COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the application of national road infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: electronic device, electronic money, expressway, free competition, motor car, road transport tariff, toll

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.5.2012  
COM(2012) 199 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application of national road infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application of national road infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The general objective of the European Union's Transport Policy presented in the White Paper 
on  Transport1  is  "to  help  establish  a  system  that  underpins  European  economic  progress, 
enhances  competitiveness  and  offers  high-quality  mobility  services  while  using  resources 
more efficiently". In practice, users of the transport system have, inter alia, to make better use 
of  the  infrastructure  and  reduce  its  negative  impact  on  the  environment.  Correct  pricing, 
applying the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principle, is one of the ways of making users of 
the transport network aware of the impact of their mobility  choices. A modern road pricing 
system, aiming to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the White paper, is expected 
to: 

– 

– 

– 

contribute  to  fair  competition  between  modes  of  transport  through  fair  and 
transparent  mechanisms  for  charging  infrastructure  costs  to  users  ("user-pays" 
principle); 

prevent  any  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  among  users  depending  on  their 
nationality or place of residence; 

promote  the  principles  of  sustainable  development  by  applying  harmonised, 
transparent mechanisms for charging external costs like emissions, noise, congestion, 
accidents, etc. which are usually borne by the entire society, to users ("polluter-pays" 
principle) and  

– 

contribute to financing high quality infrastructure.  

The  White  Paper  outlines  the  Commission's  intention  to  propose  mandatory  measures  to 
achieve  the  internalisation  of  the  main  external  costs  of  transport  covering  noise,  local 
pollution and congestion in 2020 horizon. This requires, inter alia, restructuring road charges 
which is scheduled in two phases. In the first phase up to 2016, the phasing in of a mandatory 
infrastructure  charge  for  heavy  goods  vehicles  is  envisaged.  The  mandatory  infrastructure 
charge necessary for laying strong foundations for the subsequent internalisation of external 
costs,  has  to  be  harmonised  across  the  EU  regarding  tariff  structure,  cost  components, 
collection  method  and  revenue  earmarking.  Furthermore,  the  compatibility  with  the  EU 
Treaties of existing road charging schemes for cars has to be evaluated and the guidelines for 
the  application  of  internalisation  of  external  costs  to  all  vehicles  developed.  In  the  second 
phase  2016  –  2020,  the  White  Paper  foresees  full  and  mandatory  internalisation  of  external 

1 

White  Paper  on  transport  "Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  –  Towards  a  Competitive 
and Resource-Efficient Transport System", COM (2011)144 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
costs for heavy goods vehicles with the possibility to extend it to all vehicles, on top of the 
mandatory recovery of infrastructure (wear and tear) costs.  

While there are EU secondary rules concerning road charges levied on heavy goods vehicles 
with total permissible mass of more than 3.5 tonnes2, the only rules concerning the charging 
of  light  private  vehicles3,  light  commercial  vehicles  with  total  permissible  mass  of  no  more 
than  3.5  tonnes,  buses  and  coaches  stem  directly  from  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union. The Member States usually apply the same charging scheme with the same 
rates4 to light commercial vehicles used in transport for hire or reward, or for own account as 
for  light  private  vehicles,  since  there  is  no  significant  difference  between  these  types  of 
vehicles as regards average infrastructure usage patterns and administrative costs of operating 
the  scheme.  Although  the  present  Communication  can  be  applied  to  light  commercial 
vehicles, it does not pretend to cover all the possible issues related to the levy of road charges 
on  commercial  transport.  The  present  Communication  is  not  related  to  buses  and  coaches 
either. These vehicles are normally covered by the same charging schemes as for heavy goods 
vehicles. 

The present Communication, as a part of the broader strategy on road charging outlined in the 
White Paper, aims to clarify the Commission's understanding of how the general principles of 
non-discrimination and proportionality of the Treaty are to be applied to a vignette system for 
light private vehicles. It also provides guidance on the application of such vignette system.  

The Communication does not create new legislative rules. The binding interpretation of EU 
law is ultimately the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 

2. 

