REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATES OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/50/EC ON UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR CHECKS ON THE TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD
Date: 2013-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: police checks, road transport, safety standard, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0815 - EN











|



52013DC0815

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATES OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/50/EC ON UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR CHECKS ON THE TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD /* COM/2013/0815 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATES OF
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/50/EC ON UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR CHECKS ON THE TRANSPORT OF
DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATES OF COUNCIL
DIRECTIVE 95/50/EC ON UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR CHECKS ON THE TRANSPORT OF
DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD
1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4
2........... Related EU legislation..................................................................................................... 4
3........... Application of Directive
95/50/EC.................................................................................. 5
4........... Reports from EU Member States and Norway................................................................ 5
5........... Recommendation on reporting of
checks concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road            6
6........... Calculation of data.......................................................................................................... 6
7........... Evolution of checks and their
outcomes........................................................................... 7
8........... Comparison of data........................................................................................................ 7
8.1........ Frequency of checks....................................................................................................... 8
8.2........ Breakdown of checks by place of
origin.......................................................................... 8
8.3........ Proportion of non-conforming
transport units................................................................... 8
8.4........ Breakdown of non-conforming
transport units by place of origin...................................... 8
8.5........ Frequency of immobilisation of
transport units.................................................................. 8
8.6........ Breakdown by risk categories......................................................................................... 9
8.7........ Types of penalties........................................................................................................... 9
9........... Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 9
Annex I Evolution of the number of checks,
non-conformity and category I infringements.............. 11
Annex II Frequency of checks per million
tonne-kilometre........................................................... 14
Annex III Breakdown of checks by place of
origin....................................................................... 15
Annex IV Proportion of transport units not
conforming to the provisions....................................... 16
Annex V Breakdown of transport units not
conforming to the provisions by place of origin............ 17
Annex VI Frequency of immobilisation of
transport units not conforming to the provisions............. 18
Annex VII Breakdown by risk categories.................................................................................... 19
Annex VIII Types of penalties per transport
unit not conforming to the provisions......................... 20
Annex IX Annual road freight transport of dangerous
goods in million tonne-kilometres................ 21
1.           Introduction
Council Directive 95/50/EC on uniform
procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road was adopted
on 6 October 1995[1]
and Member States had to bring into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with it by 1 January 1997.
Directive 95/50/EC provides that each
Member State has to send the Commission for each calendar year not later than
twelve months after the end of that year a report on the application of the
Directive[2].
The Directive also provides that the Commission has to send the European
Parliament and the Council at least every three years a report on the
application of the Directive by the Member States[3]. 
The report from the Commission is based on
the annual reports received from the Member States. This is the fifth report on
the application of Council Directive 95/50/EC in the Member States and it covers years 2008-2011. The first report[4]
covered years 1997-1998, the second report[5]
years 1999-2002, the third report[6]
years 2003-2005 and the fourth report[7]
years 2006-2007.
The conditions for safe transport of
dangerous goods by road are not defined in Directive 95/50/EC but in related EU
legislation, as described below.
2.           Related
EU legislation
The years covered by this report belong
formally into two different legislative contexts but there is no practical
impact for the interpretation of the results of this report.
Until 30 June 2009 Council Directive
94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road[8], as amended[9], applied. The annexes to
Directive 94/55/EC were identical in terms of their content to the annexes to
the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous
Goods by Road (known also as the ADR)[10]. 
From 1 July 2009 Directive 94/55/EC was repealed and replaced by
Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods[11] as amended[12]. Directive 2008/68/EC continues
the approach of Directive 94/55/EC in applying identical technical and
administrative provisions to those annexed to the international agreement for
all transport on the EU territory.
3.           Application
of Directive 95/50/EC
Having adopted Directive 94/55/EC, and to
further improve the level of safety in the transport of dangerous goods the
Council adopted on 6 October 1995 Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for
checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road. This Directive includes a
harmonised checklist to be used by Member States for such checks and guidelines
for the classification of infringements. In 2004 the Annexes to the Directive
were amended[13]
and the infringement classification system was modified to have three risk
categories as from 2005.
