COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences
Date: 2017-02-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, continuing vocational training, drivers, driving instruction, driving licence, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, road safety, transport regulations

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.2.2017  SWD(2017) 27 final/2 PART 2/2   CORRIGENDUM Cancels and replaces the SWD(2016) 27 final, Part 2/2, of 1 February  2017 for incorrect year in the date of the document. It should be read SWD(2017) 27 final/2  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  ANNEXES Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences  
 
 
ANNEX 1: 
Procedural Information concerning the process to prepare 
the impact assessment and the related initiative 

Lead DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport 

Agenda planning/Work Programme references: 2013/MOVE/013 

Other involved services: The Secretariat General, the Legal Service, the former DG Education 
and Culture, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, the former DG Internal Market 
and Services joined DG Mobility and Transport in the Steering Group. 

Organisation, timing and consultation of the RSB:  

The  work  on  the  Impact  Assessment  started  in  April  2013  when  the  Inter-service  Steering 
Group  (ISG)  was  created.  The  Impact  Assessment  process  followed  a  short  ex-post 
evaluation,  which  was  conducted  by  an  external  consultant  in  a  close  cooperation  with 
Commission services.  The Steering group met on 7 occasions to discuss the main milestones 
in the process, such consultation with stakeholders, key deliverables from impact assessment 
and  ex-post  evaluation  support  studies,  final  evaluation  report,  final  draft  of  the  impact 
assessment  report  before  the  submission  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board.  The  ISG  were 
consulted by the lead service (MOVE) on the changes brought to the impact assessment report 
after  the  scrutiny  of  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  and  the  proposal  for  the  revision  of  the 
Directive.  

This Impact Assessment was reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) that provided 
its opinion on  22 July 2016. Based on the Board's recommendations, the impact assessment 
has been revised according to the following lines:  

Relevant 
sections  of 
IA 
the 
report 

1.1 

  Recommendation 

from 

the RSB 

road 
i.e.  what 

1  Clarify  how  the  initiative 
relates  to  the  more  general 
safety 
context  of 
its 
policy, 
contribution  will  be 
to 
road  safety  as 
improve 
compared 
to  other  road 
safety initiatives  

Main description of changes 

Policy context was clarified and close inter-
instruments  was 
linkage  with 
underlined, and description of specific  road 
safety effects of this initiative strengthened 

related 

2  Better  describe  magnitude 
problems 
clarify 

of 
the 
encountered 
need for legislative action 

and 

2, 1.2 

Description  on  the  need  for  EU  legislative 
action was elaborated  

Numbers  of  affected  drivers  of  mutual 
recognition inserted, and their proportion of 
all  EU  drivers.  Estimation  of  costs  for 
drivers/companies  in  the  current  context 
inserted.  Possible  consequences  for  road 

2 

 
 
 
 
  
  Recommendation 

from 

the RSB 

3  Simplify 

description 

of 
policy options, focussing on 
those  issues  where  there  is 
a genuine policy choice 

Relevant 
sections  of 
the 
IA 
report 

4.2.1, 
4.2.7, 4.3 

Main description of changes 

haulage  enterprises  in  need  of  professional 
drivers strengthened.   

The  presentation  of  policy  options 
is 
simplified.  A  new  paragraph  on  future 
developments has been inserted, description 
of  RESPER  
of 
strengthened  and  specific  assessment  of 
possible use of TACHOnet inserted 

possible 

use 

the 

Furthermore, a series of additional changes due to the technical comments received from the 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board were incorporated into the Impact Assessment Report.   

Evidence used in IA together with its sources:   

  Ex-post evaluation study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative 

framework on training of professional drivers, done by Panteia in October 2014. 

  The  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2003/59/EC  (COM(2012)  385  final) 
provides  an  overview  of  the  current  state  of  play  in  terms  of  implementation  and 
highlights some of the problems identified.  

  The study on the Shortage of Qualified Personnel in Road Freight Transport, which 

was run by the European Parliament in 2009  

  The  2012  Report  of  the  High  Level  Group  on  the  Development  of  the  EU  Road 
Haulage Market identifying future challenges for the road transport sector and making 
proposals for changes.  
In  2010  the  International  Commission  for  Driver  Testing  (CIECA)  presented  its 
Survey  on  the  implementation  of  the  directive  2003/59/EC  laying  down  the  initial 
qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage 
of goods and passengers.  

 

  A  series  of  papers  which  have  been  published  since  2010  by  DEKRA  Akademie 

Gmbh as part of the project Professional driving – more than just driving.  

  The Survey on driver training issues. Implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC, which 
was published in 2013 by the European Transport Workers Federation (ETF) and the 
International Road Transport Union (IRU) 

  Statistics available from EUROSTAT and the CARE-datebase (accident statistics)  

External expertise: 
An external consultant carried out an ex-post evaluation study1 as well as a support study to 
the impact assessment in the framework of the same contract between October 2013 and May 

1

Please see  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2014_ex_post_evaluation_study_training_drivers_en.pdf  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2015. The results of the evaluation report  fed into  the Impact assessment support study and 
then into the Impact Assessment report, which as well was presented to the Steering group for 
comments  and  reactions.  The  ex-post  evaluation  study  and  the  impact  assessment  support 
study took into account the replies to the public consultation and on the information gathered 
during the stakeholder conference (see annex II).  

The final impact assessment report was submitted on 18 of May 2015. Due to the change of 
the impact assessment approach discussed and endorsed by the Inter-service Steering Group, 
the lead service (MOVE) partially used from the contractors report the data collected in the 
course  of  the  stakeholders  consultation  activities,  while  the main  analysis  was  performed  in 
house.  

Bibliography 

  CARE database. 
  CIECA  (2010),  The  Survey  on  the  implementation  of  the  directive  2003/59/EC 
laying down the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road 
vehicles for the carriage of goods and passengers, The international commission for  
driver testing  

  CIECA  (2014),  CIECA  Workshop  report  Directive  2003/59/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  July  2003  on  the  initial  qualification  and 
periodic  training  of  drivers  of  certain  road  vehicles  for  the  carriage  of  goods  or 
passengers 

  Dutch safety Board, ’Truck accidents on motorways’ (2012). 
  ETF, IRU (2013), The Survey on driver training issues. Implementation of Directive 

2003/59/EC (STARTS). 