EXISTING CHARGING SYSTEMS 

In the absence of any EU legislation in this field, the Member States are, in principle, free to 
put in place a system of national road infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles 
(vignette system). They may namely lay down the rules which govern the functioning of such 
a system provided that these national measures respect the fundamental principles of the EU 
Treaties, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the 
principle of proportionality. 

Several cases referred to the Commission have shown, however, that these principles are not 
always  adhered  to.  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  the  Commission  is  not 
considering putting forward any proposals for legislation in this respect. On the other hand, it 
feels the time has come to set out and clarify EU law as currently applicable pursuant to the 
TFUE and the case law of the ECJ. It is for the Commission, in accordance with its duties and 
responsibilities  under  article  17  of  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  to  ensure  that  these 
principles are enforced for the benefit of Europe and of its citizens. 

By publishing this Communication, the Commission is conducting an exercise in transparency 
and clarification of the EU rules which it is required to enforce. It is proposing to all Member 

2 

3 

4 

Directive  1999/62/EC  on  charging  of  heavy  goods  vehicles  for  the  use  of  certain  infrastructures,  as 
amended; known as the "Eurovignette" Directive  
Passenger cars, motorcycles and other motor vehicles with total permissible mass of no more than 3.5 
tonnes predominantly used for private purposes 
The only exception is Romania which applies different vignette rates to light goods vehicles.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States  concerned  a  reference  instrument  that  spells  out  the  framework  in  which  a  vignette 
system would guarantee the respect of fundamental principles of EU law.  

Until now, seven EU Member States have taken the advantage of the freedom to put in place a 
vignette system for light private vehicles5. The current levies applied on light private vehicles 
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  mix  of  instruments  is 
more  diverse  and  includes  road  user  charges  to  recover  infrastructure  costs  from  motorists 
using motorways. User charges take the form of time-based charges (vignettes) often levied 
on  the  full  primary  network,  or  distance-based  charges  (tolls)  levied  on  individual  road 
sections frequently equipped by toll barriers. 

National vignettes are paid by light private vehicles in return for the right to use the main road 
network  for  a  certain  period.  Nevertheless,  the  numerous  complaints  that  the  Commission 
keeps receiving show that the implementation of vignette systems for light private vehicles, if 
not designed carefully, may raise practical problems by creating hindrance to the free flow of 
traffic,  especially  in  cross-border  regions,  and  lead  to  inadequate  enforcement  practices.  It 
may  also  lead  to  risks  of  potential  discrimination  of  occasional  users,  mainly  motorists 
coming from other Member States, who may not be offered shorter-term vignettes or may be 
offered  shorter-term  vignettes  at  an  equivalent  daily  rate  substantialy  higher  than  the  rate 
applied  to  annual  vignettes  which  are  mainly  used  by  resident  users.  This  may  be  seen  as 
disproportionate. 

The  application  of  the  vignette  systems  varies  between  Member  States  and  these  variations 
may give rise to potential shortcomings. On the other hand, tolling systems for light private 
vehicles  do  not  entail  the  same  problems  as  vignette  systems,  as  tolls  are  distance-based 
charges,  directly  linked  to  the  use  of  infrastructure  and  therefore  less  likely  to  be 
discriminatory. Moreover, electronic tolling systems allow for the free-flow of traffic, without 
users having to stop at toll barriers. 

After a careful analysis of the vignette systems applied to light private vehicles in the EU6, the 
Commission  has  decided  to  produce  the  present  Communication  to  assist  those  Member 
States  which  intend  to  introduce  a  new  vignette  system  for  light  private  vehicles  or  which 
wish to further develop existing systems, in line with the EU principles. 

3. 

EU TREATY PRINCIPLES 

The  basic  rules  under  EU  law  that  are  particularly  relevant  are  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the principle of proportionality. 

3.1. 

Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality 

Although there is no EU legislation that specifies rules for charging private vehicles, Member 
States have to respect the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 

5 

6 

Vignette  systems  for  light  passenger  vehicles  are  currently  applied  in  seven  EU  Member  States  - 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Hungary,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  Romania.  Other  Member  States 
(e.g. Belgium) are planning to implement such systems 
See  also  the  Study  "Assessment  of  Vignette  Systems  for  Private  Vehicles  applied  in  Member  States" 
(Booz & Co 2010) and "Study on Impacts of application of the Vignette systems to Private Vehicles" 
(Booz & Co 2012) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/road_charging/charging_private_vehicles_en.htm 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
when introducing vignettes for such vehicles. Any discrimination of EU citizens on grounds 
of nationality is prohibited by Article 18 of the Treaty which provides that: "Within the scope 
of  application  of  the  Treaties,  and  without  prejudice  to  any  special  provisions  contained 
therein,  any  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  shall  be  prohibited.  The  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure, 
may adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination". In accordance with ECJ case-law7, 
Article  18  of  the  Treaty  also  prohibits  unequal  treatment  which  is  not  explicitly  tied  to 
nationality but which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, leads in fact to the 
same  result  (indirect  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality).  Since  the  Treaty  does  not 
contain  any  special  provisions  concerning  private  transport,  any  vignette  system  for  light 
private vehicles should accordingly be assessed in the light of Article 18 of the Treaty. 

3.2. 

Proportionality 

Any vignette system applied by a Member State would operate to the detriment of nationals 
of the other Member States, if it penalised non-resident drivers who use its road network only 
on  an  occasional  basis,  by  failing  to  provide  a  charge  for  short-term  usage  or  transit  of  the 
road infrastructure. 

A  national  measure  that  is  equally  applicable  to  nationals  or  residents  and  non-nationals  or 
non-residents  may  also  constitute  a  discriminatory  measure  (indirect  discrimination).  Such 
discrimination might nevertheless be justified by an overriding reason of general interest e.g. 
the improvement of traffic flows and/or reduction of environmental costs/damage. However, 
it  has  to  be  emphasised  that  such  measures  should  constitute  a  proportionate  means  of 
achieving the objectives of general interest, meaning in particular that the objective pursued 
by the measure cannot be achieved by other measures that are less onerous. In other words, 
the measures adopted in order to implement such objectives must satisfy the proportionality 
test. A useful indication can be drawn from the situation ECJ analysed in its judgment of case 
Cura Anlagen8, in which the Court held that even if there was no doubt that a consumption 
tax may be intended to serve the general interest of discouraging the purchase or possession of 
vehicles  with heavy fuel consumption, the Court considered that such a tax was contrary to 
the  principle  of  proportionality  in  so  far  as  the  aim  which  it  pursues  might  be  achieved  by 
introducing a tax proportionate to the duration of the registration of the vehicle in the State 
where it is used. 

The Commission analysed in 1996 a proposal for a vignette system envisaged by Austria. In 
its opinion9, the Commission concluded that in addition to initially envisaged yearly and bi-
monthly  vignettes,  at  least  a  weekly  vignette  should  also  be  offered  in  order  not  to 
discriminate tourists and non-residents who are typical occasional users. Subsequently, most 
other  Member  States  followed  the  Austrian  model  with  their  vignette  schemes  with  the 
exception  of  Slovenia  which  introduced  a  very  different  vignette  scheme  in  2008.  The 
Slovenian  scheme  proved  to  have  some  shortcomings  that  led  to  the  opening  of  an 
infringement  procedure  in  October  2008.  The  Commission  was  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Slovenian vignette system, as originally introduced, was likely to operate to the detriment of 
nationals of Member States other than Slovenia as it only made available annual and half-year 
vignettes  for  passenger  cars  and  motorcycles  for  use  of  its  motorway  networks.  The 

7 
8 

9 

C-398/92 Mund & Fester v. Hatrex International Transport, 1994 ECR 467, especially paragraph 14 
Judgment of the Court of 21 March 2002, Case C-451/99, Cura Anlagen GmbH v Auto Service Leasing 
GmbH (ASL), ECR 2002 Page I-03193. 
K(96) 2166 of 30 July 1996 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commission assessed that this was indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. Slovenia 
consequently introduced weekly and monthly vignettes in July 2009 in addition to the annual 
vignettes for passenger cars. Therefore, the Commission's initial concerns that the system was 
indirectly  discriminatory  towards  nationals  of  other  Member  States  using  the  Slovenian 
motorway  network  only  occasionally  were  addressed  and  the  infringement  case  closed 
accordingly. 

