COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fraud, impact study, road transport, speed control, traffic control, transport safety, working conditions

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.7.2011 
SEC(2011) 947 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 
THE COUNCIL 

amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road 
transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and 
the Council 

{COM(2011) 451 final} 
{SEC(2011) 948 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 
THE COUNCIL 

amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road 
transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and 
the Council 

This  document  provides  the  executive  summary  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Report  on 
measures  enhancing  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  tachograph  system  that 
accompanies the forthcoming revision of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85.  

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

1 

2 

3 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Since 1969, the European Union (EU) has laid down social legislation in the field of 
road transport to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure 
fair  competition  among  transport  companies.  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/20061  lays 
down maximum daily and weekly driving times and minimum daily and weekly rest 
periods for drivers. The EU has developed a comprehensive policy on inspecting and 
checking  compliance  with  social  road  transport  legislation  through  Directive 
2006/22/EC2  and  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3821/853,  referred  to  as  ‘the 
Tachograph Regulation’.  

The Tachograph Regulation sets technical standards, establishes the rules on the use, 
type approval, installation and inspection of tachographs. It therefore creates a range 
of  legal  obligations  for  manufacturers,  authorities,  transport  operators  and  drivers. 
For  the  time  being,  two  types  of  recording  equipment  are  in  use.  In  addition  to  a 
digital tachograph introduced in vehicles registered after 1 May 2006, the analogue 
tachograph has been in use since 1985 and is still used in older vehicles.  

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of 
certain  social  legislation  relating  to  road  transport  and  amending  Council  Regulations  (EEC)  No 
3821/85  and  (EC)  No  2135/98  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3820/85  OPJ  L  102, 
11.4.2006, p.1-13. 
Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on  minimum conditions for the 
implementation  of  Council  Regulations  (EEC)  No  3820/85  and  (EEC)  No  3821/85  concerning  social 
legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC OJ L 102, 
11.3.2006. p. 35-43. 
Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1266/2009  of  16  December  2009  adapting  for  the  tenth  time  to 
technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ 
L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 3–23. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

On the basis of the consultations and expert reports undertaken4, the Commission has 
identified two main problems that needs to be tackled at EU level: 

•  According  to  data  available,  a  significant  share  of  controlled  vehicles  is  found 
breaching  the  social  rules.  Roughly  one  fourth  of  these  are  found  breaching 
tachograph  rules  in  particular.  On  average,  at  any  point  in  time,  around  45 000 
vehicles  are  in  breach  of  EU  tachograph  rules.  Such  persistent  non-compliance 
with obligations for minimum rest periods and the resulting driver fatigue can be 
estimated to produce an increase in the societal cost of accidents of close to €2.8 
billion. It also gives undue competitive advantage to those breaking the law, with 
negative  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  causing  severe 
health implications for the drivers. 

•  There  is  room  to  improve  further  the  way  in  which  the  (digital)  tachograph 
facilitates  drivers’  work  and  supports  transport  efficiency.  Although  the 
introduction  of  the  digital  tachograph  has  already  substantially  reduced  the 
administrative  burden  on  the  various  stakeholders,  the  cost  of  compliance, 
estimated to be approximately €2.7 billion, is still too high.  

(4) 

(5) 

These two problems are driven by the overall vulnerability of the tachograph system 
to fraud; low effectiveness of controls and insufficient dissuasive effect of sanctions; 
and  finally,  the  use  of  the  tachograph  system  is  not  sufficiently  optimised.  The 
problem areas behind each of the three drivers are listed in Table 1 below.  

While the problems identified primarily affect the drivers of heavy duty vehicles, and 
firms  using  the  tachograph,  the  Member  States  and  their  inspection  authorities, 
tachograph manufacturers and other road users are also impacted. 

Table 1 Synoptic table of drivers and problem areas 

4 

These  include  consultation  within  the  designated  Committee  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders 
(including  inspection  and  police  organisations  as  well  as  manufacturers);  the  SMART  Project;  the 
report of the Joint Research Centre; the public stakeholder consultation from December 2009 to March 
2010; the consultation of the sectoral social dialogue committee on road transport, and an independent 
expert report validated by an expert panel of relevant organisations. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Identified drivers 

Problem areas 

Driver 1: Vulnerability of the tachograph 
system 

Driver 2: Low effectiveness of controls and 
insufficient dissuasive effect of sanctions 

Seals do not perform properly as an indicator 
of tachograph manipulation  

Vulnerabilities of encryption technology 

Misuse of driver cards 

Fraudulent or negligent workshops 

Non-harmonised 
officers 

training  of  enforcement 

Scope  of  data  from  the  digital  tachograph 
available to enforcement officers 

Sanctions policy 

Inadequate  provisions  of  the  Tachograph 
Regulation 

Driver 3: The use of the tachograph system is 
not sufficiently optimised  

Technical 
tachograph 

limitations 

of 

the 

digital 

Tachograph  does  not  sufficiently  facilitate 
drivers’ work 

2. 

