– 

– 

the unit values and other parameters used in calculating the various 
infrastructure cost elements, and 

information  on 

the  vehicles  covered  by 

clear 
tolling 
arrangements, the geographic extent of the network, or part of the 
network, used for each cost calculation, and the percentage of costs 
that are intended to be recovered; 

the 

(b) 

for tolling arrangements involving concession tolls: 

– 

– 

the concession contracts or significant changes to such contracts, 

the  base  case  on  which  the  grantor  has  founded  the  notice  of 
concession, as referred to in Annex VII B to Directive 2004/18/EC; 
this  base  case  shall  include  the  estimated  costs  as  defined  in 
Article 7b(1)  envisaged  under  the  concession,  the  forecast  traffic, 
broken down by type of vehicle, the levels of toll envisaged and the 
geographic  extent  of  the  network  covered  by  the  concession 
contract. 

2. 

The  Commission  shall,  within  six  months  of  receiving  all  the  necessary 
information in accordance with paragraph 1, give an opinion as to whether the 
obligations of Article 7d are complied with. The opinions of the Commission 
shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c. 

3.  At  least  six  months  before  the  implementation  of  a  new  external  cost  charge 

tolling arrangement, Member States shall send the Commission: 

(a) 

precise  information  locating  the  road  sections  where  the  external  cost 
charge is to be levied and describing the class of vehicles, type of roads 
and  the  exact  time  periods  according  to  which  the  external  cost  charge 
will vary;  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the  envisaged  weighted  average  external  cost  charge  and  the  envisaged 
total revenue;  

the name of the authority designated in accordance with Article 7c(3) to 
set the amount of the charge, and of its representative; and  

the  parameters,  data  and  information  necessary  to  demonstrate  how  the 
calculation method set out in Annex IIIa will be applied. 

4. 

The  Commission  may,  within  six  months  of  receiving  the  information  in 
accordance  with  paragraph 3,  decide  to  ask  the  Member  State  concerned  to 
adapt the proposed external cost charge, if it considers that the obligations laid 
down in Articles 7b, 7c, 7i or 9(2) are not complied with. The decision of the 
Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c. 

Article 7h 

1.  Member  States  shall  not  provide  for  discounts  or  reductions  for  any  users  in 

relation to the external cost charge element of a toll.  

2.  Member  States  may  provide  for  discounts  or  reductions  to  the  infrastructure 

charge on condition that: 

(a) 

(b) 

the  resulting  charging  structure  is  proportionate,  openly  published  and 
available to all users on equal terms and does not lead to additional costs 
being passed on to other users in the form of higher tolls; and  

such discounts or reductions lead to actual savings in administrative costs 
and  do  not  exceed  13%  of  the  infrastructure  charge  paid  by  equivalent 
vehicles not eligible for the discount or reduction. 

Subject to the conditions provided for in Article 7f(3)(b) and in Article 7f(4), 
toll rates may, in exceptional cases, namely specific projects of high European 
interest,  be  subject  to  other  forms  of  variation  in  order  to  secure  the 
commercial  viability  of  such  projects  where  they  are  exposed  to  direct 
competition  with  other  modes  of  vehicle  transport.  The  resulting  charging 
structure  shall  be  linear,  proportionate,  openly  published,  and  available  to  all 
users on equal terms and shall not lead to additional costs being passed on to 
other  users  in  the  form  of  higher  tolls.  The  Commission  shall  verify 
compliance with these conditions prior  to the  implementation of  the  charging 
structure in question. 

Article 7i  

Tolls  and  user  charges  shall  be  applied  and  collected  and  their  payment 
monitored in such a way as to cause as little hindrance as possible to the free 
flow  of  traffic  and  to  avoid  any  mandatory  controls  or  checks  at  the 
Community’s  internal borders. To this end, Member  States  shall cooperate in 
establishing methods for enabling hauliers to pay user charges 24 hours a day, 
at least at the major sales outlets, using all common means of payment, inside 
and outside the Member States in which they are applied. Member States shall 

3. 

1. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
provide adequate facilities at the points of payment for tolls and user charges 
so as to maintain normal road safety standards. 

2. 