On  the  basis  of  the  existing  ECJ  case-law  and  the  two  cases  mentioned  above,  the 
Commission  considers  that  a  vignette  system  could  for  example  provide  for  three  or  more 
types  of  vignettes  –  "weekly"  (7  –  14  days),  "monthly"  (30  –  60  days)  and  "annual"  (one 
calendar  year),  in  order  to  be  considered  non-discriminatory.  Currently,  all  Member  States 
which apply a vignette system to light private vehicles provide these three types of vignettes, 
including short-term vignettes which are valid for a period varying between 7 and 10 days. 

4. 

GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL VIGNETTE SYSTEMS 

On the basis of the received complaints and analytical studies, the Commission proposes the 
present guidance on the following points: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the availability of proportionately-priced vignettes; 

proper access to information; 

the collection of fees and their payment; 

an appropriate enforcement practice; 

which might be considered as relevant for non-discriminatory application of vignette systems 
for light private vehicles. The guidance is not based on any ECJ case-law and constitutes the 
Commission's reflections on existing queries related to the application of the vignette systems. 

4.1. 

Availability of proportionately-priced vignettes 

An objection could be made as a matter of EU law that the price of a short-term vignette is set 
at such a high level relative to a long-term (annual) vignette that it effectively penalises non-
resident drivers and could thus be indirectly discriminatory. In order to help identify at what 
point  a  significant  disproportion  can  be  said  to  exist,  the  price  of  vignettes  may  also  be 
considered on an average daily basis, that is, the price of the vignette divided by the number 
of days it offers access to the vignette system. The lower is the ratio between average daily 
price for short-term and long-term vignettes, the closer is the per diem value of a short-term 
vignette  to  that  of  a  long-term  one,  leading  to  a  price  that  does  not  discriminate  indirectly 
against  occasional  users10.  The  table  in  Annex  gives  the  information  about  current  vignette 
rates available in the Member States which apply a vignette system for light private vehicles. 

The Commission however acknowledges that some difference between average daily price for 
long-term and short-term vignettes could be justified mainly by the following:  

10 

For example, the average daily price of the shortest period vignette (10 day vignette) for Austria is 0.8 € 
(i.e. 8 € divided by 10 days); the average daily price of the longest period vignette (annual vignette) for 
Austria is 0.21 € (i.e. 77.80 € divided by 365 days). Consequently, the ratio between average daily price 
for  short-term  and  long-term  vignettes  is  0.8/0.21  =  3.8.  See  also  Table  5-4  on  page  24  in  the  study 
"Assessment of Vignette Systems for Private Vehicles applied in Member States" (Booz & Co 2010)  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

the  administrative  costs  of  operating  the  vignette  system  and  processing  each 
transaction, which also include the cost of production, provision of user information, 
actual  distribution  and  sale  of  the  vignettes  and  enforcement  of  the  scheme.  A 
vignette  system  should  at  least  generate  sufficient  revenue  to  cover  these  costs.  If 
several categories of vignettes are put into place, it is reasonable, as a consequence, 
to adapt administrative costs accordingly; 

the  difference  in  usage  of  the  vignette  charged  road  network.  It  seems  to  be 
reasonable to consider the prices for vignettes as a form of proxy for infrastructure 
usage based on the average amount of road use over the period of different vignettes. 
Whilst  longer  period  vignettes  reflect  greater  total  usage,  it  is  not  a  linear 
relationship. For example, a purchaser of an annual vignette who is a commuter may 
use  the  vignette  as  often  as  500  times  a  year,  for  relatively  short  trips,  if  using  a 
motorway for the commute (twice a day 250 times a year). However, a purchaser of 
an  annual  vignette  for  regular  leisure  trips  may  use  the  network  for  far  fewer  trips 
than the commuter, but for longer distances. 