(6) 

(7) 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

This impact assessment is concerned with measures to enhance the effectiveness and 
efficiency  of  the  tachograph  system  used  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  above 
mentioned social legislation. It explores and analyses options for revising Regulation 
(EEC)  No  3821/85,  which  is  based  on  Article  71  of  the  EEC  Treaty  (91  of  the 
TFUE).  The  EU  added  value  was  established  when  this  Regulation  was  introduced 
and the arguments which substantiate this added value still hold.  

These  arguments  are  predicated  upon  the  ever-increasing  reality  that  road  transport 
within  the  EU  is  transnational  in  nature. This  is  because  of  increasing  cross-border 
trade and economic growth, which have in part been facilitated by EU enlargement 
and  the  liberalisation  of  the  road  haulage  industry  in  Europe.  Social  legislation  is 
harmonised  at  EU  level,  and  verifying  compliance  with  this  legislation  requires 
recording  equipment  to  be  interoperable  between  Member  States.  Given  the 
increasingly  transnational  nature  of  road  freight  transport  in  the  EU  and  the 
harmonised  nature  of  social  legislation,  it  would  not  be  desirable  to  revert  to 
regulating  recording  equipment  at  national  level  —  not  least  because  this  kind  of 
regulation has been carried out at EU level for the past 25 years. 

(8) 

As  regards  sanctions,  the  Commission  report  on  penalties5  showed  the  divergences 
between  sanctions  applied  by  Member  States  for  infringements  against  the 
Tachograph Regulation. The manipulation of tachographs is already classified by the 

5 

COM(2009)225. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EU  legislation  as  one  of  ‘the  most  serious infringements’ within the broader list of 
infringements  to  commercial  road  transport  rules6.  But  without  harmonising  a 
minimum degree of deterrent effect of sanctions imposed by Member States, such a 
classification does not necessarily lead to strict compliance with rules, as companies 
react to actual sanctions and not to the classification of infringements.  

OBJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE 

The  overall  aims  of  road  transport  social  legislation  (the  rules  on  driving  time  and 
rest  periods)  are  to  improve  road  safety  and  drivers’  working  conditions  and  to 
ensure fair competition between transport companies. The social legislation in road 
transport is therefore an essential element of the Common Transport Policy to attain 
Treaty  goals  such  as  improving  transport  safety  (Article  91.1(c)  TFUE7),  social 
progress  (Article  3.3  TEU8)  and  establishing  an  internal  market  (Article  3.3  TEU). 
The  Tachograph  Regulation  is  the  main  tool  for  monitoring  and  enforcing 
compliance with the social legislation on road transport, and the general goal of the 
proposals which accompany this impact assessment includes the contribution to the 
abovementioned Treaty goals. 

At the same time, the intention of the Commission is also to contribute to the goals 
set  out  by  the  Communication  on  Better  Regulation  for  Growth  and  Jobs  in  the 
European  Union9  and  the  Strategy  for  the  simplification  of  the  regulatory 
environment10.  The  proposals  should  also  contribute  to  the  goal  ‘to  reduce 
administrative burden on companies, and improve the quality of business legislation’ 
set  out  in  the  Europe  2020  flagship  initiative  ‘An  industrial  policy  for  the 
globalisation era’.11  

This general objective can be translated into the following specific objectives: first, 
to  improve  the  trustworthiness  of  the  recording  equipment;  second,  to  increase  the 
efficiency of the checks on compliance with social legislation on road transport; and 
third,  to  reduce  the  costs  of  using  the  recording  equipment,  partly  by  reducing  the 
administrative burden related to its use.  

Some data concerning road transport are collected at an EU level and could be used 
for monitoring the impact of the proposed regulation on the specific objectives listed 
above12.  In  this  context,  the  following  operational  objectives  were  chosen  for  their 
usefulness in indicating the level of achievement of the specific objectives: 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  common 
rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator 
and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC OJ L300, 12.11.2009, p.51-71. 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Treaty on European Union. 
Communication from the Commission, Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union, 
COM(2005) 97 final. 
Communication of the Commission, Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: A strategy for 
the simplification of the regulatory environment, COM(2005) 535 final. 
Communication  of  the  Commission,  An  Integrated  Industrial  Policy  for  the  Globalisation  Era  — 
Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage, COM(2010)614. 
Cf. notably Eurostat statistics and EU energy and transport in figures. 