These uniform checks concern all road
transport operations of dangerous goods on the territory of a Member State or entering it from third countries, irrespective of the country of registration
of the transport unit. The Directive aims at ensuring that a representative
proportion of consignments of dangerous goods transported by road is randomly
checked, while at the same time covering an extensive portion of the road
network.
As a preventive measure, or after having
recorded infringements at the roadside which jeopardise safety, checks may be
also carried out at the premises of undertakings[14]. There is, however, no
reporting requirement on these checks in Directive 95/50/EC.
4.           Reports
from EU Member States and Norway
When making their reports, the Member
States are requested to use the risk categories of Annex II to Directive
95/50/EC and to present the report in accordance with Annex III to the Directive.
  Norway has continued to submit its annual reports and the information is included
also in this report to the European Parliament and the Council.
Croatia joined the
EU on 1 July 2013 and it has not reported checks for the time period covered by
this report. Other Member States and Norway have submitted their reports
largely on time. Any delays relate to the administrative procedures for
collecting, analysing and transmitting the information to the Commission, in
particular when these procedures involve different public authorities. The
situation has improved considerably since 2011. Reports for 2011 were received
by February 2013.
For the first years covered by this report
all the information has not been received in the correct format. Some Member
States continued to use the codes of the old, repealed annexes to Directive
95/50/EC. However, since then major improvement has taken place.
The Commission has received reports from
all Member States for the whole period. Some reports, however, are incomplete,
leading to gaps in the tables presented in this report. These are indicated by
the sign ‘#N/A’ (‘not available’). A summary of the reports from the Member
States is presented in the annexes to this report. 
When analysing the information in paragraph
7 of this report, it should be noted that until year 2008 the indicator for
non-conformity in Spain is low due to a misinterpretation of the number of
transport units not conforming to the provisions. This misinterpretation has
been rectified in their later reports.
Several Member States have sent reports
where the sum of infringements differs from the number of transport units not
in compliance with the provisions. This should not be the case since only the
most severe infringement category for each transport unit should be reported.
5.           Recommendation
on reporting of checks concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road
Earlier Commission reports noted certain
systematic inconsistencies in the statistical reports by Member States. Since
uniform reporting by Member States is crucial for the quality, comparability
and reliability of the Commission reports, the Commission adopted in 2011 a
recommendation[15]
seeking to improve the quality of these reports. 
After the publication of the recommendation
the reports have improved substantially and only some occasional and minor inconsistencies
have been noted.
Most of these inconsistencies relate to the
number of infringements according to the risk category[16]. Paragraph 1.4 of the annex to
the Commission recommendation underlines that only the most serious
infringement should be reported even if several infringements are detected.
Consequently, the sum of infringements by risk categories should be equal to
the number of transport units not conforming to the provisions. 
It appears this principle is not yet
correctly applied in all Member States as several infringements per transport
unit are still being reported.
Another major issue addressed by the
recommendation was the concept of penalties imposed when an infringement is
detected during a roadside check. Due to the differences in legal and
administrative arrangements some Member States were unable to track the outcome
of the juridical process following checks revealing suspected infringements.
The recommendation proposed a common compromise that could be used in all
Member States, namely recording the decision made by the enforcement official
following the check on the spot.
6.           Calculation
of data
Member States are requested to provide, if
possible, their estimate on the amount of annual transport of dangerous goods
in tonnes or in tonnes-kilometres carried on their territory. For 2008 there
were 13 Member States that provided an estimate. In 2011 only 9 Member States
had such an estimate.
To allow an objective comparison between
the Member States, the volume of dangerous goods transport is based on the
information in the Eurostat database[17].
This information is used to estimate of the frequency of checks relative to the
volume of transport.
There are no statistics at Eurostat for Malta, as derogation is granted to Malta regarding the application of Regulation (EU) No 70/2012 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2012 on statistical
returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road[18]. The volume of dangerous goods
transport in Malta is estimated based on the data provided by the Maltese
competent authority. 