The Commission therefore suggests that a vignette system, in order to be proportionate, offer 
a  short-term  vignette  at  a  price  proportionate  to  the  annual  vignette,  taking  into  account 
differences  in  administrative  costs  for  each  type  of  vignette  (or  flat  administrative  costs)  in 
combination with average infrastructure usage related to each type of vignette11. 

The Commission in its opinion of 1996 to Austria acknowledged that the handling of short-
term vignettes might have generated additional administrative costs. At the same time, it was 
underlined that economies of scale would have allowed that short-term vignettes do not need 
to  be  disproportionately  expensive.  Given  an  envisaged  price  for  an  annual  vignette  of  42 
ECU  for  vehicles  below  3.5  tonnes,  it  was  concluded  that  the  price  for  the  weekly  vignette 
had to be set at below 6 ECU to comply with the requirement of proportionality. By taking 
into account the occurring administrative costs, the price for the newly introduced Austrian 10 
day vignette was thus set at a value corresponding to approximately 5 ECU. 

Furthermore,  rules  concerning  the  price  proportionality  between  short-term  and  long-term 
vignettes for heavy goods vehicles already exist in Article 7a(1) of Directive 1999/62/EC on 
the  charging  of  heavy  goods  vehicles  for  the  use  of  certain  infrastructures12  (the 
"Eurovignette"  Directive)  which  provides  that  "User  charges  shall  be  proportionate  to  the 
duration of the use made of the infrastructure, not exceeding the values stipulated in Annex II, 
and shall be valid for a day, week, month or a year. The monthly rate shall be no more than 
10% of the annual rate, the weekly rate shall be no more than 5% of the annual rate and the 
daily rate shall be no more than 2% of the annual rate…" Given that the vignette systems for 
both heavy goods vehicles and light private vehicles are largely managed in the same way and 
that  there  is  practically  no  difference  in  the  product,  selling  methods  and  enforcement,  one 
can assume that consequently there should be no significant difference in administrative costs. 
Although there might be a difference in average infrastructure usage patterns, Member States 
might consider it appropriate to apply the same charging principles when setting vignette rates 
for private vehicles as for heavy goods vehicles.  

11 

12 

An  example  of  the  methodology  for  the  calculation  of  proportionate  vignette  prices  is  described  in 
"Study on Impacts of application of the Vignette systems to Private Vehicles" (Booz & Co 2012) 
OJ  L  187,  20.7.1999,  p.  42,  as  amended  by  Directive  2006/38/EC  (OJ  L  157,  9.6.2006,  p.  8)  and 
Directive 2011/76/EU (OJ L 269, 14.10.2011, p. 1) 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Proper access to information 

In order to avoid possible discrimination of non-resident occasional users, it is important that 
the latter are supplied with sufficient information about the requirement to buy a vignette in 
advance  of  accessing  the  road  network  subject  to  charges.  The  information  concerning  the 
requirement to  buy a vignette  might  thus be made available in tourist publicity material, on 
easily  accessible  websites  and  any  other  spots  which  the  Member  States  may  deem 
appropriate. In order to be helpful, this information would explain this requirement, if need be 
in  the  languages  of  neighbouring  Member  States  and  other  main  European  languages,  and 
present different options for purchase of the relevant vignette. 

Road  signage  is  also  an  important  element  providing  the  necessary  information  before  the 
user  enters  the  charged  network,  increasing  the  transparency  of  the  system.  The  signage 
should ideally be, in addition to the national language(s), also in the language of the bordering 
Member State(s) and in one or more widely used European languages. It would indicate the 
price,  means  of  payment  and  directions  to  the  nearest  retail  outlet  for  purchase,  as  well  as 
information on penalties. This should be part of an overall policy that focuses on encouraging 
motorists to purchase vignettes, rather than subsequently catching and fining violators of the 
system.  

