Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety COM(2008) 151 final — 2008/0062 (COD)
Date: 2008-09-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU statistics, cross-frontier data flow, data processing, data protection, data transmission, exchange of information, road safety, transport accident

C 77/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

identifies. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive,
in order to combat these clearly defined infringe-
ments of Community law.

more effective way of strengthening European legislation and
compliance therewith for major issues.

2.7
This does not entail harmonising applicable criminal law,
as Member States are merely called on to treat certain infringe-
ments identified by the Community legislature as criminal
offences. However, ECJ case law does allow for the introduction
of obligations for Member States in criminal matters, which is a

2.8
The Committee therefore welcomes and supports the
proposal to amend the 2005 directive, and considers that the
new means of identifying and monitoring ships to be gradually
set up will ensure full compliance with the directive, by effec-
tively and systematically penalising illegal practices.

Brussels, 17 September 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road
safety’

COM(2008) 151 final — 2008/0062 (COD)

(2009/C 77/18)

On 13 May 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 71(1)(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

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

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 July 2008. The rapporteur was
Mr Simons.

At its 447th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of 17 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1. Conclusions

nied by effective and efficient checks and penalties. The
Committee would therefore call on the Council and the Member
States to make urgent improvements on this front.

1.1
The Commission's draft directive sets out proposals
aimed at securing the more efficient and more effective enforce-
ment and supervision of traffic offences committed in another
Member State.

1.2
Its purpose is to help meet the Commission's 2001 objec-
tive of halving the number of road fatalities between that date
and 2010.

The target will be impossible to meet without further
1.3
action. The current proposal is part of that process and focuses
on tackling traffic offences committed in another Member State.

1.4
The Committee considers the draft directive to be a
sound approach to dealing effectively with offences committed
in another Member State. This must, however, also be accompa-

1.5
The Committee feels that, to make the directive more
effective, the list of offences proposed by the Commission needs
to be expanded to include all offences that have a bearing on
improving road safety.

1.6
the
In the interests of efficiency and effectiveness,
Committee feels that, to exchange information, use should be
made of an existing electronic network,
the
EUCARIS system, as the costs involved are low. The Commis-
sion is advised at least to carry out a feasibility study — or have
one carried out externally — on the possibility of expanding
existing systems to incorporate the planned data exchange.

instance,

for

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/71

As punishment for offences, the Committee feels that
1.7
consideration should also be given to tools
such as a
penalty-points driving licence, vehicle impoundment, and the
temporary withdrawal of an offender's driving licence that may
or may not be imposed alongside fines.

1.8
In terms of boosting efficiency, the Committee endorses
the proposal that each Member State should designate a central
authority to assist with the application of the measures set out
in the draft directive.

The Committee considers there is no added value to be
1.9
gained from the Commission's model offence notification form.
The Committee takes the view that what matters is the content,
not how it is presented. It therefore feels that the Commission
should confine itself to setting out precisely the information
required for the purposes of the directive.

2.2.6
The other offences included in the proposal are also of
key importance: drink-driving (25 %), non-use of seat belts
(17 %), and failing to stop at a red traffic light (4 %).

2.2.7
The Commission is not proposing to harmonise road
traffic rules or penalties for road traffic offences. This remains a
matter for the Member States. The proposal merely contains
provisions of an administrative nature for putting in place an
effective and efficient system of cross-border enforcement of the
main road traffic offences with the aim of halving the number
of road fatalities by 2010.

1.10
committee procedure for applying the projected measures.

The Committee endorses the Commission's proposed

3. General comments

2. Introduction

Under

2.1.1
the 2001 European transport policy white
paper, the EU aims to halve the number of road deaths by
2010. In tangible figures, that means cutting traffic deaths from
54 000 in the 27 EU Member States in 2001 to 27 000
in 2010.

Between 2001 and 2007,

2.1.2
fatalities
decreased by 20 %, while a 37 % reduction would have been
necessary to achieve the objective of halving the number of
road fatalities by 2010. Efforts do therefore need to be
stepped up.

the number of

2.2 The Commission proposal

To prepare the ground for this draft directive,

2.2.1
the
Commission organised a public information session and also
held a meeting with representative stakeholders. These meetings
helped shape the draft directive now on the table.

The Commission feels that the proposed directive is an
2.2.2
effective means by which the objective can still be achieved and
equal treatment secured for all EU citizens.

The draft directive seeks to improve the enforcement of
2.2.3
offences committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State
other than the one in which the offence took place.

Currently, traffic offences are often not sanctioned if
2.2.4
they are committed with a vehicle registered in another Member
State. The share of non-resident drivers in speeding offences, for
instance, shows a range of 2.5 % to 30 %.