The statistics from Eurostat are presented
in Annex IX to this report.
7.           Evolution
of checks and their outcomes
Annex I presents the evolution of the
number of checks registered by Member State, the proportion of transport units
not conforming to the provisions and the proportion of infringements of risk
category I.
At the end of the table there are averages
for the European Union and the statistics from Norway.
It should be noted that data is missing concerning:

-        the numbers of checks in 2006 and
2007 in Estonia;
-        the share of transport units with
infringements in 2006 in Germany, Estonia and Spain; for 2007 in Estonia and Spain;
-        the share of risk category I
infringements in 2006 in Bulgaria, Germany and Portugal. 
The indicator on the share of risk category
I infringements is particularly sensitive to correct reporting. If more than
one infringement per transport unit has been recorded, the share of category I
infringements is lower than the correct value. In 2006, this is the case in France, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal; in 2007 in Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Poland and in Portugal.
Some Member States have reported fewer total
infringements than the number of non-conforming transport units. This is the
case for Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Malta and Sweden. There are cases where the
enforcement authorities report only that infringements were found, but did not
provide any further information on the infringements or penalties. Although
this leaves the statistics incomplete there is no systematic impact on the
analysis. This issue is discussed in more detail in paragraph 8.6.
8.           Comparison
of data 
The total number of checks declined by
33.8% over the four years, from 252 632 to 167 340. The largest
annual decline, 12.6%, took place from 2011 to 2010. The national trends are
not similar, as 11 Member States increased their checks over the period. Romania, Slovenia and Austria had the highest percentage increase of checks during the reporting
period while Latvia, Bulgaria and Hungary had the highest reductions. 
In terms of absolute number of checks in
the EU Germany had the highest share in 2011 (34.8%) followed by Spain (11.8%) and Poland (9.8%), while Estonia (0.03%), Malta and Latvia (0.05%) had the lowest
shares. Although this indicator is largely related to the size of the Member State, there have been notable changes over the reporting period. In 2008 the share
of Germany was the highest (31.5%), Spain second (16.9%) but Bulgaria instead was the third (11.1%). The three Member States doing the fewest checks
were Malta (0.03%), Estonia (0.08%) and Luxembourg (0.09%) in 2008.
8.1.        Frequency
of checks 
Annex II presents an overview of the frequency
of roadside checks in the Member States for 2010 and 2011. The frequency is calculated
as the ratio of the number of checks per million tonne-kilometres of dangerous
goods transported in each Member State.
In 2010, the average in the EU was 2.54 checks
per million tonne-kilometres; in 2011, it declined to 2.14, implying an annual decrease
of 15.7%. Bulgaria continued to have an exceptionally high frequency of checks
in 2010, almost nine times the EU average. In 2011, Bulgaria, Austria and
Romania had all some 10 checks per million tonne-kilometres, equal to about 4.5
times the EU average.
8.2.        Breakdown
of checks by place of origin
Annex III to
this report shows the breakdown of checks by place of origin of the transport
unit.
This indicator is affected not only by the
decisions of the enforcement authorities but also the geography of the Member
State; for example on islands there is less international transit by road. There
are years when Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Portugal have not checked any transport
units registered outside the EU.
The share of transport units checked in the
country of registration has varied around 70% during the reporting period. The
share of units checked coming from another EU countries increased from 20.5% to
25.7% from 2008 to 2011. In consequence, the share of units registered outside
the EU decreased from 12.6% to 4.4%. 
8.3.        Proportion
of non-conforming transport units 
The share of transport units checked having
at least one infringement is presented in Annex IV.
The proportion of non-conforming units increased
from 13.7% in 2008 to 21.4% in 2011, with major increases notably in Spain,
Latvia, Czech Republic and the Netherlands. However, there are 15 Member States
where there was no increase in this proportion.
The share of non-conforming transport units
varies considerably among Member States, reaching almost 70% in Malta while
being less than 5% in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.