3. 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

6 

7 
8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Eliminate  the  ‘most  serious  infringements’13  against  tachograph  rules  by  2020 
(monitored  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  future  reports  submitted  by 
Member States for the bi-annual report); 

•  Double  by  2020  the  detection  rate  of  infringements  of  social  legislation  per 
vehicle  controlled  in  a  roadside  check  compared  to  2008  (monitored  by  the 
Commission on the basis of the future reports submitted by Member States for the 
bi-annual report); 

•  Reduce  the  administrative  burden  related  to  the  use  of  the  digital  tachograph  by 
20 %  before  2020  compared  to  2010  (based  on  the  estimations  provided  by  the 
Stoiber  Group  and  the  EU  project  on  baseline  measurements  and  reduction  of 
administrative costs14). 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

(13) 

(14) 

The  stakeholder  consultations  and  expert  reports  on  the  topic15  allowed  the 
Commission  to  identify  a  broad  set  of  individual  measures  having  the  potential  to 
address  the  problems  identified.  This  was  followed  by  a  pre-screening  of  possible 
measures.  

Thereafter  policy  packages  have  been  established  that  constitute  viable  policy 
alternatives for achieving the objectives. Forming policy packages was needed as, in 
terms of security, the trustworthiness of the system depends on the security of many 
of  its  elements;  and  because  different  legislative  procedures  were  required 
(comitology  vs  co-decision).  The  policy  packages  can  be  described  in  brief  as 
follows:  

•  Policy Package 1 (PP1) is a technical package aiming simply at improvements to 

the current tachograph device. 

•  Policy Package 2 (PP2) is also a package of technical measures, but which would 
substantially widen the functionalities of the digital tachograph, leading to a new 
type of digital tachograph.  

•  Policy  Package  3  (PP3)  includes  non-technical  measures  in  addition  to  the 

measures in PP1.  

•  Policy  Package  4  (PP4)  is  a  combination  of  technical  and  system  improvement 

measures (PP2+PP3).  

(15) 

Table  2  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  policy  measures  included  in  each  policy 
package. 

13 

14 
15 

The  most  serious  infringements  are  defined  in  Annex  IV  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009:  ‘2.  Not 
having a tachograph and/or speed limiter, or using a fraudulent device able to modify the records of the 
recording equipment and/or the speed limiter or falsifying record sheets or data downloaded from the 
tachograph and/or the driver card; (…) 6. Driving with a driver card that has been falsified, or with a 
card of which the driver is not the holder, or which has been obtained on the basis of false declarations 
and/or forged documents.’. 
Cap Gemini, EU project on baseline measurements and reduction of administrative costs, 2009. 
Ibid footnote 4. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 2 Detailed content of policy packages 

Policy Package 1 
(PP1) 

Policy Package 2 
(PP2) 

Policy Package 3 
(PP3)  

Policy Package 4 
(PP4)  

Legal 
instrument(s) 

Roadmap for 
adaptation of 
technical 
specifications 

Roadmap for 
adaptation of 
technical 
specifications 

Review of Regulation 
3821/85 to add new 
functional 
requirements  

Review of Regulation 
3821/85 only to add 
new rules on the use 
and inspection of 
tachographs 

Roadmap for 
adaptation of 
technical 
specifications 

Review of Regulation 
3821/85  

Content of 
Policy 
Packages 

Encryption 
technology 

Seals  

Interface with the 
users 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

PP2 + PP3  

PP1 +  

Tachograph functions 
(automatic and 
manual recording)  

Wireless 
communication for 
roadside checks 

Interface with other 
ITS applications 

PP1 + 

Workshops 

Driver cards 

Sanctions 

Training of control 
officers 

Rules on use  

(16) 

Table 3 below summarises the assessment of the economic, social and environmental 
impacts. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 Summary table of impacts 

Impacts 

Policy package 1 

Policy Package 2 

Policy Package 3 

Policy Package 4 

Compliance 
legislation 

with 

social 

Economic impacts 

Functioning  of 
the 
Market and competition 

Internal 

and 

delayed 
Small 
improvement 
to 
tachograph fraud (1/4 of all social 
legislation offences) 

limited 

and 

delayed 
Small 
improvement 
to 
tachograph fraud (1/4 of all social 
legislation offences) 

limited 

Impact  of  PP1  +  large  potential 
improvement  

Impact of PP1 + large potential 
improvement 

Impact  of  PP1  +  large  potential 
improvement 

Great uncertainty as to the scale 
of results (trade-offs with budget 
implications) 

Great uncertainty as to the scale 
of results (trade-offs with budget 
implications) 

Less  uncertainty  of  results  than 
for  PP2  and  PP3  (large  trade-
offs with budget implications) 

Same assessment as for compliance with social legislation 

Competitiveness 

Positive 
manufacturers 

for 

tachograph 

Very  positive  for 
manufacturers 

tachograph 

Positive 
manufacturers  

for 

tachograph 

Very  positive  for 
manufacturers 

tachograph 

Uncertain for workshops 

Uncertain for workshops 

Positive 
transport 
which 
principal activity 

for  undertakings 
is  not 

for 
the 

Positive 
transport 
which 
principal activity 

for  undertakings 
is  not 

for 
the 

Administrative burden and SMEs  Negligible 

- €

 383.5 million 

- €

 142 million 

- €

 515.5 million 

Budgetary 
authorities 

impacts  on  public 

Minor negative at EU level 

Impact  of  PP1  +  Potentially 
negative  (up  to  €7  500 000)  at 
national  level  but  depending  on 
the  choices  of  MS  (trade-offs 
with other impacts) 

Potentially large negative (up to 
€7500  000)  at  national  level  but 
depending  on  the  choices  of  MS 
(trade-offs with other impacts) 

Impact  of  PP1  +  potentially 
largest negative at national level 
but  depending  on  the  choices  of 
MS 
other 
(trade-offs  with 
impacts) 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Small positive effect of sanctions  Small positive effect of sanctions 

Social impacts 

Working  conditions,  health  and 
lifestyle of drivers 

Positive  but  delayed 
through 
increased  user  friendliness  of  the 
device 

Same assessment as for compliance with social legislation 

Road safety 

Positive  but  delayed 
easier access while driving 

through 

Same assessment as for compliance with social legislation 

Crime and security 

Minor impact 

Small positive impact thanks to more appropriate fines 

Fundamental rights 

No impact 

Marginal negative impact on the freedom to conduct a business 

Environmental impacts 

Marginal positive 

Impact on specific regions 

Larger impact of all measures for undertakings from MS with high wages (EU-15), high share of self-employed. 

Larger impact for Member States with a large transport sector or high share of transport undertakings in the economy (Germany, Poland, Spain, 
Netherlands, Romania, Lithuania, Czech Republic) 

Greater  effects  of  more  appropriate  sanctions  in  Member  States  with 
low severity of sanction today 

Third countries 

Delayed but similar impacts on AETR countries. 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

COMPARISON OF POLICY PACKAGES 

(17) 

PP0 

PP1 

PP2 

PP3 

PP4 

(18) 

As shown on Table 4 below, it has been found that, from an effectiveness point of 
view,  PP4  is  by  far  the  most  attractive  as  it  offers  the  highest  potential  level  of 
achievement of the two specific goals. However, the coherence analysis shows that 
PP4  also  presents  the  highest  trade-offs  between  positive  economic  and  social 
impacts on the one hand, and budgetary impacts on public authorities on the other. In 
terms  of  coherence,  PP1  ranks  highest.  Finally,  PP4  is  also  the  most  expensive  in 
terms of investment needed, while PP1 is the cheapest and the easiest to implement, 
since it can be adopted without going through the normal legislative procedure. 

Table 4  Comparison of Policy Options 

Weighted effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

- 

Fairly low 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

- 

No cost 

 7.5 million 

€39 million 

- 

High 

Trade-offs 

Trade-offs 

 46.5 million 

Highest trade-offs 

Taking all these aspects into consideration, and in the absence of a full cost-benefit 
analysis,  the  positive  effects  of  PP4  seem  to  far  outweigh  its  costs.  Indeed,  the 
 515.5 million, well above 
administrative burden reduction potential of PP4 alone is €
the total costs of its full implementation. Therefore the analysis performed suggests 
that Policy Package 4 should be the preferred option. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

(19) 

The Commission will monitor a set of indicators as shown on Table 5. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
€
€
 
Table 5 Monitoring indicators 

Operational objectives 

Monitoring 

Eliminate the ‘most serious infringements’against 
tachograph rules by 2020 

Double by 2020 the detection rate of infringements of 
social legislation per vehicle controlled in a roadside 
check compared to 2008  

Reduce the administrative burden related to the use of 
the digital tachograph by 20% before 2020 compared to 
2010  

The monitoring will be performed by using 
information that Member States have to 
communicate every two years to the Commission 
pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006 

The monitoring will be performed by using 
information that Member States have to 
communicate every two years to the Commission 
pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006 

Use of technical upgrades of tachograph 
equipment will be monitored through discussions 
with interested parties and based on the 
estimations provided by the Stoiber Group and 
the EU project on baseline measurements and 
reduction of administrative costs 

EN 

10 

   EN