The arrangements for collecting tolls and user charges shall not, financially or 
otherwise,  place  non-regular  users  of  the  road  network  at  an  unjustified 
disadvantage. In particular, where a Member State collects tolls or user charges 
exclusively  by  means  of  a  system  that  requires  the  use  of  a  vehicle  on-board 
unit,  it  shall  ensure  that  appropriate  on-board  units  compliant  with  the 
requirements  of  Directive  2004/52/EC  can  be  obtained  by  all  users  under 
reasonable administrative and economic arrangements.  

3. 

If  a  Member  State  levies  an  external  cost  charge  on  a  vehicle,  the  amount  of 
such charge shall be indicated in a document provided to the haulier.  

4.  An external cost charge shall be levied and collected by means of an electronic 
system  which  complies  with 
requirements  of  Article  2(1)  of 
the 
Directive 2004/52/EC  and  which  can  subsequently  be  extended  to  other  road 
sections  without  the  need  for  roadside  barriers  which  imply  significant 
additional roadside investment.  

5.  However, until 31 December 2013 , an external cost charge may be levied and 
collected  by  means  of  an  existing  tolling  arrangement.  In  such  a  case,  the 
Member State concerned shall notify the Commission of its plan to switch to a 
requirements  of  paragraph  4  by 
system  which  complies  with 
31 December 2013 at the latest. 

the 

Article 7j 

This  Directive  does  not  affect  the  freedom  of  Member  States  which  introduce  a 
system of tolls and/or user charges for infrastructure to provide, without prejudice to 
Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, appropriate compensation for these charges. 

_______________________ 
* 

OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8.” 

(3) 

In chapter III, the following Article 8b is added:  

“Article 8b 

1. 

Two or more Member States may cooperate in introducing a common system 
for  tolls  applicable  to  their  combined  territories  as  a  whole.  In  such  a  case, 
those  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  Commission  is  closely  involved  in 
such  cooperation  and  in  the  system’s  subsequent  operation  and  possible 
amendment. 

2. 

The common toll system shall be subject to the conditions set out in Articles 7 
to 7j and shall be open to other Member States.” 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
(4) 

In Article 9, paragraphs 1a and 2 are replaced by the following:  

“1a.  This Directive shall not prevent the non-discriminatory application by Member 
States  of regulatory  charges  specifically designed to reduce traffic congestion 
or combat environmental impacts, including poor air quality, on any urban road 
located in a built up area. 

2.  A Member State in which an external cost charge is levied shall ensure that the 
revenue  generated  by  the  charge  is  earmarked  for  measures  aimed  at 
facilitating  efficient  pricing,  reducing  road  transport  pollution  at  source, 
mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and 
developing alternative infrastructure for transport users.  

A Member State in which an infrastructure charge is levied shall determine the 
use  to  be  made  of  revenue  generated  by  that  charge.  To  enable  the  transport 
network to be developed as a whole, revenue from charges should be used to 
benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system.” 

(5) 

Articles 9b and 9c are replaced by the following: 

“Article 9b 

The  Commission  shall  facilitate  dialogue  and  the  exchange  of  technical  know-how 
between  Member  States  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  this  Directive  and  in 
particular  the  Annexes.  The  Commission  shall  adapt  Annexes 0,  III,  IIIa  and  IV  in 
the  light  of  scientific  and  technical  progress  and  Annexes  I  and  II  in  the  light  of 
inflation. 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 9c(3). 

1. 

The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee.  

Article 9c 

2.  Where  reference 

this  paragraph,  Articles  3  and  7  of 
Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 
thereof.  

is  made 

to 

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.” 

(6) 

Article 11 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 11 

1. 

By  31  December  2012  at  the  latest,  and  every  four  years  thereafter,  Member 
States which levy an external cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge shall 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
draw  up  a  report  on  tolls  levied  on  their  territory  and  shall  forward  it  to  the 
Commission. The report shall comprise information on:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the  weighted  average  external  cost  charge  and  the  specific  amounts 
levied for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and period 
of time; 

the total revenue raised through the external cost charge, and information 
on the use of that revenue; and 

the weighted average infrastructure cost charge and total revenue raised 
through the infrastructure charge.  