8.4.        Breakdown
of non-conforming transport units by place of origin
The graphs
in Annex V show the distribution of transport units not conforming to the
provisions according to the place of origin of the transport unit.
As pointed out previously in paragraph 8.2
the geography of the Member State affects considerably also this indicator.
8.5.        Frequency
of immobilisation of transport units
The graph in Annex VI illustrates the share
of immobilised vehicles amongst those that were reported to have an
infringement.
The earlier trend of decreasing share of
immobilisations continued until 2009 when 24% of vehicles having an infringement
were immobilised. However, the trend seems to have turned, in 2011 the
proportion of vehicles being immobilised following their inspection had
increased to 27%.
The highest frequencies of immobilisation
in 2011 were recorded in Bulgaria (68%), Ireland (54%) and Romania (53%). In
Norway 57% of infringements led to immobilisation in 2011.
Estonia, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia,
Malta and Slovakia did not report any immobilisations in 2011.
8.6.        Breakdown by risk categories
The graphs of Annex VII illustrate the
distribution of severity of the infringements. Only the highest risk category
detected during a check should be reported.
All Member States have reported at least
one category of infringement per transport unit checked. Some Member States did
not report data for some categories. In 2011 Cyprus and Slovakia did not report
any infringements for the risk categories I and III. Luxembourg reported no
infringements in risk category I. Furthermore, Latvia and Estonia reported no
infringements in risk category III[19].
In the checks carried out in the EU in 2011
of some 44% of cases where infringements were detected the most serious one was
classified in risk category I. Risk category I infringement implies a failure to
comply with relevant safety provisions creating a high-level risk of death,
serious personal injury or significant damage to the environment. These
infringements call for immediate and appropriate corrective measures such as
immobilisation of the vehicle.
Reported most serious infringements in risk
category II represented 30% of checks where an infringement was detected. Risk
category III covered the remaining 26%.
8.7.        Types
of penalties
The graphs in Annex VIII show the
distribution of penalties by Member State.
Before the publication of the Commission
recommendation referred to in paragraph 5 of this report, fundamental
difficulties existed in the collection of this information. After the
recommendation the situation has improved dramatically and in 2011 only France
and Slovakia did not report any statistics on penalties. Slovakia had, however,
reported penalties for earlier years and in 2011 only one single infringement
was detected during the checks.
During the inspections carried out in the
EU in 2011 there were 7 892 cautions made; fines were imposed in 33 179
cases; and 3 527 cases led to other penalties, including legal and
administrative juridical processes. Although in general terms three quarters of
penalties in the EU are fines, there is large variation between Member States.
For example the United Kingdom does not apply fines on the spot.
In 2011 there were some 4% penalties less
in total than in 2008. While the number of cautions grew by 8% over the period
and the number of fines by 1%, other penalties decreased by 42%.
9.           Conclusions
Directive 95/50/EC has been in transposed
in all Member States' national legislation since 1 January 1997. The details on
reporting were amended in 2004 and the modified reporting provisions became
applicable on 14 December 2005. Following certain systematic incoherencies in
reporting the Commission published a recommendation on the matter in 2011.
All Member States carry out checks on
vehicles carrying dangerous goods and report these checks accurately. Only some
minor inconsistencies still exist and the Commission ensures each year that the
reporting under Directive 95/50/EC is complied with and progressively improved.
It can be concluded that Directive 95/50/EC is generally applied correctly.
However, the latest reports show clearly
that the resources in Member States available for these checks are becoming
increasingly scarce. From 2008 to 2011 the number of checks decreased by 34%.
The checks are detecting infringements more
frequently. In 2011 one check out of five affirmed or suspected an infringement
in the carriage of dangerous goods, while in 2008 it was one out of seven
checks. There are two possible reasons for this development. The checks may be
better targeted to identify infringing carriage or the carriers may be
generally less compliant with the provisions.
The Commission will invite the authorities
of the Member States to provide information on the expected developments of the
checks and on factors affecting these developments, such as the availability of
resources and targeting of the checks. Furthermore, clarifications regarding
exceptionally high rates of non-conformity will be requested.
Where infringements were detected, in 44%
of the cases these were of the most serious type. Consequently, some 9 600
vehicles were immobilised in 2011.
In the EU a common set of provisions is
applied for the transport of dangerous goods. These provisions are used in an
identical fashion also in many countries outside the EU. Nevertheless, almost
36 000 of the some 170 000 annual roadside checks result in the
conclusion that the transport operation does not meet the compulsory safety
requirements. Given the high danger involved in the transport of these
substances and articles, targeted enforcement for this type of transport continues
to be indispensable.
«-»

Annex I
Evolution of the number of checks, non-conformity and category I infringements
Further information on this table is
provided in paragraph 7 of the report.
 COUNTRY || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 
 BE || No of Checks || 3977 || 4133 || 5178 || 6033 || 5464 || 4188 
 % Non-conform || 38.52% || 39.90% || 17.671% || 21.76% || 22.16% || 12.32% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 47.36% || 30.47% || 24.07% || 37.49% || 37.05% || 26.42% 
 BG || No of Checks || 19206 || 27996 || 28106 || 28455 || 7756 || 6203 
 % Non-conform || 2.49% || 1.24% || 0.71% || 4.85% || 0.81% || 1.00% 
 % Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 34.33% || 34.33% || 27.78% || 57.41% || 55.74% 
 CZ || No of Checks || 6694 || 7691 || 3977 || 3471 || 2816 || 2491 
 % Non-conform || 5.83% || 5.60% || 5.53% || 6.60% || 11.51% || 11.92% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 26.46% || 17.87% || 21.36% || 25.33% || 17.59% || 55.74% 
 DK || No of Checks || 889 || 646 || 755 || 721 || 604 || 646 
 % Non-conform || 55.46% || 52.79% || 58.15% || 61.44% || 57.12% || 58.98% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 34.08% || 40.76% || 38.27% || 35.21% || 38.26% || 35.43% 
 DE || No of Checks || 83760 || 86225 || 79664 || 62085 || 67356 || 58270 
 % Non-conform || #N/A || 20.18% || 22.69% || 23.64% || 21.69% || 27.02% 
 % Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 47.00% || 48.14% || 45.23% || 49.96% || 49.55% 
 EE || No of Checks || #N/A || #N/A || 117 || 152 || 154 || 44 
 % Non-conform || #N/A || #N/A || 46.15% || 39.47% || 50.00% || 25.00% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 20.41% || 37.50% || 25.93% || 30.00% || 25.97% || 45.45% 
 IE || No of Checks || 630 || 731 || 783 || 892 || 751 || 674 
 % Non-conform || 32.54% || 44.60% || 38.19% || 28.36% || 26.23% || 24.93% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 34.15% || 24.54% || 13.71% || 25.20% || 33.33% || 12.64% 
 EL || No of Checks || 614 || 456 || 1202 || 413 || 1094 || 650 
 % Non-conform || 13.36% || 16.89% || 3.83% || 10.65% || 3.93% || 5.54% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 52.44% || 64.94% || 69.57% || 61.36% || 55.81% || 30.56% 
 ES || No of Checks || 40023 || 42787 || 42771 || 40782 || 36004 || 19707 
 % Non-conform || 0.25% || 0.19% || 0.27% || 10.63% || 11.44% || 29.60% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 67.90% || 66.69% || 63.64% || 65.28% || 64.82% || 75.63% 
 FR || No of Checks || 5566 || 6388 || 6572 || 5788 || 6178 || 6930 
 % Non-conform || 10.28% || 22.70% || 21.67% || 16.48% || 16.48% || 14.68% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 26.60% || 22.07% || 24.30% || 25.05% || 29.08% || 28.32% 