Similarly,  in  order  to  better  inform  motorists  seeking  to  purchase  vignettes,  information  at 
retail outlets or self-serve kiosks would indicate: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

which types of vehicles are liable to purchase a vignette; 

the roads for which vignettes are compulsory ; 

vignette options and prices; 

how to purchase vignettes; 

how to seek further information; 

applicable penalties. 

In order to avoid any confusion over the definition of a week or a month, the signage would 
state  clearly  for  how  many  calendar  days  each  vignette  product  is  valid.  Where  a  vignette 
sticker is supplied, the expiry date of the vignette would be stated on that sticker to ensure that 
the user knows exactly which days it is valid for.  

4.3. 

Collection of fees and their payment 

It  is  important  that  non-resident  occasional  road  users  be  provided  with  a  wide  range  of 
options  to  pay  for  a  vignette  in  order  to  avoid  discrimination.  As  regards  vignette  stickers, 
retail outlets and self-service kiosks would be located near the roads that are to be charged, 
including  relevant  border  crossings.  Most  retail  outlets  would  be  accessible  as  long  as 
possible on a daily basis. Widely used debit and credit cards would be acceptable, as well as 
cash in euro/the national currency and neighbouring Member State's currency. 

The application of an electronic vignette system does not require stickers to prove compliance 
and enables occasional users to pre-pay for a vignette before starting a trip, without the need 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
to  divert  a  trip  via  a  retail  outlet  before  entering  a  vignette  charged  route13.  Options  to 
purchase  by  phone  (via  SMS  or  calls)  or  through  the  internet  would  offer  added  value  for 
users because there are no limits by location or opening hours for purchase.  

For  users  transiting  more  than  one  Member  State  with  a  vignette  system,  there  would  be  a 
value  added  in  having  a  vignette  that  covers  more  Member  States.  An  example  can  be  the 
"Eurovignette" for heavy goods vehicles14 which offers this level of interoperability, since it 
gives the access to the road infrastructure of five EU Member States. A similar product for the 
light  private  vehicles  could  be  particularly  convenient  for  international  users,  especially 
between neighbouring Member States with high volumes of international traffic.  

4.4. 

Appropriate enforcement practice 

Enforcement  of  rules  on  the  vignette  systems  falls  within  the  exclusive  competence  of  the 
Member  States.  However  these  rules  should  be  non-discriminatory  and  proportionate  to  the 
infringements committed, and enable citizens to effectively implement their procedural rights. 
In  particular,  enforcement  practices  which  could  give  rise  to  indirect  discrimination  against 
non-resident occasional users must be avoided.  

Enforcement  should  not  be  based  primarily  on  maximising  the  number  of  offenders 
apprehended,  but  on  promoting  understanding  of  the  system  to  encourage  user  compliance 
with the system. Enforcement officers should therefore be given enough discretion to direct 
users to buy a vignette immediately so as to avoid a penalty, if it is reasonable to believe that 
a mistake was made. This can help ensure that efforts on enforcement are focused on frequent 
offenders and not mainly on non-residents, who are often first time offenders. If checkpoints, 
cameras and their signage, as well as other means of enforcement, were clearly visible, this 
might  encourage  compliance  by  users  with  the  system  and  significantly  lower  actual 
enforcement activity.  

Users need to perceive that there is a lower risk and cost in purchasing a vignette compared to 
being caught evading it. Notably, non-resident occasional users receiving penalties would be 
given clear information in one or more widely used European language about options to pay 
and how to appeal the penalty if it is considered to be mistaken or unreasonable. It would be 
advisable that: 

– 

– 

13 

14 

the  laws  and  regulations  defining  the  vignette,  offences,  penalties  and  procedures 
would be published, in accordance with national procedures, and if possible the key 
provisions summarised for the sake of transparency; 

enforcement  is  focused  on  locations  where  non-compliance  with  rules  is  relatively 
high,  not  simply  on  border  locations,  so  that  both  residents  and  non-residents  are 
treated  equally  (inspections  should  ideally  be  carried  out  when  vehicles  leave  a 
Member State).  