  ETSC PIN Flash No24. Towards safer transport of goods and passengers in Europe.  
  European Commission (2003), European Road Safety Action Programme  - Halving 
the  number  of  road  accident  victims  in  the  European  Union  by  2010:  A  shared 
responsibility (COM(2003) 311 final).  

  European Commission (2010), The Communication Towards a European road  safety 

area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 (COM(2010) 389 final). 

  European Commission (2011), The EU White Paper Roadmap to a Single European 
transport 

Transport  Area  –  Towards  a  competitive  and  resource  efficient 
(COM(2011) 144 final). 

  European  Commission  (2012),  ‘Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2003/59/EC  relating 
to  the  initial  qualification  and  periodic  training  of  drivers  of  certain  road  vehicles 
for the carriage of goods or passengers, COM(2012) 385 final. 

  European  Commission  (2012),  Impact  Assessment  –  Roadworthiness  package. 

SWD(2012) 206 final 

  European Commission, EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050, 

(December 2013). 

    European Commission (2014), Public Consultation on Directive 2003/59/EC 
  European  Commission  (2014),  EU  Transport  in  Figures:  Statistical  Pocketbook 

2014. 

  European  Commission  (2014),  Guide  to  Cost-benefit  Analysis  of  Investment 

Projects 

  EUROSTAT: motor vehicle movements on national territory. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 

  GHG‐TransPoRD (2011), Bottom-up quantifications of selected measures to reduce 
GHG  emissions  of  transport  for the  time  horizons  2020 and  2050: Cost  assessment 
of GHG mitigation measures of transport. 
International Energy Agency (2013), CO2 Emissions from fuel combustions 
International  Transport  Forum/International  Energy  Agency  (2007)  Workshop  on 
Ecodriving. Findings and messages for policy makers.  
IRU, 2007, Scientific Study "ETAC" European Truck Accident Causation. 
Japan  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association 
International Conference on Global Environment 

(2014)  Presentation  at  The 

 
 

  Mineta  Transportation  Institute  (2012),  Ecodriving  and  Carbon  Footprinting: 
Understanding how public education can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 
use.  

  NHTSA 2006, Large-truck crash causation study: an initial overview. 
  Panteia  (2014),  Ex-Post  Evaluation  Study  Report  -  Study  on  the  effectiveness  and 
improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers.  

  Panteia (2014), Impact Assessment support Study. 
  Panteia (2014), Report on the Stakeholder Conference on Directive 2003/ 59/EC 
  ProfDRV (2011), Methods and Assessment in Training of Professional Drivers 
  ProfDRV  (2012),  2003/59/EC-  standardised  Europe-wide  initial  and  continuous 
vocational education and training for professional drivers: strategies, consequences, 
opportunities and threats.  

  Report  of  the  High  Level  Group  on  the  Development  of  the  EU  Road  Haulage 

Market (2012). 

  UITP-ETF  (2014),  Joint  Statement:  The  implication,  application  and  further 
development  of  Directive  2003/59/EC  on  initial  qualification  and  continuous 
training of professional bus drivers in urban public transport.  
  Volvo Trucks, 'European Accident Research and Safety Report 2013 

5 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: 
Stakeholder consultation- Synopsis report  

1. Introduction and overview  

Before drafting the legislative proposal and the present report stakeholder consultations were 
conducted  in  order  to  gather  as  many  comments  and  suggestions  as  possible  from  the 
individuals  and  bodies  concerned.  This  exercise  complied  with  the  minimum  standards  for 
consultation of interested parties set out in the Commission Communication of 11 December 
2002 (COM (2002) 704 final). 

The consultation process included two types of actions, opinion gathering and data collection, 
for which open and targeted consultation methods and various consultation tools  were used.  

As  an  open  consultation  method  an  internet-based  open  public  consultation  took  place 
between 17 July and 25 October 2013. The Commission services received 395 contributions, 
203  respondents  participated  as  private  individuals  192  replied  on  behalf  of  institutions  or 
interest  representation.  58  respondents  are  registered  in  the  Transparency  Register  of  the 
European Parliament and of the European Commission.  

Participants emphasised the importance of ongoing EU action in the field of qualification and 
training of professional drivers. In considering the impact of the Directive, the perception of 
the  stakeholders  is  that  it  contributed  only  insufficiently  to  achieving  its  objectives,  namely 
increased  road  safety,  development  of  the  level  of  professional  competence  of  drivers,  free 
mobility of drivers and the creation of a level playing field for drivers and undertakings. On 
the  concrete  measures  to  be  adopted  to  address  these  difficulties  the  opinions  were  more 
divided. 

The consultation paper, the contributions received, a summary of these contributions and the 
report on the stakeholder conference of 6 March 2014 are available on the website of the road 
safety unit of DG MOVE and on the “Your voice in Europe” website2. 

As targeted consultation methods, the process considered:  

  The  Commission  services  presented  the  initiative  in  the  framework  of  the  social 
dialogue with the road transport social  partners on 24 June  2013 and  with  the urban 
public  transport  on  25  September  20133.  The  main  findings  of  the  open  public 
consultation  were  presented  again  to  the  road  transport  social  partners  on  25  April 
2014. The key issues addressed in the proposal for a revised directive on the initial and 
periodic  training  were  presented  to  social  partners  on  19  November  2014.  On  that 
occasion the social partners expressed their support for having legislation at European 
level  in  this  field  and  did  not  have  any  objections  to  the  objectives  proposed  by  the 
Commission.  

  On 6 March 2014 a hearing of stakeholders was held in Brussels with the participation 
of  delegations  from  around  100  organisations  representing  haulage  operators, 
passenger 
and  national 
transport  operators,  workers, 
the  open  public 
administrations.  The  conference  confirmed 
consultation  (see  above).  The  report  on  the  stakeholder  conference  of  6  March  2014 
isavailable on the website of the road safety unit of DG MOVE. 

training  providers 
the  findings  of 

2

 Please see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/take-part/public-consultations/cpc_en.htm and  

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2014_03_06_cpc_review_en.htm 

3

 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=5365 

6 

 
 
                                                 
  On 23 January 2014 the Commission held an informal workshop with Member States 
in order to discuss minimum age requirements and the structure of the training in the 
context of a possible review of the Directive. At the meeting of the CPC committee on 
23 October 2014 the last part of the meeting was dedicated to an informal discussion 
with Member States on how to improve mutual recognition. The CPC committee met 
again on the 9 October 2015, when the ongoing review of Directive was discussed. As 
regards  to  problem  with  mutual  recognition  of  periodic  training,  the  participants 
expressed concern about Member States applying different practice and generally saw 
the need for a harmonised approach. There was an exchange of views on the issue of 
mutual  recognition  of  periodic  training  undergone  in  another  Member  State  and  the 
issue of content and structure of the training. Importance of keeping the Directive up 
to  date  as  regards  technological  progress  was  underlined  and  the  need  on  additional 
clarity on some aspects, such as e-learning.  

  A  questionnaire  survey  to  Member  States  authorities  was  sent  in  the  course  of  the 
support study to collect detailed information on the implementation of the Directive. 
The  questionnaires  were  distributed  among  the  DG-MOVE  CPC  Committee 
Members.  At  the  latter  stage,  a  follow-up  data  request  was  sent  to  collect  additional 
quantitative information on specific elements related to the Directive. 
In addition, the contractor together with ETF developed a questionnaire survey about 
possible barriers for the free movement of drivers. This questionnaire was submitted to 
the EU-members of ETF. 

  Targeted  interviews  were  carried  out  in  the  course  of  the  support  study  order  to 
supplement the data obtained through the other methods, to investigate certain specific 
issues, strengthen findings, or seek clarifications on the answers given by stakeholders 
to  questionnaires.  Interviews  were  held  with  a  number  of  stakeholders  ranging  from 
public entities to relevant transport associations. 

2.  Main conclusions various consultation activities 

a.  Open public consultation exercise  

The consultation attracted 395 responses, 389 of them via the online questionnaire, the others 
via email. The Commission received also contributions analysing the Directive, which were 
not directly responding to the questions of the consultation. About half of the contributions 
were submitted by private individuals, the other half was submitted on behalf of institutions or 
interest representation representing the road transport service sector, training organisations, 
competent authorities and other enforcement bodies in relation to the application of the 
Directive, road safety experts and researchers and public authorities. 

The largest amount of contributions was received from the UK, particularly among the private 
individuals. 

Overall the respondents agree on the important role that training of drivers plays in ensuring 
increased road safety. They also agree on the importance of harmonisation to allow for mutual 
recognition. On the current Directive there is a wide spread view that it managed to reach its 
objectives only to a limited extent. 

On the specific aspects to improve the efficacy of the Directive the opinions are divided. 
There is no clear prevailing idea on how the scope of the Directive should be regulated to 
make it clearer. On the minimum age requirements for young drivers the opinions are evenly 
divided as well. 

The participants in the public consultation do not express a clear opinion on who should 
certify periodic training undergone in another Member State: the home country of the drivers 
having issued the driving licence or by the Member State in which the training was taken. 

7 

 
 
There is greater consensus on the importance of preserving the specificity of the training and 
testing for the Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC). The subjects currently covered 
by the training are seen as relevant. The mandatory inclusion of the use of simulators during 
the training is not perceived as necessary, while there is support for regulating the use of e-
learning instruments in the Directive. 

Respondents generally support greater harmonisation of the content of the periodic training, 
but are evenly divided on the opportunity of having a test at the end of it. The distribution of 
the periodic training over the whole 5-year period is a solution that is favoured by a majority 
of the respondents. They also agree on the necessity of developing a mechanism which allows 
for the recognition of partial periodic training undergone in another Member State. A more 
detailed regulation of the requirements for training centres and instructors is favoured as well. 

b.  Stakeholder conference 

On 6 March 2014, the European Commission organized a Stakeholder Conference as part of 
the review of Directive 2003/59/EC. 

The main objectives of the conference, which was open to all interested stakeholders, were to 
report on the findings of the public consultation and to validate its results, to present the first 
results of the ex-post evaluation of the Directive and to discuss policy measures for the review 
of the Directive. 107 participants registered for the Conference, representing 104 
organisations from 20 Member States or operating EU wide.  

The Conference had four thematic sessions and an introductory session.  

Data limitations 

The categories of participants of the stakeholder conference reflected the categories of 
respondents of the public consultation, with the exception of individual participants. Most of 
the speakers represented training institutes or road transport associations, of which many also 
have training business units. 

Conclusions: 

For each of the four thematic sessions, the below conclusions emerged, based on general 
consensus among the stakeholders present at the conference. 

Session 1 - Relevance and scope of the Directive. 

  No stakeholder contested the relevance of the Directive but there was a clear signal 
that before expanding the scope, the Commission has to ensure that the Directive is 
operating properly in the Member States, which also gives added value to the industry 
and the drivers themselves. The Commission took notice of the concerns expressed 
regarding the growing cross-border traffic of vans and the possibility to extend the 
scope of the Directive to apply also to this category of vehicles.  

  The stakeholders’ discussion showed that the scope of exemptions should not be 

increased from what is currently foreseen in the Directive. Alignment with Regulation 
561/2006 is not seen as important but coherence between the two regimes is welcome.  

  The Commission took notice of the concerns expressed regarding the negative impact 
of the application of certain exemptions on the level playing field on a national level.  

Session 2 - Minimum age. 

  There is a difference between the opinion of the academia and that of the industry on 
the right level of minimum ages to enter the profession. The former considers that 
lowering minimum ages would lead to increased risks of road accidents. The industry 
representatives, on the other hand, believe that young drivers (aged 18 ) do not 
represent a higher risk than older drivers, provided the selection criteria and the 

8 

 
 
quality of training are right. Also, the industry representatives pointed out that there is 
a growing shortage of drivers, which could be compensated through maintaining the 
low minimum ages to enter the profession.  

  Nonetheless, both the academia and the industry believe that there are ways to 

mitigate the increased risk of causing road accidents posed by youngsters through 
mechanisms such as having the right training or other measures such as mentorship. 

  There is a broad consensus among the stakeholders that the minimum ages as laid 
down currently in the Directive (18 years for truck drivers and 21 for bus/coach 
drivers) are adequate. 

Session 3 - Structure of the training. 

  Stakeholders generally agree that there is a need to improve the current training 

system. 

  There is also agreement that the training system has to be made more adaptable to the 

actual needs of the drivers and companies. There is also a need to make it more 
flexible over time and to introduce more direct involvement of the stakeholders and 
the industry. 

  Stakeholders pointed out that the training should be meaningful for the drivers. This 
means that the periodic trainings should not comprise of merely repetitive courses, or 
include topics that are irrelevant for the driver. Rather, the training should take into 
account the individual needs of the driver. 

  There might be a need to replace a rigid periodic training system with a life-long 

learning approach. 

Session 4 - Quality assurance and mutual recognition of the training. 

  As regards the mutual recognition, it is not clear whether there is a problem, and if so, 

how big it is. 

  There is support for a system that improves mutual recognition but there are concerns 
among the industry representatives about the possible costs that this may entail to the 
driver and his/her operator.  

  There is a consensus that quality assurance is important and we should find ways to 

increase the reliability and trustworthiness of the training centres.  

Summarised conclusions: 

  There is broad agreement among the stakeholders that the Directive is relevant and 

necessary, but it has to be improved especially as regards implementation. That should 
be given priority over extending its scope to other vehicles. 

  There are reservations regarding the extension of the scope to drivers currently not 

covered, although a couple of stakeholders called for an extension to vans and small 
trucks. 

  There was little, if any, support for the alignment of the scope of the Directive with 
other related legislation, especially Regulation 561/2006 on the harmonisation of 
certain social legislation relating to road transport. 

  Stakeholders support leaving minimum age requirements as they currently are in the 

Directive. However, the current ambiguity with the Driving Licence Directive needs to 
be corrected. 

  Almost all stakeholders agree that introducing a modular training structure would be a 

good way to go forward.  

  There is a need to improve the adaptability and flexibility of the training system. The 

training should be meaningful and useful for the drivers.  

9 

 
 
 

It remains uncertain whether mutual recognition of training and certification 
represents a problem, and if so, to what extent. Cost-effective measures that would 
improve the mutual recognition would be most welcome. 

  Similarly, cost-effective measures to provide better quality assurance would be 

received favourably. 

  The stakeholders expressed an interest to be involved and consulted in the subsequent 

steps of the review process, to the extent allowed by procedural rules.  

c.  Member States Workshop 

The Workshop took place on 23 January 2014 in Brussels and was attended by 18 Member 
States.  

Minimum age 

Eight  Member  States  expressed  themselves  in  favour  of  the  option  of  considering  that  as 
professional drivers have to undergo additional testing, which goes beyond the normal driving 
licence testing to obtain the initial CPC, it might be considered that they drive at an earlier age 
than drivers, who have not undergone the CPC qualification. They mention the importance of 
not imposing restrictions to the access of young people to the profession, in particular since 
the profession is suffering from a shortage of young drivers and an aging workforce 

A system of gradual access to professional driving requiring the various categories of C and D 
driving  licences  is  perceived  as  less  useful  since  there  is  particularly  a  need  for  transport 
relying on heavy trucks. 

Two Member States expressed that the minimum age requirements as they are currently set in 
Directive 2003/59/EC are considered appropriate.  

Structure of the training 

Some aspects related to structure of the training was discussed on the basis of an introduction 
indicating  that  training  requirements  could  be  indicated  not  in  form  of  the  hours  of  the 
training  but  in  form  of  what  a  driver  needs  to  know  at  the  end  of  the  training,  so-called 
learning outcomes. These outcomes could be set in the form of common standards set by the 
European  Committee  for  standardisation  (CEN).  A  system  of  modules  could  contribute  to 
create greater uniformity in the training and thereby facilitating mutual recognition and also 
transferability. There could be tests at the end of the periodic training to verify what drivers 
have learnt.  

Some Member States expressed themselves in favour of a flexible model, e.g to have a mix 
between  mandatory  and  optional  modules  for  the  periodic  training,  while  other  expressed 
satisfaction with the current structure. Some sympathy for an outcome oriented approach was 
expressed. 

Some  Member  States  mention  that  standardisation  could  be  a  solution  to  the  existing 
problems  with  mutual  recognition,  while  other  are  concerned  with  the  burden  with  this 
approach, e.g. to training centres.  

Some Member States express their opposition to tests after the periodic training.  

Some Member States express concerns on the costs of the introduction of a system of sharing 
information  from the national database  similar to RESPER  to  help with mutual  recognition, 
also of partial periodic training undergone in another MS. 

d.   Interviews 

Targeted interviews were carried out in the course of the support study order to supplement 
the data obtained through the other methods, to investigate certain specific issues, strengthen 
findings,  or  seek  clarifications  on  the  answers  given  by  stakeholders  to  questionnaires. 
10 

 
 
Interviews were held with a number of stakeholders ranging from public entities to relevant 
transport associations. 

In the period between October 2013 and July 2014 interviews were held face to face or 
collected via phone or email from with 22 organisations representing authorities, the drivers, 
transport companies and other affected stakeholders.  

Data limitations 

In general, stakeholders reacted positively to the interviews, and showed willingness to 
cooperate and assist in the evaluation by providing information to the best of their 
availabilities. The interviewed stakeholders were often unable to provide (relevant) 
quantitative data. Although they were aware of the existence of certain problems (through 
complaints of association members, discussions, or hearsay), there were no clear records kept 
that would help determine the magnitude of the problems.  

Main findings: 

 

In general stakeholders support mandatory initial and periodic training as introduced 
by the Directive. 

  The views of the different stakeholder categories can be summarized as follows: 
employers want maximum flexibility, training institutes want more training, 
examination institutes want more examination, employees want the job of a driver to 
become a real profession, which in turn could make the profession more attractive. 
  Problems relating to the mutual recognition of full trainings may only have a regional 

dimension since only in certain areas were these problems pointing out by the 
stakeholders. 

  Stakeholders were unable to present quantitative data on the impact of training on road 

safety and reduction of fuel use. 

  Not one stakeholder questioned the length of the periodic training (35 hours), except 
for one stakeholder who is in favour of slowly reducing the number of periodic 
training hours for experienced drivers. 

e.  Questionnaire surveys 

In December 2013 a questionnaire survey to collect additional information on the 
implementation of the Directive in the Member States was launched in the course of the 
support study. The questionnaire was distributed among the members of the DG-MOVE CPC 
Committee. In January 2014 a short additional questionnaire was distributed to collect 
quantitative information on the recognition of CPC training in foreign countries. In April 
2014 a questionnaire was distributed via ETF in order to get additional quantitative 
information on problems with the recognition of driver training undergone in another Member 
State. 

Data limitations 

Most of the Member States gave complete answers to the questions addressed. However, 
some did not possess all the necessary data to provide all the information. The most 
frequently incurred missing information was on the operation of the system (number of 
drivers who acquired initial qualification and number of drivers obtained a CPC through a 
periodic training).  

Main findings 

The  questionnaire  surveys  gave  information  on  how  the  Directive  was  implemented  in  the 
Member States. In addition, the questionnaire surveys gave quantitative information on some 
elements of the Directive, such as the number of exempted drivers, the mandatory topics for 
obtaining  a  driving  license  and  a  CPC  per  Member  State,  Member  State’s  policies  on 
11 

 
 
recognition  of  training  in  other  countries,  the  number  of  drivers  trained  till  2013  and  the 
number of approved training courses and training centres.  

3.  Consultation response presented according to each key IA element  

General (From interviews):  

Employers want maximum flexibility, training institutes want more training, examination 
institutes want more examination, employees want the job of a driver to become a real 
profession, which in turn could make the profession more attractive. The interviewed 
stakeholders were often unable to provide (relevant) quantitative data 

Mutual recognition of periodic training 

In the Public Consultation the participants did not express a clear opinion on who should 
certify periodic training undergone in another Member State: the home country of the drivers 
having issued the driving licence or by the Member State in which the training was taken.  

In the Stakeholder Conference it is stated uncertainty whether there is a problem, and if so, 
how big it is. There is support for a system that improves mutual recognition but there are 
concerns among the industry representatives about the possible costs that this may entail to 
the driver and his/her operator. Cost-effective measures that would improve the mutual 
recognition would be most welcome. 

The interviews indicate that the problems related to mutual recognition of full trainings may 
only have a regional dimension since only in certain areas were these problems are pointed 
out by the stakeholders. 

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising the 
incoherence of the Directive in this regard, and triggering further analysis of the scope of the 
problem and possible solutions.  

Mutual recognition of driver attestation 

During  the  CPC  Committee  meeting  in  October  2015  it  emerged  that  Member  States  have 
different practise as regards issuing of driver attestations, and that this has led to problems of 
mutual recognition for drivers who have fulfilled their training obligations.  

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising the 
incoherence of the Directive in this regard, and triggering further analysis of the scope of the 
problem and possible solutions. 

Legal uncertainty in minimum age 

In the Public Consultation opinions differ on the minimum age requirements for young drivers  

In the Stakeholder Conference there was a difference between the opinion of the academia 
and that of the industry on the right level of minimum ages to enter the profession. The former 
considers that lowering minimum ages would lead to increased risks of road accidents. The 
industry representatives, on the other hand, believe that young drivers (aged 18) do not 
represent a higher risk than older drivers, provided the selection criteria and the quality of 
training are right. Also, the industry representatives pointed out that there is a growing 
shortage of drivers, which could be compensated through maintaining the low minimum ages 
to enter the profession.  

Nonetheless, both the academia and the industry believe that there are ways to mitigate the 
increased risk of causing road accidents posed by youngsters through mechanisms such as 
having the right training or other measures such as mentorship. 

There is a broad consensus among the stakeholders that the minimum ages as laid down 
currently in the Directive (18 years for truck drivers and 21 for bus/coach drivers) are 

12 

 
 
adequate. However, the current ambiguity with the Driving Licence Directive needs to be 
corrected. 

In the Member States workshop, eight Member States expressed themselves in favour of 
considering that as professional drivers have to undergo additional testing, which goes beyond 
the normal driving licence testing to obtain the initial CPC, it might be considered that they 
drive at an earlier age than drivers, who have not undergone the CPC qualification. They 
mention the importance of not imposing restrictions to the access of young people to the 
profession, in particular since the profession is suffering from a shortage of young drivers and 
an aging workforce. A system of gradual access to professional driving requiring the various 
categories of C and D driving licences is perceived as less useful since there is particularly a 
need for transport relying on heavy trucks. Two Member States expressed that the minimum 
age requirements as they are currently set in Directive 2003/59/EC are considered appropriate.  

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising the 
incoherence between the Directives in this regard, and triggering further analysis of the scope 
of the problem and recognising the  clear preference of having the minimum ages according to 
the current (lower) ones of Directive 2003/59/EC.  

Legal uncertainty in exemptions 

From the Public Consultation there is no clear prevailing idea on how the scope of the 
Directive should be regulated to make it clearer. 

From the Stakeholder Conference, the stakeholders’ discussion showed that the scope of 
exemptions should not be increased from what is currently foreseen in the Directive. 
Alignment with Regulation 561/2006 is not seen as important but coherence between the two 
regimes is welcome. Improvements of the Directive on implementation should be given 
priority over extending its scope to other vehicles. There are reservations regarding the 
extension of the scope to drivers currently not covered, although a couple of stakeholders 
called for an extension to vans and small trucks.  

Use of ICT-tools( e-learning) 

In the replies to the Public Consultation there is support for regulating the use of e-learning 
instruments in the Directive. 

Content of training 

From the public Consultation respondents considers that the subjects currently covered by the 
training are seen as relevant and generally support greater harmonisation of the content of the 
periodic training. 

In the Stakeholder Conference it was pointed out that the training should be meaningful for 
the drivers. This means that the periodic trainings should not comprise of merely repetitive 
courses, or include topics that are irrelevant for the driver. Rather, the training should take 
into account the individual needs of the driver. 

From the interviews it emerged that Stakeholders were unable to present quantitative data on 
the impact of training on road safety and reduction of fuel use. 

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising that 
no major changes are needed on the training content, but some greater harmonisation could be 
considered, and especially avoiding repetitive courses in the periodic training. 

Training System: 

In the Stakeholder Consultation there was agreement that the training system has to be made 
more adaptable to the actual needs of the drivers and companies. There is also a need to make 
it more flexible over time and to introduce more direct involvement of the stakeholders and 

13 

 
 
the industry. There is a consensus that quality assurance is important and we should find ways 
to increase the reliability and trustworthiness of the training centres. Almost all stakeholders 
agree that introducing a modular training structure would be a good way to go forward. There 
is a need to improve the adaptability and flexibility of the training system. The training should 
be meaningful and useful for the drivers.  Similarly, cost-effective measures to provide better 
quality assurance would be received favourably. 

In the Workshop some Member States expressed themselves in favour of a flexible model, e.g 
to have a mix between mandatory and optional modules for the periodic training, while other 
expressed satisfaction with the current structure. Some sympathy for an outcome oriented 
approach was expressed. Some Member States mention that standardisation could be a 
solution to the existing problems with mutual recognition, while other are concerned with the 
burden with this approach, e.g. to training centres.  Some Member States express their 
opposition to tests after the periodic training. Some Member States express concerns on the 
costs of the introduction of a system of sharing information from the national database similar 
to RESPER to help with mutual recognition, also of partial periodic training undergone in 
another MS. 

The  results  of  the  consultation  on  this  element  have  fed  into  policy  making  by  triggering 
further  assessments  of  the  problems  indicated.  Further  analysis  has  however  not  provided 
clear indications of a need for the EU to act by changing the structure of the current training 
provisions as indicated. 

14 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: 
Who is affected by the initiative and how 

Table 1: Description of the stakeholders 

Stakeholder 

Description of 
the stakeholders 
group in 2014 

Key interests 

Road 
transpo
rt 
compani
es 

Businesses 
providing 
international and 
road 
domestic 
freight 
and 
passenger 
transportation 
services 

2014 

there 
circa 

In 
were 
592.000 
enterprises  active 
in  freight-related 
road transport and 
000 
336 
enterprises 
in 
passenger-related 
transport. 
road 
Between 65% and 
95%  of  transport 
enterprises 
represent SMEs.  

and 

Maintaining 
profitability 
employment; 
legal 
certainty 
and  a  fair  and 
level playing field 
for 
intra-EU 
competition; well-
qualified 
workforce.  

Main expected 
Impacts of preferred 
policy option 
costs 

-Reduced 
in 
cross  border  regions 
of  the  MS  concerned 
by mutual recognition 
labour 
-Increased 
the  MS 
supply 
in 
with 
concerned 
minimum age 
-Increased 
provides 
predictability 
level playing field 

clarity 
more 
and 

Professi
onal 
Drivers 

Human 
resources 
road 
companies 

of 
transport 

In  2014  in  EU-28 
there  were  circa 
3.3  million  HGV 
and 
bus 
0.9 
drivers,  out  of 
the 
which 
were 
Directive 
covered 
respectively 
around  2,8  and  
0.8 
million 
drivers. 

by 

Health  and  safety 
in  the  workplace, 
free  movement, 
quality 
high 
training 
and 
professional 
career 
opportunities, 
good  chances  of 
employability 

Professi
onal 
drivers 
affected 
the 
by 
problem 
of 
mutual 

Professional 
drivers  who  live 
and  work 
in 
different 
Member  States 
..  

2014 

there 
In 
were  around  48 
700    drivers  who 
lives  in  one  MS, 
work  in  another 
MS  and  could 
undergo  periodic 
training  there,  but 

15 

Maintaining 
the 
possibility  to  be 
employable, 
career 
opportunities;  

mutual 
Full 
of 
recognition 
training, 
periodic 
access 
the 
profession  at  a  lower 
age in concerned MS 

to 

-A 
training  content 
that  further   improves 
road  safety  and  fuel 
efficiency  

Increased 
provides 
predictability 
level playing field 

clarity 
more 
and 

to 

Access 
at 
profession 
earlier 
age 
concerned MS 

the 
an 
in 

mutual 
Full 
of 
recognition 
periodic 
training 
undergone  in  the  MS 
driver 
the 
where 
works.,  

 
 
recognit
ion 

Trainin
g 
instituti
ons 

Authori
ties 
in 
Member 
State  

All 
other 
road 
users 

Training  centres 
approved  by  the 
competent 
of 
authorities 
Member 
the 
to 
States 
organise 
the 
training  courses 
for 
initial 
qualification and 
periodic 
training. 

the 

National, 
and 
regional 
bodies 
local 
regulating 
the 
implementation 
of  the  Directive 
their 
on 
in 
territory, 
those 
particular 
for 
responsible 
the  system  of 
accreditation 
and 
quality 
the 
control  of 
training  centres 
or 
for 
recognition 
process of CPCs 
trainings. 
All  other  road 
users,  who  are 
not  professional 
drivers  of  HGV 
or bus.  

could  not  get  the 
training  mutually 
recognised  

than  3 

of 
Number 
centres  varies  per 
State 
Member 
in 
(less 
and 
Malta 
Luxembourg 
to 
1400  in  the  UK). 
The  same  applies 
the 
average 
number  of  drivers 
per 
covered 
centre, 
training 
from 
ranging 
circa  6,400 
in 
Malta  to  125  in 
Ireland.  

-Adjustments 
training content 

in 

-Increased 
customer 
concerned 
in 
base 
border  regions  and  in 
MS 
by 
affected 
minimum age 

Increased 
provides 
predictability 
level playing field 

clarity 
more 
and 

and 

Maintaining 
profitability 
employment; 
certainty 
legal 
and  a  fair  and 
level playing field 
for 
intra-EU 
competition 

National 
authorities  in  28 
Member States 

an 
Ensuring 
efficient, effective 
and 
practical 
management 
that 
framework 
balances  a  wide 
range 
of 
stakeholder needs 

Issuing  of  DQC  in 
concerned MS 

Reduce  minimum  age 
in concerned MS 

required 
Adjust 
training  content  on 
road  safety  and  fuel 
efficiency 

flexibility 
Increased 
on 
combining 
trainings  and  on  use 
of e-learning 

Legal  clarity  provides 
more predictability 

Safer 
drivers on the roads. 

professional 

Road safety  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Methodological guide: Calculations made in the 
course of the impact assessment - 
Regulatory costs of different Policy measures 

1  MAIN METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS  

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines 4NPVs for costs and benefits in the period from 
2018  till  2030  are  calculated  using  a  discount  rate  of  4%  and  a  discount  period  2018-2030. 
Calculations are carried out in constant prices (price levels 2013).  

In  the  assessment  of  regulatory  costs  for  stakeholders  caused  by  the  implementation  of 
Directive  2003/59/EC  three  stakeholder  categories  are  identified:  enterprises,  drivers,  and 
public administrations. The components of the cost categories are as follows: 

Total regulatory costs (TC) =  Implementation  Costs  (IC)  for  public  administrations  + 
Compliance Costs (CC) for enterprises / drivers / training centres.  

Compliance Costs (CC) for enterprises / drivers / training centres are defined as Substantive 
Costs (SC) + Administrative Costs (AC).  

Substantive costs are costs made in order to comply with the content of the obligation that the 
Directive requires. 

Administrative costs are the costs associated with information obligations stemming from the 
Directive.  

The  value  of  leisure  time  applied  is  5.41  Euros  per  hour.  It  is  calculated  starting  from  the 
value of leisure time of 5.04 Euros of 2010 updated to 2013 values on the basis of the Eurostat 
data on the development of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). 
The value of an hour of FTE5 applied is 19.55 Euros. It is calculated taking as reference the 
2010  value  of  hourly  earnings  of  clerks  in  transport  sector  taken  from  the  EU  Database  on 
Administrative  Burden  (i.e.  18.2  Euros)  and  updated  to  2013  values  on  the  basis  of  the 
Eurostat data on the development of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices. 

When the training is carried out during working hours costs for the enterprises are calculated 
in terms of wages and lost profits. The hourly wage cost is assumed at 14,71 Euros based on 
13,7 Euros of hourly wage for elementary occupations in 2010 taken from the EU Database 
on Administrative Burden  and updated to 2013 values on the basis of the Eurostat data on the 
development  of  the  Harmonised  Index  of  Consumer  Prices.  Following  Panteia  (2014)  lost 
profits are calculated as 12.5% of total wages. 

The following table gives an overview of the cost components that will be taken into account 
in  the  calculation  of  total  regulatory  costs.  The  table  shows  the  cost  components,  the  cost 
categories, and the bearer of costs. 

Table 1: Cost components regulatory costs 

Cost components 

Cost category 

Bearer 

of 

4

5

 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm 

 unit that indicates the workload of an employed person in a way that makes workloads or class loads comparable across various contexts 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Time  spend  on  training  (value  of  leisure  time) 
associated with initial qualification 
Training  and  test  fees  associated  with  initial 
qualification 
Issuing  of  driver  qualification  card  or  marking 
code  95  on  driving  license  after  initial  training 
(time spend and administration fees) 
Training  fees  and  opportunity  costs  (wages  /  lost 
profits) associated with periodic training 

costs 

Substantive costs  Training 

participants 

Substantive costs  Training 

Administrative 
costs 

participants 
Training 
participants 

Substantive costs  Enterprises 

Drivers 
Governments 
Drivers 

Renewal  of  driver  qualification  card  /  code  95  on 
driving license after periodic training (time spend 
and administration fees) 

Administrative 
costs 

2  BASIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS 

2.1  Numbers of professional drivers  

The total number of truck and bus drivers and the development of these numbers over time 
are  taken  from  the  European  Union  Labour  Force  Survey  20146,  executed  by  EUROSTAT. 
Based  on  the  data  from  the  Survey,  the  annual  growth  rate  applied  for  both  truck  and  bus 
drivers  during  the  period  2013-2030  is  assumed  to  be  2.03%  and  distribution  between  the 
HGV and bus/coach drivers is estimated to be 78.2% and 21.8% respectively. According to 
the research made by the external consultant, the Directive does not cover  13.2% of drivers 
holding C and D licenses under current system of exemption. 
Based  on  the  Eurostat  data7  in  2014  the  total  transport  of  goods  by  road  in  the  EU  was 
1.725.240  million  tonne-kilometres,  where  75.024  million  tonne-kilometres  of  these  were 
dangerous goods. Therefore, the transport of dangerous goods represents around 4,5% of the 
total transport of goods in the EU. In 2012 and 2013 the percentage was slightly higher, but 
always  around  5%.  It  is  therefore  a  safe  assumption  that  the  transport  of  dangerous  goods 
represents around 5% of the overall transport of goods in the EU. In the same way the number 
of drivers engaged in transport of dangerous goods in the EU will be around 5% of the total 
amount of drivers in the EU. Finally, we assume that all  professional bus and coach drivers 
from  2018  would  need  to  pass  the  training  on  the  passenger  rights  as  carrying  passengers 
follows directly from their job description, and most Member States exempt drivers from the 
training obligation until 2018.  

Table 2: Drivers under the Directive in thousand people 

Total C 
and D 
licence 
drivers 

4187 
4189.6 
4274.7 

Year 

2013 
2014 
2015 

Professional drivers under the current exemption 
system 

Total 
HGV and 
buses 
3634 
3636.6 
3710.4 

HGV 

buses 

ADR 

2842 
2843.8 
2901.6 

792 
792.3 
792.8 

142 
142.1 
142.2 

Totals 
buses 
+ADR 
934 
934.3 
935.0 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 

4361.5 
4450.0 
4540.3 
4632.5 
4726.5 
4822.5 
4920.4 
5020.3 
5122.2 
5226.2 
5332.3 
5440.5 
5550.9 
5663.6 
5778.6 

3785.8 
3862.6 
3941.0 
4021.0 
4102.6 
4185.9 
4270.9 
4357.6 
4446.1 
4536.3 
4628.4 
4722.4 
4818.2 
4916.0 
5015.8 

2960.5 
3020.6 
3081.9 
3144.4 
3208.3 
3273.4 
3339.8 
3407.6 
3476.8 
3547.4 
3619.4 
3692.9 
3767.8 
3844.3 
3922.4 

808.9 
825.3 
842.0 
859.1 
876.6 
894.4 
912.5 
931.1 
950.0 
969.2 
988.9 
1009.0 
1029.5 
1050.4 
1071.7 

145.1 
148.0 
151.0 
154.1 
157.2 
160.4 
163.7 
167.0 
170.4 
173.8 
177.4 
181.0 
184.6 
188.4 
192.2 

954.0 
973.3 
993.1 
1013.2 
1033.8 
1054.8 
1076.2 
1098.0 
1120.3 
1143.1 
1166.3 
1190.0 
1214.1 
1238.8 
1263.9 

Source: the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

2.2  Number of trainees for initial qualification and periodic trainings 

Only  drivers  who  are  entering  the  profession  are  supposed  to  follow  initial  qualification 
training.  Therefore,  we  can  assume  that  number  of  trainees  for  this  type  of  CPC  training  is 
equal to the yearly increase of the drivers. 