   || No of Checks || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na 
 HR || % Non-conform || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na 
   || % Risk Cat. I || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na || Na 
Annex I (continued)
 IT || No of Checks || 4105 || 4515 || 4960 || 5180 || 6253 || 6260 
 % Non-conform || 32.35% || 34.55% || 16.73% || 16.16% || 13.58% || 11.04% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 72.82% || 69.90% || 17.33% || 15.85% || 14.65% || 14.18% 
 CY || No of Checks || 75 || 181 || 224 || 232 || 168 || 188 
 % Non-conform || 1.33% || 0.55% || 1.34% || 1.72% || 1.19% || 1.60% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% 
 LV || No of Checks || 823 || 1609 || 1230 || 996 || 703 || 89 
 % Non-conform || 11.42% || 10.19% || 7.15% || 10.14% || 8.25% || 15.73% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 25.53% || 29.27% || 56.82% || 59.41% || 55.17% || 78.57% 
 LT || No of Checks || 311 || 419 || 529 || 487 || 491 || 560 
 % Non-conform || 29.58% || 16.95% || 17.01% || 18.07% || 21.59% || 6.07% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 23.91% || 15.49% || 6.67% || 15.91% || 16.04% || 7.41% 
 LU || No of Checks || 190 || 182 || 210 || 293 || 233 || 341 
 % Non-conform || 64.21% || 68.13% || 59.05% || 50.51% || 48.50% || 57.77% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 15.75% || 49.19% || 44.35% || 6.08% || 5.31% || 0.00% 
 HU || No of Checks || 35555 || 25995 || 27225 || 15613 || 4158 || 1589 
 % Non-conform || 1.63% || 4.30% || 3.49% || 5.72% || 3.42% || 4.85% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 23.10% || 27.03% || 30.77% || 29.56% || 34.18% || 17.74% 
 MT || No of Checks || 33 || 75 || 81 || 76 || 79 || 78 
 % Non-conform || 51.52% || 76.00% || 54.32% || 67.11% || 63.29% || 69.23% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 23.53% || 34.09% || 25.00% || 21.57% || 42.00% || 24.07% 
 NL || No of Checks || 2750 || 7340 || 4820 || 5717 || 4068 || 5480 
 % Non-conform || 26.65% || 14.69% || 17.45% || 10.02% || 28.61% || 30.99% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 57.82% || 57.16% || 60.57% || 55.79% || 59.39% || 53.86% 
 AT || No of Checks || 7089 || 7580 || 6883 || 9824 || 10220 || 11300 
 % Non-conform || 36.49% || 36.00% || 35.70% || 30.99% || 28.72% || 32.50% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 24.62% || 24.55% || 23.40% || 20.70% || 21.87% || 20.40% 
 PL || No of Checks || 15840 || 39057 || 14438 || 19537 || 20324 || 16363 
 % Non-conform || 11.14% || 2.96% || 7.60% || 6.68% || 5.32% || 6.17% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 27.19% || 15.52% || 14.65% || 19.03% || 23.39% || 27.68% 
 PT || No of Checks || 235 || 137 || 425 || 566 || 1065 || 601 
 % Non-conform || 76.17% || 73.72% || 58.35% || 33.75% || 29.67% || 40.72% 
 % Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 42.50% || 50.81% || 41.88% || 41.14% || 41.11% 
 RO || No of Checks || 2914 || 4517 || 5257 || 5969 || 7352 || 11525 
 % Non-conform || 9.37% || 5.58% || 4.13% || 2.31% || 3.99% || 3.64% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 69.60% || 64.77% || 32.82% || 25.16% || 29.69% || 29.36% 
 SI || No of Checks || 1621 || 1041 || 291 || 315 || 253 || 601 
 % Non-conform || 17.89% || 19.50% || 48.11% || 46.03% || 39.53% || 5.99% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 42.76% || 39.41% || 28.57% || 38.62% || 36.00% || 38.89% 
Annex I (continued)
 SK || No of Checks || 247 || 300 || 351 || 572 || 561 || 194 
 % Non-conform || 0.00% || 0.67% || 2.28% || 12.41% || 16.40% || 0.52% 
 % Risk Cat. I || #N/A || 0.00% || 75.00% || 4.23% || 4.35% || 0.00% 
 FI || No of Checks || 2530 || 3025 || 3353 || 3589 || 3273 || 3100 
 % Non-conform || 36.56% || 33.92% || 41.10% || 34.35% || 32.26% || 30.03% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 31.35% || 18.62% || 12.48% || 12.09% || 10.21% || 11.08% 
 SE || No of Checks || 4182 || 4219 || 4049 || 3733 || 4076 || 4929 
 % Non-conform || 29.60% || 20.27% || 20.87% || 16.98% || 18.84% || 20.15% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 22.08% || 24.04% || 21.42% || 19.24% || 22.01% || 17.15% 
 UK || No of Checks || 4851 || 8221 || 9181 || 7251 || 8427 || 4277 
 % Non-conform || 13.69% || 30.76% || 36.99% || 41.26% || 22.99% || 38.23% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 19.13% || 30.01% || 29.68% || 17.88% || 19.05% || 16.64% 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 EU || No of Checks || 244710 || 285466 || 252632 || 228742 || 199881 || 167340 
 % Non-conform || 12.11% || 14.44% || 13.67% || 15.80% || 16.54% || 21.39% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 40.57% || 41.06% || 40.29% || 37.16% || 42.10% || 44.04% 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 NO || No of Checks || 632 || 417 || 712 || 767 || 515 || 617 
 % Non-conform || 34.65% || 34.53% || 25.70% || 22.16% || 20.97% || 25.12% 
 % Risk Cat. I || 21.27% || 15.97% || 19.13% || 17.65% || 29.63% || 31.21% 
Annex II
Frequency of checks per million tonne-kilometre
Further
information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.1 of the report.
Annex III
Breakdown of checks by place of origin
Further
information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.2 of the report.
Annex
IV
Proportion of transport units not conforming to provisions
Further information on these graphs is
provided in paragraph 8.3 of the report.
Annex V
Breakdown of transport units not conforming to the provisions by place of
origin
Further information on these graphs is
provided in paragraph 8.4 of the report.
Annex VI
Frequency of immobilisation of transport units not conforming to provisions
Further information on these graphs is
provided in paragraph 8.5 of the report.
Annex
VII
Breakdown by risk categories
Further information
on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.6 of the report.
Annex
VIII 
Types of penalties per transport unit not conforming to provisions
Further
information on these graphs is provided in paragraph 8.7 of the report.
Annex
IX
Annual road freight transport of dangerous goods in million tonne-kilometres
Further information
on this table is provided in paragraph 6 of the report.
   || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 
 EU-27 (1) || 81,855 || 81,814 || 84,685 || 77,688 || 78,625 || 78,066 
 BE || 2,203 || 2,191 || 1,904 || 1,832 || 1,853 || 1,973 
 BG || 438 || 491 || 694 || 735 || 347 || 665 
 CZ || 1,875 || 1,376 || 1,140 || 1,050 || 1,669 || 1,787 
 DK || 933 || 620 || 1,256 || 1,015 || 772 || 730 
 DE || 13,717 || 12,834 || 13,616 || 12,961 || 12,853 || 13,028 
 EE || 193 || 276 || 189 || 82 || 171 || 189 
 IE || 1,340 || 1,291 || 1,351 || 530 || 379 || 419 
 EL (2) || 3,085 || 2,228 || 3,144 || 3,283 || 2,708 || 2,708 
 ES || 12,700 || 12,671 || 12,605 || 11,253 || 11,643 || 11,908 
 FR || 9,456 || 9,755 || 9,441 || 7,755 || 7,325 || 7,776 
 IT || 10,777 || 11,392 || 11,151 || 11,270 || 11,342 || 9,561 
 CY || 166 || 224 || 181 || 169 || 184 || 194 
 LV || 154 || 162 || 185 || 215 || 114 || 234 
 LT || 461 || 461 || 384 || 308 || 283 || 324 
 LU || 445 || 468 || 337 || 359 || 413 || 482 
 HU || : || 1,217 || 1,348 || 1,241 || 1,049 || 1,032 
 MT(3) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 NL || 2,390 || 2,098 || 2,554 || 2,408 || 3,432 || 2,540 
 AT || 1,122 || 1,054 || 1,175 || 1,082 || 1,083 || 1,144 
 PL || 3,267 || 4,708 || 5,380 || 5,697 || 5,880 || 6,848 
 PT || 2,046 || 1,979 || 1,846 || 1,480 || 938 || 1,143 
 RO || 2,559 || 2,057 || 1,782 || 2,250 || 1,369 || 1,182 
 SI || 571 || 631 || 662 || 668 || 607 || 842 
 SK || 517 || 562 || 281 || 278 || 498 || 361 
 FI || 2,317 || 1,847 || 1,585 || 1,640 || 2,169 || 1,535 
 SE || 1,743 || 1,409 || 1,265 || 1,162 || 1,387 || 1,304 
 UK (2) || 7,380 || 7,812 || 9,229 || 6,965 || 8,157 || 8,157 
 HR || : || : || 668 || 493 || 481 || 533 
 NO || 931 || 1,454 || 1,018 || 976 || 1,321 || 778 
(1) EU-27: provisional data for reference year 2011 and does not
include Hungary for reference year 2006. 
(2) Greece and the
United Kingdom: 2010 data was used for reference year 2011.
(3) Malta: derogation
under Regulation (EU) No 70/2012
Source: Eurostat (online data code: road_go_ta_dg)
[1]               OJ
L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35, as amended by Commission Directive 2004/112/EC of 13
December 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 95/50/EC (OJ L
367, 14.12.2004, p. 23) 
[2]               Article
9(1) thereof
[3]               Article
9(2) thereof
[4]               COM(2000)
517 final, 6.9.2000
[5]               COM(2005)
430 final, 15.9.2005
[6]               COM(2007) 795 final, 13.12.2007
[7]               COM(2010) 364 final, 7.7.2010
[8]               OJ
L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 7
[9]               Amended
by Commission Directive 2004/111/EC of 9 December 2004 adapting to technical
progress Council Directive 94/55/EC (OJ No L 365, 10.12.2004, p. 25)
[10]             European
Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road
concluded at Geneva on 30 September 1957, as amended, under the auspices of
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE).
[11]             OJ L 260, 30.09.2008, p. 13
[12]             Last amended by Commission Directive 2012/45/EU of 3
December 2012 adapting for the second time the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of
dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress (OJ No L 332, 4.12.2012,
p. 18)
[13]             Commission
Directive 2004/112/EC of 13 December 2004 adapting to technical progress Council
Directive 95/50/EC (OJ No L 367, 14.12.2004, p. 23) 
[14]             Sweden has indicated that they perform a substantial
number of checks and audits at terminals, companies and harbours. The
Netherlands has indicated that they additionally visit transport companies to
do checks, audits and to distribute information. Belgium has indicated that
besides inspections at the premises of companies, the safety advisors report
the results of checks done in the company to the competent authorities. 
[15]             Commission recommendation of 21.2.2011 on reporting of
checks concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road, C(2011) 909 final
[16]             The definition of risk categories and guidelines of
infringements belonging to these categories are provided in Annex II of
Directive 95/50/EC as amended by Directive 2004/112/EC.
[17]             Eurostat
table "DS-073082": Annual road freight transport of dangerous goods,
by type of dangerous goods and broken down by activity
[18]             OJ L 32, 3.2.2012, p. 1
[19]             Risk category I infringement implies a high-level risk
of death, serious personal injury or significant damage to the environment,
necessitating immediate and appropriate corrective measures. Risk category II
infringement creates a risk of personal injury or damage to the environment,
necessitating corrective measures at the completion of the current transport
movement at the latest. Risk category III infringements result in a low level
of risk of personal injury or damage to the environment. Corrective measures
can be addressed at a later date at the undertaking.