2.2.5
Tackling speeding — which available figures cite as the
cause of 30 % of road fatalities — would be an effective way of
significantly cutting the numbers of those killed on the roads.

3.1
In its opinion on the communication from the Commis-
sion on the European Road Safety Action Programme: Halving the
number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A
the
shared responsibility
Committee questioned what it felt was the Commission's overly
ambitious objective. It now appears that additional action is
indeed needed to meet that target.

adopted on 11 December 2003,

3.2
Thus, the Committee feels that there is clear added value
to be gained from a European approach to cross-border enforce-
ment in the field of road traffic. It shares the Commission's view
that everything must be done to ensure that the target laid
down in 2001 can still be met, namely to halve the number of
road fatalities by the year 2010. It considers that the draft direc-
tive now under discussion is, potentially, a major step in that
direction, but must be accompanied by effective and efficient
checks and penalties. The Committee would therefore call on
the Council and the Member States to make urgent improve-
ments to checking and penalty arrangements, in line with their
remit and actual conditions on the ground.

The Commission's proposed approach appears simple.
3.3
the details of
Thanks to an information exchange network,
which have still to be determined, each Member State will be
able to enforce penalties on drivers from other Member States
committing offences in its territory. It is not clear what network
and what kind of system the Commission is envisaging.

3.4
In Article 4 of the draft directive, the Commission states
that the exchange of information must be carried out quickly by
means of an EU electronic network to be set up within twelve
months. Elsewhere the document states that an already existing
EU system will be used for the purpose of exchanging informa-
tion, not least in order to keep costs low. However, the Commis-
the
sion fails to indicate which system is to be used for
exchange of
information. The Committee agrees with the
Commission that, to save time and money, the best approach
will be to use an already existing EU information system.

C 77/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

In specific terms,

3.5
the Committee would envisage an
approach similar to that adopted under the Council Decision on
the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating
terrorism and cross-border crime, where use is made of EUCARIS
technology. This system is currently used by 18 Member States
and will be adopted by all 27 Member States once the Council
decision enters
into force. Compared with other network
systems, the costs involved here are very low.

The Committee would advise that

3.6
the Commission
should at least have a feasibility study carried out on all existing
systems, including EUCARIS technology, to explore the possibi-
lity of expanding them to incorporate the planned data
exchange.

3.7
The Committee feels that the Commission is right to
restrict its proposal to providing a legal basis for the exchange
of vehicle registration information. The Member States them-
selves must put in place the appropriate prosecution procedures.
This is consistent with the subsidiarity principle.

3.8
The Committee would also point out that enforcement
would be more effective if EU-wide agreements were reached —
to be implemented and monitored consistently across the
Member States — on, for instance, the harmonisation of speed
limits, blood alcohol
limits and penalties. The Council must
therefore — at last — also produce results on this front.

4. Specific comments

4.1
Given the objective of halving the number of road fatal-
ities between 2001 and 2010, and the interim assessment made
at the end of 2007 showing that that objective will be impos-
sible to attain without additional measures, the Committee feels
that the Commission's proposals for cross-border cooperation in
the following four areas:

— speeding,

— drink-driving,

— non-use of a seat-belt, and

Brussels, 17 September 2008.

— failing to stop at a red traffic light

are a step in the right direction, as the Commission's own
figures indicate that this could reduce the number of road fatal-
ities by between 200 and 250 a year.

instance,

4.2
The Committee feels that, in Article 1 of the draft direc-
tive, the Commission should add other cross-border offences,
the use of a non-hands-free telephone while
for
driving, aggressive driving, failure to comply with overtaking
bans, wrong-way driving, and driving under the influence of
drugs. As the Committee noted in its earlier opinion the
communication from the Commission on the European Road
road accident
Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of
victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility,
every possible attempt must be made to reach this objective.

4.3
As punishment for offences, the Committee feels that
such as a
consideration should also be given to tools
penalty-points driving licence, vehicle impoundment, and the
temporary withdrawal of an offender's driving licence that may
or may not be imposed alongside fines.

The Committee endorses the Commission proposal set
4.4
out in Article 6 of the draft directive that each Member State
should designate a central authority to coordinate application of
the directive.

4.5
In the interests of subsidiarity, the Committee feels it is
not desirable for the Commission to lay down a model offence
notification form, as it does in Article 5 of the draft directive.
The important thing is, after all, the content, not how it is
presented. The Committee feels that the Commission should
confine itself to setting out precisely the information that is
required.

4.6
Article 8 of the draft directive states that the Commis-
sion is to be assisted by a committee on road safety enforce-
ment. The Committee
the proposed committee
endorses
procedure.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS