COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market
Date: 2012-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative formalities, exchange of information, motor vehicle, single market, vehicle registration

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 4.4.2012  
SWD(2012) 82 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying 
the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single 
Market 

{COM(2012) 164 final} 
{SWD(2012) 81 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying 
the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single 
Market 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION - OBJECTIVES 

Motor vehicle registration problems are a typical example of the bottlenecks referred 
to  in  the  Europe2020  Strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth1.  These 
problems  were  identified  in  the  first  EU  Citizenship  Report2  as  one  of  the  main 
obstacles faced by citizens when exercising their rights under EU law in their daily 
lives. Moreover, they were also highlighted as one of the 20 main concerns with the 
Single Market as it stands now, in a list compiled by the Commission3.  

The  impact  assessment  identifies  two  major  problems  regarding  the  registration  of 
motor vehicles registered in another Member State: 

(1)  When a motor vehicle is registered in one Member State and frequently used in 
another,  the  question  of  which  Member  State  the  motor  vehicle  should  be 
registered in arises. Citizens who move to another Member State, cross-border 
workers,  car-rental  companies  and  people  leasing  a  motor  vehicle  in  another 
Member State are often obliged to register it on the territory where they live or 
where the vehicle is used, although it is already registered in another Member 
State.  Traders  of  second-hand  motor  vehicles,  which  are  usually  SMEs,  are 
confronted  with  the  same  problem  when  they  purchase  a  motor  vehicle  in 
another  Member  State.  Leasing  companies  also  face  registration  problems,  at 
least if they are the holder of the registration certificate and the motor vehicle is 
used by a person established in another Member State. Finally, car-rental firms 
that  wish  to  move  a  part  of  their  fleet  to  another  Member  State  for  a  short 
period  to  meet  seasonal  demands,  are  usually  obliged  to  register  the  motor 
vehicles concerned in that Member State. 

(2) 

If  a  motor  vehicle  needs  to  be  re-registered  in  another  Member  State,  the 
administrative  formalities  to  obtain  the  registration  in  the  receiving  Member 
State  are  often  burdensome  and  cause  delays.  The  additional  burden  is 
principally caused by the fact that the registration authorities of the  receiving 
Member State have little or no information about the motor vehicle, except the 
information  found  on  the  registration  certificate.  If  the  vehicle  were  to  be  re-

1 
2 
3 

COM(2010)2020 of 3.3.2010. 
COM(2010)603 of 27.10.2010. 
See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/20concerns/publication_en.pdf. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
registered in the same Member State, registration authorities could rely on the 
information in their national databases. Currently, the re-registration of a motor 
vehicle  registered 
involves  a  number  of 
administrative  steps  and,  more  importantly,  various  new  controls  and  checks, 
the  submission  of  a  certificate  of  conformity  and  national 
such  as 
roadworthiness tests. 

in  another  Member  State 

The  general  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  single 
market through the elimination of administrative barriers related to the re-registration 
procedure of motor vehicles, which currently hinder the free movement of goods. 

The specific objectives of this initiative are: 

• 

• 

To  harmonise,  streamline,  and  simplify  the  procedures  for  re-registration  of 
motor  vehicles  previously  registered  in  another  Member  State,  for  citizens, 
employees,  employers,  car-rental  and  leasing  companies,  and  registration 
authorities; 

To  consequently  reduce  the  administrative  burdens  of  all  actors  involved 
without hindering road safety or the prevention of crimes and fraud. 

The operational objectives of this initiative are the following: 

– 

– 

– 

To  determine  in  which  Member  State  a  motor  vehicle  transferred  across 
borders within the EU should be registered; 

To reduce the time of re-registration procedures;  

To  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  citizens  and  undertakings  by  limiting 
the  number  of  documents  necessary  to  carry  out  the  re-registration  procedure 
and by facilitating data exchange between national registration authorities. 

2. 

SUBSIDIARITY 

The  cross-border  aspects  of  motor  vehicle  registration  continue  causing  problems 
within the internal market. For example, there were 17 judgements and orders of the 
Court  of  Justice  on  the  obstacles,  caused  by  motor  vehicle  registration  related 
matters, to the free movement of goods, services and persons.  

Current problems and differences in administrative rules at national level as regards 
the  re-registration  of  motor  vehicles  previously  registered  in  another  Member  State 
impede the free movement of these vehicles within the EU. The EU has therefore the 
right  to  act  on  the  basis  of  Article  114  TFEU,  in  order  to  ensure  the  proper 
functioning  of  the  single  market  for  second-hand  motor  vehicles  purchased  in 
another Member State, for citizens transferring a motor vehicle to another Member 
State of residence, for citizens using a motor vehicle registered in the Member State 
of employment, as well as for car-rental firms (and to a lesser extent leasing firms) 
which,  due  to  registration  requirements  for  themselves  or  their  client,  encounter 
barriers  for  the  cross-border  use  of  these  vehicles.  In  order  to  comply  with  the 
subsidiarity principle, the initiative should however not consider options concerning 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
the re-registrations within the same Member State, or the transfer of a motor vehicle 
within the same Member State.  

During  the  public  consultation,  a  signification  majority  in  each  category  of 
stakeholders  considered  that  action  should  be  taken  at  EU  level  to  improve  the 
current  situation.  All  public  authorities  that  contributed  to  the  consultation  are  in 
favour of action being taken at EU level. 

3. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The policy options were developed on the basis of the following assumptions: 

• 

The first registration of a new motor vehicle in the EU usually takes place in 
the  Member  State  of  residence/establishment  of  the  applicant  (i.e.  the  future 
holder  of  the  registration  certificate)  although  new  motor  vehicles  are 
sometimes  registered  by  a  motor  vehicle  dealer  in  one  Member  State  and 
subsequently purchased by a customer residing in another Member State. 

•  Member States remain free to exercise their power of taxation with respect to 
motor  vehicles  on  the  basis  of  the  territory  on  which  the  vehicle  is  actually 
used, or the residence of the driver, in accordance with EU law. For example, 
circulation taxes are levied by the Member State in which the motor vehicle is 
registered or the Member State where the vehicle is essentially used.  

• 

None of the options concerns re-registrations within the same Member State, or 
the transfer of a motor vehicle within the same Member State.  

The  policy  options  to  be  assessed  against  the  baseline  option  (i.e.  pursuing 
infringement  proceedings  and  publishing  interpretative  communications)  would  be 
the following:  

3.1. 

Option  1:  Single  registration  for  the  entire  life-cycle  of  the  motor  vehicle 
(“Single Registration”) 

Under this option, the motor vehicle is registered once in the EU for its entire life-
cycle. Motor vehicles keep their original registration until they reach the end-of-life 
status.  When  the  vehicle  is  transferred  to  a  new  holder,  the  original  registration  is 
maintained. 

This option would have vast negative impacts on road safety (roadworthiness tests), 
traffic  enforcement  and  motor  vehicle  crime,  motor  vehicle  insurance,  the  second-
hand  market  and  the  levying  of  registration  and  circulation  taxes.  It  would  have 
positive impacts on the other target groups. 

Option 1 would remove the administrative costs for businesses and citizens as well as 
for public authorities that exist in the baseline scenario. This would deliver savings 
of EUR 1,500 million annually. The profit loss would also be eliminated, because the 
vehicle could now be used without interruption. This would allow savings of around 
EUR  336  million  annually.  The  specific  costs  for  car-rental  companies  would  also 
disappear with this policy option (EUR 636 million) as they would be able to transfer 
motor vehicles across borders without constraints. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Option 2: the holder keeps his/her registration throughout the EU but a transfer 
of the vehicle to a new holder requires a new registration 

Under this option, every holder (i.e. the holder of the registration certificate) keeps 
his/her  own  registration  until  the  vehicle  is  transferred  to  another  holder.  In  other 
words,  motor  vehicles  should  not  be  re-registered  when  the  holder  changes  his/her 
residence to another Member State. In that case, however, he/she should inform the 
authorities of their new Member State which in turn should inform their counterparts 
in  the  Member  State  of  registration.  A  transfer  of  the  vehicle  to  another  holder, 
however, would require re-registration. This option was subdivided in sub-option 2a 
(no formalities), sub-option 2b (citizens moving to another Member State could keep 
their  original  vehicle  registration  but  would  have  to  inform  the  registration 
authorities of the Member State of former residence about their new residence) and 
sub-option  2c  (citizens  moving  to  another  Member  State  could  keep  their  original 
vehicle registration but would have to inform the registration authorities of their new 
Member State about their new residence). 

This  option  would  have  negative  impacts  on  road  safety  (roadworthiness  tests)  and 
traffic  enforcement,  motor  vehicle  insurance  and  motor  vehicle  taxation.  However, 
this option would have positive impacts on citizens moving to another Member State, 
cross-border  workers,  leasing  companies,  car-rental  companies  and  registration 
authorities.  It  would  have  a  neutral  impact  on  the  market  of  second-hand  motor 
vehicles and on vehicle crime. 

The estimated savings vary between EUR 2,472 million (sub-option 2a), EUR 2,385 
million (sub-option 2b) and EUR 2,343 million (sub-option 2c) annually. 

3.3. 

Option  3:  registration  in  the  Member  State  of  the  holder  of  the  vehicle  and 
simplified re-registration 

When  the  holder  moves  his/her  residence  to  another  Member  State  or  when  the 
vehicle is transferred to another holder in another Member State, the motor vehicle 
would have to be re-registered but a simplified registration procedure would apply. 
This  simplified  procedure  would  limit  the  paperwork  and  the  number  of  controls, 
through  a  detailed  list  of  documents  which  may  or  may  not  be  requested,  and  an 
explicit prohibition to request supplementary documents.  

No  negative  impacts  could  be  identified  for  this  option.  It  would  have  a  neutral 
impact on motor vehicle taxation, traffic enforcement, road safety and motor vehicle 
insurance while it would have a positive impact on the other affected groups. 

The administrative costs would be reduced because this option would eliminate the 
need  for  de-registration  and  would  reduce  the  time  and  costs  needed  for  re-
registration. In the short term public authorities would still have to carry out the de-
registration procedures.  

This option would allow savings estimated at EUR 1,171 million annually. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3.4. 

Option 4: registration in the Member State where the motor vehicle is primarily 
used and simplified re-registration 

According to this option, the motor vehicle should be registered in the Member State 
of  primary  use,  even  when  the  holder  of  the  registration  certificate  resides 
permanently  or  is  established  in  another Member  State.  The  registration  procedure, 
however, would be simplified as under option 3. 

This  option  would  have  positive  impacts  on  car-rental  companies  and  traffic 
enforcement. The main  difficulty of this option is its vagueness and the difficulties 
that  it  may  cause  in  practice,  especially  for  persons  or  businesses  that  would  use 
vehicles in different Member States. The concepts of ‘essential use on a permanent 
basis’  or  ‘actual  use  on  a  permanent  basis’  would  need  further  clarification  and  a 
very precise definition. Therefore, it would have negative impacts on citizens, cross-
border  workers,  employers,  leasing  companies  and  motor  vehicle  taxation.  This 
option  would  have  neutral  impacts  on  registration  authorities,  vehicle  crime  and 
motor vehicle insurance.  

This option would allow savings estimated at EUR 1,171 million annually. 

3.5. 

Option  5:  optimising  the  electronic  exchange  of  information  among  national 
registration authorities 

This option envisages that the technical information about the motor vehicle and the 
latest  registration  details  in  the  Member  State  of  origin  would  be  electronically 
gathered by the  registration authorities in the Member State of destination, through 
the existing ‘EUCARIS’- system. 

Option  5  would  have  positive  impacts  on  citizens  bringing  their  vehicle  into  the 
country of residence, registration authorities, vehicle crime and the market of second-
hand  motor  vehicles.  Negative  impacts  could  not  be  identified.  Finally,  this  option 
would  have  neutral  impacts  on  cross-border  workers,  leasing  companies  and  car-
rental  companies,  motor  vehicle  taxation,  traffic  enforcement  and  motor  vehicle 
insurance. 

This option would allow annual savings estimated at EUR 274 million. 

4. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

The impacts of the various options on the reduction of the administrative burden can 
be summarised as follows: 

Options 
Citizens and Businesses 
Public authorities 
Total administrative costs (A) 
Profit loss (B) 
Savings on one-way rentals costs 
Savings on loss of demand 
Peak seasonal demand savings 
Total  additional  savings  car  rental 
companies (C) 

1 

2a 

2b 

2c 

78

100

100

1,400 1,400 1,359 1,360 
56 
1,500 1,500 1,437 1,416 
336 
407 
169 
15 
591 

336
418
202
16
636

336
418
202
16
636

336
409
188
15
612

3 
890 
776 
943 
224 
0 
0 
4 
4 

5 
4 
890 133
53
29
943 162
224 112
0
0
0
0

0
0
4
4

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
TOTAL ( A+B+C) 

2,472 2,472 2,385 2,343  1,171  1,171 274

The  baseline  scenario  generates  significant  administrative  costs  and  other  costs  for 
citizens,  companies  and  public  authorities.  From  this  perspective  all  options  would 
lead to a significant improvement of the situation and a reduction of costs (especially 
administrative burden) for all actors.  

The  qualitative  impacts  of  the  options  can  be  summarised  as  follows  in  this 
qualitative comparison table: 

Options 
Target groups 
Citizens transferring 
residence 
Second-hand market 
Cross-border workers 
Leasing firms 
Car-rental firms 
Registration authorities 
Other impacts 
Roadworthiness checks 
Traffic enforcement 
Motor vehicle insurance 
Taxation issues 
Vehicle crime 
+ = positive impact 
- = negative impact 
0 = neutral impact 

1 

+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2a 

2b 

2c 

+ 

0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

- 
- 
- 
- 
0 

+ 

0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

0 
0 
- 
- 
0 

+ 

0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

0 
0 
- 
- 
0 

3 

+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

0 
0 
0 
0 
+ 

4 

0 

0 
- 
- 
+ 
0 

0 
+ 
0 
0 
0 

5 

+ 

+ 
0 
0 
0 
+ 

0 
0 
0 
0 
+ 

The table shows that none of the options address all the problems.  

A  comparison  of  the  quantifiable  and  the  non-quantifiable  impacts  leads  to  the 
following results, compared to the baseline option: 

Comparison of all impacts 

Options 

1 

2a 

2b 

2c 

3 

4 

5 

Savings (millions €) 

2,472

2,472

2,385

2,343

1,171 

1,171 

274

This leads to the preliminary finding that all options lead to considerable savings but 
also that, notwithstanding those savings, options 1, 2a, 2b and 4 show very important 
negative  impacts,  especially  as  regards  motor  vehicle  insurance  and  motor  vehicle 
taxation.  

Therefore,  it  is  recommended  to  select  only  the  policy  options  that  present  only 
positive and neutral impacts, namely: 

• 

• 

Option  3:  registration  in  the  Member  State  of  the  holder  of  the  vehicle  and 
simplified re-registration. 

Option  5:  Optimising  the  electronic  exchange  of  information  among  national 
registration authorities. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
The combination of options 3 and 5 would create relatively high savings of at least 
EUR 1,445 million and would at the same time have a positive or neutral impact on 
all target groups. 

As regards the form of the legislative instrument, the impact assessment recommends 
a regulation.  

5. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

The  different  problems  outlined  in  this  impact  assessment  are  not  yet  subject  to 
secondary EU law. Therefore, they are governed by the provisions of the TFEU. The 
national  systems  and  the  problems  encountered  by  citizens  and  businesses  are  very 
different, especially for vehicles that were previously registered in another Member 
State. Therefore, it is important to put in place a coherent monitoring and evaluation 
scheme without,  however, creating an additional administrative burden for citizens, 
businesses  and  national  registration  authorities.  Currently,  there  are  hardly  any 
precise statistics about certain target groups directly affected by the current problems 
on motor vehicle registration, especially on citizens transferring their vehicles across 
borders  or  about  the  second-hand  market.  There  are  also  no  precise  statistics  about 
the amount of difficulties and the time required for re-registration in another Member 
State. However, the ‘EUCARIS’ software application delivers statistics that could be 
used as indicators. 

It is suggested to use the following indicators and monitoring methods in view of an 
evaluation of the legislative instrument, within four years following the deadline for 
its implementation: 

Who was affected by the problems? 
Citizens  purchasing  a  second-hand 
motor vehicle in another Member State  
Citizens  moving  to  another  Member 
State with their vehicle  
Citizens  living  part  of  the  year  in 
another Member State 
Citizens  working  across  borders  with  a 
company car 
Leasing and car-rental enterprises 

National registration authorities 

All target groups 

Indicators/ method for monitoring 

- Number of complaints; 
- Number of SOLVIT cases; 
- Number of court cases; 
- Number of requests to the European 
Consumers Centres; 
- Number of re- and de-registrations; 
-Public consultation in particular on 
administrative burdens 
Survey specifically addressed to this 
sector 
Survey specifically addressed to 
national registration authorities 
EUCARIS statistics. 

EN 

8 

   EN