2.  No later than 31 December 2013, the Commission shall present a report to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this 
Directive,  in  particular  as  regards  the  effectiveness  of  the  provisions  on  the 
recovery  of  the  costs  related  to  congestion  and  traffic-based  pollution  and  on 
the inclusion of vehicles of more than 3.5 and less than 12 tonnes. The report 
shall also assess:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the relevance of integrating other external costs in the calculation of tolls, 
especially the cost of carbon dioxide emissions should the definition of a 
common  fuel  tax  element  related  to  climate  change  have  not  yielded 
satisfactory results, the cost of accidents and the cost of biodiversity loss;  

the relevance of extending the scope of the Directive to other categories 
of vehicles; 

the  possibility  of  adopting  a  revised  classification  of  vehicles  for  the 
purposes  of  varying  tolls  taking  into  account  the  average  impact  on  the 
environment,  congestion  and  infrastructure,  their  CO2  and  energy 
performance,  and  the  practical  and  economic  feasibility  of  levying  and 
enforcing tolls; and 

the  technical  and  economic  feasibility  of  introducing  on  the  main  inter-
urban  roads  minimum  distance-based  charges.  The  report  shall  identify 
the  possible  type  of  road  sections  to  be  charged,  the  possible  ways  of 
levying  and  enforcing  in  a  cost-effective  way  such  charges  and  a 
common simple method to set the minimum rates.” 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(7) 

Annex III is amended as follows: 

(a) 

the first paragraph is replaced by the following: 

“This  Annex  stipulates  the  core  principles  for  the  calculation  of  weighted 
average  infrastructure  charge  to  reflect  Article  7b(1).  The  obligation  to  relate 
tolls  to  costs  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  freedom  of  Member  States  to 
choose,  in  accordance  with  Article  7b(3),  not  to  recover  the  costs  in  full 
through toll revenue, or to the freedom, in accordance with Article 7f, to vary 
the amounts of specific tolls away from the average**. 

____________________ 
** 

These provisions, together with the flexibility offered in the way costs are recovered over time 
(see  the  third  indent  of  point  2.1),  give  considerable  margin  to  fix  tolls  at  levels  which  are 
acceptable  to  users  and  adapted  to  the  specific  transport  policy  objectives  of  the  Member 
State.” 

(b) 

in point (1), second indent, the words “Article 7a(1)” are replaced by the words 
“Article 7b(3)”. 

(8) 

After  Annex  III,  the  text  set  out  in  the  Annex  to  this  Directive  is  inserted  as 
Annex IIIa. 

Article 2 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 3l December 2010 at the latest. 
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 3 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Article 4 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the European Parliament 
The President 
[…] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

“ANNEX IIIa 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LEVYING AN EXTERNAL COST CHARGE 
AND MAXIMUM CHARGEABLE EXTERNAL COST ELEMENTS  

This  Annex  sets  out  the  minimum  requirements  for  levying  an  external  cost  charge  and  the 
maximum authorised cost elements to be included when setting the amount.  

1. 

THE PARTS OF THE NETWORK CONCERNED  

The Member State shall specify precisely the part or parts of network which are to be subject 
to an external cost charge.  

Where a Member State chooses to levy an external cost charge on only a part or parts of the 
network, the part or parts shall be chosen after an assessment establishing that: 

•  vehicles’  use  of  the  roads  where  the  external  cost  charge  is  applied  generates 
environmental damage and congestion higher than that generated on average on other parts 
of the road infrastructure network that are not subject to a external cost charge, or 

•  the imposition of an external cost charge on other parts of the network might have adverse 
effects on the environment, congestion or road safety, or levying and collecting an external 
cost charge on them would entail disproportionate cost. 

2. 

THE VEHICLES, ROADS AND TIME PERIOD COVERED 

The Member State shall notify the Commission of the classification of vehicles according to 
which the toll shall vary. It shall also notify the Commission of the location of roads subject 
to  higher  external  cost  charges  (hereafter  “suburban  roads”)  and  of  roads  subject  to  lower 
external cost charges (hereafter “other interurban roads”).  

