COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  pursuant to Article 294 (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  concerning the Council's position at first reading on a 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 infrastructure
Date: 2011-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, toll, transport infrastructure, vehicle tax

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.2.2011 
COM(2011) 69 final 

2008/0147 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294 (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

Council's position at first reading on a 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 infrastructure 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
2008/0147 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294 (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

Council's position at first reading on a 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 infrastructure 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council 
(document COM(2008) 436 final – 2008/0147 COD): 

08/07/2008 

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

16/12/2009 

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

11/03/2009 

Date  of  adoption  of  the  Council's  political  agreement  in  view  of  a 
Council’s position at first reading: 

15/10/2010 

Date of adoption of the position of the Council: 

14/02/2011 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

In order to eliminate distortions of competition between transport undertakings and establish 
fair  mechanisms  for  charging  infrastructure  costs  to  hauliers  Directive  1999/62/EC  sets 
maximum rates that Member States may charge to heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain 
transport infrastructure. In determining these rates, Member States may not take into account 
external costs such as air and noise pollution. The Commission's proposed amendments will 
allow  such  charges  which,  if  introduced,  will  promote  more  efficient  and  cleaner  freight 
transport Chief among the other proposed changes is giving Member States greater flexibility 
in  varying  toll  rates  to  promote  greater  use  during  non-peak  times  and  ultimately  reduce 
congestion. Lastly the additional revenue generated by external cost charging ought to be used 
to finance projects making transport sustainable.  

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE COUNCIL'S POSITION AT FIRST READING  

3.1 

General comments on the Council's position at first reading  

The  primary  objectives  for  the  Commission  proposal  are  to  allow  Member  States  to 
internalise  the  most  relevant  external  costs  in  the  charging  of  heavy  goods  vehicles,  and  to 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
extend  the  scope  of  the  Directive  outside  of  the  trans-European  network  (TEN).  These 
objectives have largely been achieved in the Council’s position at first reading.  

3.2 

Detailed Commission comments on the Council's position at first reading  

The  key  provisions  in  the  Council's  position,  and  the  Commission's  opinion  of  these 
provisions, are as follows:  

Council's position  

Commission Opinion 

Extension of Directive's remit to cover non-
TEN motorways (Art 2 and Art 7). 

Member States allowed to internalise external 
costs such as noise and air pollution but not 
congestion (Art 7c (1)) They can however vary 
infrastructure charge during peak hours at 
constant revenue within limits wider than in 
the current Directive(Art 7f (3)).  

Euro VI to be exempted from external costs for 
a period of 4 years after the coming into force 
of the Directive (Art 7c (3)).  

Member States may decide to exempt vehicles 
between 3.5-12 tonnes from tolls for other 
reasons than environment, congestion and 
administrative costs (Art 7 (5)). 

Proposes that funds raised by internalising 
external costs should be earmarked for 
programmes that improve the sustainability of 
the transport system, but Member States retain 
ultimate discretion on how to spend these 
funds (Art 9(2)).  

 The ability to amend most of the Annexes in 
the current Directive by means of delegated 
acts (ex-old comitology regulatory procedure) 
was removed from the proposal (Art 9b).  

Falls short of the Commission's original 
proposal to extend scope to all roads but 
still represents significant progress 

The Commission's preference would have 
been to include congestion as an external 
cost like air and noise pollution. However, 
the wider differentiation of infrastructure 
charges represents an acceptable and 
practicable second best solution to reduce 
congestion. 

In principle the Commission supports 
exempting less polluting vehicles from these 
charges but only for a fixed and limited 
period. 

The Commission's preference would have 
been for those derogations to be justified by 
objective and clearly identified reasons  

The Commission would have preferred that 
'should' be replaced with 'shall', or at the 
very minimum that there be a requirement 
that Member States report on how such 
funds raised are being spent and express a 
firmer political intention to do it in the 
transport sector, notably on the trans-
European network. The Commission would 
also have preferred not to delete the 
language of the current Directive on the use 
of the revenue of infrastructure charge. 