It would also avoid vignette stickers being affixed on the front windscreen of motor vehicles (next to 
the  A-pillar)  that  might  reduce  the  driver’s  field  of  vision  with  negative  impact  on  the  safety  of 
vulnerable road users, e. g. pedestrians. 
Common  vignette  system  of  five  Member  States  (Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg,  Denmark 
and  Sweden)  established  by  Agreement  on  the  collection  of  charges  for  the  use  of  certain  roads  by 
heavy goods vehicles of 4 February 1994. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Co-ordination  and  co-operation  among  Member  States  would  help  substantially  in  ensuring 
that fines can be enforced across borders. 

Penalties  also  need  to  be  proportionate  -  the  sanction  should  be  proportionate  to  the 
seriousness  of  the  infringement  committed.  Rules  concerning  penalties  for  heavy  goods 
vehicles  already  exist  in  Article  9a  of  the  abovementioned  "Eurovignette"  Directive  which 
provides that "Member States shall establish appropriate controls and determine the system of 
penalties  applicable  to  infringements  of  the  national  provisions  adopted  under  this  Directive. 
They  shall  take  all  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  they  are  implemented.  The  penalties 
established shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive". Member States are encouraged to 
apply the same principles for light private vehicles. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

In  order  to  provide  for  a  non-discriminatory  vignette  system  for  light  private  vehicles,  the 
Commission suggests that Member States establish vignette systems that offer, in addition to 
annual and monthly vignettes, a weekly (or shorter period) vignette. 

Furthermore, it would be advisable that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

short-term and long-term vignettes are provided at a proportionate price; 

non-resident occasional users have proper access to information concerning vehicles 
subject to charging, road infrastructure subject to charging, types of vignettes, their 
validity and the rates, sales points and penalties applied; 

non-resident occasional road users are provided with a wide range of options to pay 
for a vignette; 

enforcement  is  focussed  on  locations  where  the  likeliness  of  non-compliance  with 
rules is relatively high and not mainly at border locations on non-residents who are 
often first time offenders, so that both residents and non-residents are treated equally; 

penalties  are  proportionate  to  other  traffic  offenses  and  reasonably  reflect  the 
sanction element. 

As vignette systems mainly implement the "user-pays" principle15, the Commission advocates 
a transparent use of their revenue which would ideally be applied only on roads for which a 
proper maintenance programme exists, in order to offer users a minimum level of service in 
return of their payment. 

The  Commission  invites  Member  States  which  have  a  vignette  system  for  light  private 
vehicles,  or  intend  to  introduce  such  a  system,  to  assess  their  systems  in  the  light  of  this 
Communication.  

In the light of the experience, the Commission may consider an initiative to further clarify the 
rules applicable to road charges applied to light private vehicles. 

15 

There  is  no  Member  State  applying  differentiation  of  vignette  rates  according  to  environmental 
standards of light private vehicles. Moreover, vignettes do not seem to be the appropriate tool to combat 
congestion which is often related to very specific time and place. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 

Road user charges (vignettes) for vehicles ≤ 3.5 t in the EU16 

week (10 days) 

8 € 

week (7 days) 

5 € 

week (10 days) 

12.40 € 

week (10 days) 

10.30 € 

week (10 days) 

10 €  

2012 

Austria 

2 months 

23.40 € 

Bulgaria 

month 

13 € 

Czech Republic 

month 

17.60 € 

Hungary 

(electronic vignette system) 

month 

16.60 € 

Slovakia 

month 

14 € 

Slovenia 

year 

77.80 € 

year 

34 € 

year 

59.90 € 

year 

148.90 € 

year 

50 € 

16 

Table does not contain the vignette rates for motorcycles and light trailers. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
week (7 days) 

15 € 

month 

30 € 

Romania 

year 

95 € 

(electronic vignette system) 

Light private vehicles and light commercial vehicles used for passenger transport 

week (7 days) 

3 € 

month 

7 € 

3 months 

13 € 

Light commercial vehicles used for transport of goods 

week (7 days) 

6 € 

month 

16 € 

3 months 

36 € 

year 

28 € 

year 

96 € 

Currency exchange rates of 27 February 2012 

EN 

12 

   EN