Where applicable, it shall also notify the Commission of the exact time periods corresponding 
to the night period and to the various daily, weekly or seasonal peak periods during which a 
higher  external  cost  charge  may  be  imposed  to  reflect  greater  congestion  or  greater  noise 
annoyance. 

The  classification  of  roads  and  the  definition  of  time  periods  shall  be  based  on  objective 
criteria  related  to  the  level  of  exposure  of  the  roads  and  their  vicinities  to  congestion  and 
pollution  such  as  population  density,  the  yearly  number  of  pollution  peaks  measured  in 
accordance  with  Directive  96/62/EC,  the  average  daily  and  hourly  traffic  and  the  level  of 
service  (percentage  of  the  day  or  the  year  when  road  usage  is  close  to  or  above  capacity, 
average delays and/or queues lengths). The criteria used shall be included in the notification.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
3. 

AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE  

For each vehicle class, type of road and time period, the independent authority shall determine 
a  single  specific  amount.  The  resulting  charging  structure  shall  be  transparent,  openly 
published and available to all users on equal terms.  

When  setting  the  charges,  the  independent  authority  shall  be  guided  by  the  principle  of 
efficient  pricing  that  is  a  price  close  to  the  social  marginal  cost  of  the  usage  of  the  vehicle 
charged.  The  charge  shall  be  set  as  close  as  possible  to  the  external  costs  which  can  be 
allocated to the category of road users concerned.  

The charge shall also be set after having considered the risk of traffic diversion together with 
any adverse effects on road safety, the environment and congestion, and solutions to mitigate 
these risks.  

The independent authority shall monitor the effectiveness of the charging scheme in reducing 
environmental  damage  arising  from  road  transport  and  in  relieving  congestion  where  it  is 
applied. It shall regularly adjust the charging structure and the specific amount of the charge 
set  for  a  given  class  of  vehicle,  type  of  road  and  period  of  time  to  the  changes  in  transport 
demand.  

4. 

EXTERNAL COST ELEMENTS  

4.1. 

Cost of traffic-based air pollution  

When a Member State chooses to include all or part the cost of traffic-based air pollution in 
the  external  cost  charge,  the  independent  authority  shall  calculate  the  chargeable  cost  of 
traffic–based air pollution by applying the following formula or by taking the unit values in 
Table 1 if the latter are lower:  

PCVij = ∑k EFik x PCjk where: 

– 

– 

– 

air  pollution 

PCVij 
(euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

cost  of  vehicle 

class 

i  on 

road 

type 

j 

EFik emission factor of pollutant k and vehicle class i (gram/kilometre) 

PCjk monetary cost of pollutant k for type of road j (euro/gram) 

Only the emissions of particulate matter and of ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxide and 
volatic organic compounds will be taken into consideration. The emission factors shall be the 
same as those used by the Member State to draft the national emissions inventories provided 
for  in  Directive  2001/81/EC  (which  requires  use  of  the  EMEP/CORINAIR  Emission 
Inventory Guidebook)1. The monetary cost of pollutants shall be taken from Table 13 of the 
“Handbook on estimation of external cost in the transport sector”2.  

1 
2 

Methodology of the European Environmental Agency http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR5/. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Air pollution cost of vehicle (PCV)  

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre  
EURO 0 
EURO I 
EURO II 
EURO III 
EURO IV 
EURO V and less polluting 

Suburban roads 
16
11
9
7
4
3

Values in euro cents, 2000  

Other interurban roads 

13 
8 
8 
6 
4 
2 

The  values  in  Table  1  represent  arithmetic  averages  of  the  values  given  in  Table  15  of  the 
“Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector”3 for vehicles belonging 
to four different weight classes. Member States may apply a correction factor to the values in 
Table 1 to reflect the actual fleet composition in terms of vehicle size. The values of Table 1 
may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by 
the gradient of roads, altitude and/or temperature inversions. 

The  independent  authority  may  adopt  alternatives  methods  using  data  from  air  pollutant 
measurement  and  the  local  value  of  the  monetary  cost  of  air  pollutants,  provided  that  the 
results do not exceed the results which would have been obtained with the above formulae or 
the above unit values for any class of vehicles. 

All  parameters,  data  and  other  information  necessary  to  understand  how  the  chargeable  air 
pollution cost is calculated shall be made public.  

4.2.  Cost of traffic-based noise pollution  

When a Member State chooses to include all or part of the cost of traffic-based noise pollution 
in  the  external  cost  charge,  the  independent  authority  shall  calculate  the  chargeable  cost  of 
traffic –based noise pollution by applying the following formulae or by taking the unit values 
in Table 2 if the latter are lower:  

NCVij (day) = ∑k NCjk x POPk / ADT  

NCVij (night) = n x NCVij (day) where  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

NCVij noise cost of vehicle class i on road type j (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

NCjk noise cost per person exposed on road type j to noise level k (euro/person)  

POPk  population  exposed 
(person/kilometre) 

to  daily  noise 

level  k  per  kilometre 

ADT average daily traffic (vehicle) 

n night correction factor 

3 

Idem. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The population exposed to noise level k shall be taken from the strategic noise maps drafted 
under Article 7 of Directive 2002/49/EC on the evaluation and management of ambient noise. 

The cost per person exposed to noise level k shall be taken from Table 20 of the “Handbook 
on estimation of external cost in the transport sector”4. 

The  average  daily  traffic  shall  assume  a  weighting  factor  of  no  more  than  4  between  heavy 
goods vehicles and passenger cars. 

Table 2: Chargeable noise cost of vehicles (NCV)  

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre  

Day  

Night  

Suburban roads  

Other interurban roads  

1.1  

0.13 

2  

0.23 

Values in euro cents, 2000  
Source: Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector, table 225 

The values of Table 2 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 5 in mountain areas to the extent 
that it is justified by the gradient of roads, temperature inversions and/or amphitheatre effect 
of valleys. 

All parameters, data and other information necessary to understand how the chargeable noise 
cost is calculated shall be made public.  

4.3. 

Cost of congestion  

On  congested  roads,  a  Member  State  may  choose  to  include  all  or  part  of  the  cost  of 
congestion in the external cost charge provided that the Member State demonstrates that the 
congestion cost imposed by a vehicle on other users exceeds the infrastructure development 
cost already charged for this vehicle. In such a case, the independent authority shall calculate 
the  chargeable  congestion  cost  for  the  different  periods  of  time  by  applying  the  following 
formula or by taking the unit values in Table 3 if the latter are lower.  

CCV

=

MEC

Qo
(

)

−

IDC

QMEC

(

)

=

VOTxQ
Qv
(
)²

x

QvQv
((
)
(
−
Q

∆

∆−

Q

)

where  

– 

– 

– 

CCV chargeable congestion cost (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

IDC infrastructure development cost already charged (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

Qo optimal hourly traffic (vehicle/hour)  

–  MEC(Q) marginal external cost of congestion (euro/vehicle.kilometre)  

4 
5 

Idem. 
Idem. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

VOT value of time (euro/hour.vehicle)  

Q average hourly traffic (vehicle)  

∆Q small change in hourly traffic  

v(Q) average traffic speed (kilometre/hour)  

The average daily traffic shall assume equivalence factor between heavy goods vehicles and 
passengers cars of no more than 3.  

The optimal hourly traffic shall be computed by iteratively raising the cost until equilibrium is 
reached between the hourly traffic and the marginal external cost of congestion. Alternatively, 
the ratio between the chargeable congestion charge (CCV) and the marginal external cost of 
congestion (MEC) shall be 0.5.  

The speed-flow function shall be based on standard engineering curves. 

The value of time shall be based on state of the art surveys of the willingness to pay.  

Table 3: Chargeable congestion cost of vehicles (CCV) 

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre  

Time 
period A 

Time 
period B  

Time 
period C  

Suburban roads  

Other interurban roads  

0 

0 

20 

2 

65 

7 

Values in euro cents, 2000  
Source: Estimated from the "Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector", table 76  

Time period A is an off peak period with stable flow of traffic 

Time period B is a peak period or close to peak period with unstable flow of traffic 

Time period C is an extreme peak period with forced or breakdown flow of traffic  

All  parameters,  data  and  other  information  necessary  to  understand  how  the  chargeable 
congestion cost is calculated shall be made public.” 

6 

Idem . 

EN 

33 

   EN