The Commission would prefer to retain the 
ability to amend these Annexes by means of 
delegated acts, in particular Annex III and 
the value for future Euro standards of the 
new Annex IIIb (of the Council's position).  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  Council's  position  at  first  reading  includes  the  following 
amendments  of  the  European  Parliament's  first  reading  that  were  acceptable  to  the 
Commission: 30, 34, 36, 46,  50, and 69.  Amendment  52 was also included in the Council's 
position.  Other  amendments  have  been  reflected  in  parts  inthe  Council's  position  such  as 
amendment 58 on the adjustment to inflation or part of amendment 63.  

Furthermore,  amendment  43  was  also  accepted  in  part  in  the  Council’s  position.  This 
increases the variation in tolls allowed between peak and off-peak times from 100% above the 
minimum rate to 175% above the maximum permissible average rate. This approach gives in 
practice the possibility to implement similar incentives to avoid peak time as the Parliaments 
who requested a 500% variation but only above the minimum rate.  

The  following  European  Parliament  substantive  amendments  which  were  acceptable  to  the 
Commission  were  not  integrated  in  the  Council’s  position  (most  important  ones  in  bold, 
numbers in brackets indicate the relevant EP amendments):  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Amendment to Art 7a (1) deleting language which authorises Member States to 
apply only annual rates to vehicles registered in that Member State (31). 

Amendment to proposed Art 7b (2) which authorises Member States to levy a 
congestion  charge  which  reflects  the  cost  of  congestion  and  requires  them  to 
draft action plans to combat congestion (33). 

Language  which  allows,  in  cases  where  drivers  are  not  able  to  produce 
documentation in order to verify Euro class, that any additional cost as a result 
of  this  will  be  reimbursed  if  a  driver  can,  at  a  later  date,  provide  such  proof 
(42). 

Amendment to Art 7g (2) requiring the Commission to inform the Parliament, 
and not only the Committee, as to whether a tolling arrangement is complying 
with  the  requirements  of  the  Directive  (44)  and  amendment  to  Art  7g  (4) 
requiring the Commission to transmit to the European Parliament the decisions 
which are made available to the Committee mentioned under this Article (47). 

Additional sub-point to Art 7g (3) which requires Member States to detail how 
they  intend  to  earmark  funds  raised  from  the  internalisation  of  external  costs 
(45). 

Amendment to Art 7i (5) relating to language on the use of the Galileo system. 
In particular using this system as an efficient means of collecting charges (53). 

Different language on the earmarking of external cost funds raised (55) and on 
the  use  to  which  Member  States  put  funds  raised  from  infrastructure  charges 
(56). 

Amendment  to  Art  9  (2)  requiring  that  at  least  15%  of  funds  raised  from 
internalising of external costs be ring fenced for expenditure of TEN-T projects 
(57). 

Amendment to Art 11 (2) which would request the Commission to monitor the 
gradual abolition of time-based charging systems (61).  

EN 

4 

   EN 

– 

Amendment  to  Art  11  (2)  requiring  the  Commission  to  make  a  legislative 
proposal for further revising the Directive (second part of amendment 63).  

The  following  European  Parliament  amendments  which  were  not  acceptable  to  the 
Commission were not integrated in the Council’s position: 9, 12, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 
37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 49, 54, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68.  

Finally amendment 35 which introduced a new Art 7c which exempts vehicles complying 
with  future  EURO  standards  has  been  partly  accepted  by  Council.  The  latter  has 
however  granted  a  longer  exemption  period  for  EURO  VI  vehicles  and  added  an 
exemption period for EURO V vehicles. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The Council adopted its position at first reading by qualified majority following the political 
agreement  reached  on  15  October  2010.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  Council’s 
position reflects the main objectives of its proposal and can therefore endorse it. 

EN 

5 

   EN