Table 3: Number of participants in training for the initial qualification training in 
thousands people 

 Year 

Total  

2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Total 

73.8 
75.3 
76.9 
78.4 
80.0 
81.6 
83.3 
85.0 
86.7 
88.5 
90.3 
92.1 
94.0 
95.9 
97.8 
99.8 
2531 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

19 

 
 
The  situation  is  however  different  when  it  concerns  professional  drivers  who  wishes  to 
undergo the periodic training. The Directive allows Member States to extend the deadline for 
drivers who obtained their C and D driving licence before 9 September 2009 and 9 September 
2008 respectively to complete the first round of periodic training by 9 September 2015 for D 
licences and by 9 September 2016 for C licences. Therefore, and given the five years cycle of 
periodic  training,  the  number  of  drivers  affected  is  expected  to  vary  over  the  years,  with  a 
peak  every  five  years.  In  our  calculations,  we  assumed  that  in  2016  (deadline  year)  all 
professional drivers, who are in the profession for at least 5 years had to follow the periodic 
training.  For  the  upcoming  years  until  2021,  periodic  training  requirement  would  apply  to 
professional drivers who enter into the profession respectively between 2013 and 2012, 2014 
and 2013, 2015 and 2014, 2016 and 2015. In 2021, the training will be required for drivers 
joining the profession between 2017 and 2016 plus all drivers who need to pass the periodic 
training in 2016 for the first time. Therefore, the number of drivers affected varies over the 
years, with a peak every five years (i.e. in 2021, 2026). 

Table 4: Number of training participants for the periodic training in thousands people 

Year 

Definition 

Drivers under the 
Directive 

value** 2012 + Δ2017 

2018  Δ* 2014  
2019  Δ 2015 
2020  Δ 2016  
2021 
2022  Δ 2018 + Δ2013  
2023  Δ 2019 +Δ 2014 
2024  Δ 2020 +Δ 2015  
2025  Δ 2021+ Δ 2016   

2026 

Δ 2022 + Δ2017 + value 
2012  

2027  Δ 2023 +Δ 2018 + Δ2013 
2028  Δ 2019 + Δ2014 +Δ2023 
2029  Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 + Δ2024 
2030  Δ 2018 + Δ2016 + Δ2025 

80.8 

153.8 
156.9 
3899.5 
163.4 
169.1 
243.9 

248.9 

3993.2 

259.1 

266.8 

343.5 

350.5 

* "Δ" stands for an increase in number of drivers between the year indicated and a previous 
one 
** "value" stands for a number of drivers in the year indicated 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Number  of  foreign  drivers  affected  by  the  problem  of  mutual  recognition  periodic  trainings 
and associated costs for drivers and companies.  

Only  drivers  nationals  of  other  EU  Member  States  who  work  in  Austria,  Germany,  Greece, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  the  Netherlands  and  Poland  are  affected  by  the  problem  of  the 
mutual  recognition  of  their  CPC  training.  These  8  countries  opted  solely  for  the  option  of 

20 

 
 
 
 
marking Code 95 on the driving license. In the remaining Member States it is possible to get 
Code 95 on a DQC to foreign drivers, which ensures mutual recognition. 

According to the Labour  Force Survey statistics on employment of  HGV and bus driver,  in 
2014 only four Member States, notably Austria, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, had 
somewhat  considerable  shares  of  foreign  drivers  who  were  nationals  of  other  EU  Member 
States. For Lithuania, Malta and Poland, the sample of non-nationals was too  small  and the 
estimates  were made  on the basis of the overwhelming  majority of national drivers in these 
countries, which brings the share of impacted foreign drivers in these MS close to 0%.  

Table 5: Estimated breakdown of professional drivers (2014) 

Total 
number 
of 
drivers 
covered 
by the 
Directi
ve 
(1000) 

Total 
number 
of 
drivers 
C and 
D 
(1000) 

Non-National 

Nationa
l of the 
country 

EU 28 
national
s 

others 

Number of 
EU 
nationals 
potentially  
affected by 
the 
problem of 
the mutual 
recognition 
(1000) 

AT 

DE 

GR* 

LT** 

LV 

67.1 

58.2 

81.5% 

8.7*% 

9.8% 

710.5 

616.7 

89.5% 

5.2% 

5.3% 

82.1 

41.5 

26.3 

71.2 

92.5% 

3.0*% 

4.5% 

36.0 

~100% 

~0% 

~0% 

22.9 

85.4% 

~0% 

14.6% 

MT** 

2.3 

2.0 

~100% 

~0% 

~0% 

NL*** 

111.5 

96.8 

96.9% 

1.5*% 

1.6*% 

PL 

395.8 

343.6 

~100% 

~0% 

~0% 

5.1* 

36.7 

2.4* 

~0 

~0  

~0% 

1.7* 

~0 

* Estimated share of HGV and bus drivers based on the overwhelming  majority  of national 
drivers  in  these  nine  countries,  as  the  share  of  non-nationals  possesses  low  reliability  to  be 
published.   
* * The estimates are made based on very small data samples which implies a low reliability 
of data 
***  The  estimates  of  non-national  drivers  include  those  drivers  who  did  not  report  their 
nationality 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

In most of these Member States the first round of period training has accomplished by 2014 
and  only  the  deadlines  for  both  categories  of  professional  drivers  will  expire  in  upcoming 
years. However, in the calculations, we assume that  in 2016 (deadline year) all professional 
drivers, who are in the profession for at least 5 years have to follow the periodic training. As 
for calculations of the number of drivers following the periodic training, the number of drivers 
affected varies over the years, with a peak every five years (i.e. in 2021, 2026).  

21 

 
 
 
Table 6: Number of foreign drivers affected  

Year 

Definition 

Number of 
drivers 

2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 

2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 

Δ 2014 
Δ 2015 
Δ 2016 
value 2012 + Δ2017 
Δ 2018 + Δ2013 
Δ 2019 +Δ 2014 
Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 
Δ 2021+ Δ 2016 
Δ 2022 + Δ2017 + value 
2012 
Δ 2023 +Δ 2018 + Δ2013 
Δ 2019 + Δ2014 +Δ2023 
Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 + Δ2024 
Δ 2018 + Δ2016 + Δ2025 

798 
823 
839 
39490 
2052 
1689 
1732 
1768 

40437 
3018 
2675 
2738 
2794 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Given that the drivers need to fulfil the periodic training once in 5 years' time, we assume that 
they need to spent 1 working day of 7 hours to go to the country of their residence to undergo 
the periodic training there. This is done outside the working hours, therefore drivers do lose 
their  daily  wage  and  opportunity  leisure  costs.  Companies  in  their  turn  lose  daily  profit  for 
this day. 

The following assumptions were made to estimate substantive costs associated with periodic 
driver training8: 
  Costs are borne by enterprises are lost profits9.  
 

In assessment of costs borne by drivers, it is assumed that training is done outside working 
hours and the cost components are value of lost leisure time and lost wages. For the hourly 
wages we use the study on road haulage10, that presents average driver costs for selected 
countries.  Countries  with  missing  values  are  adjusted  based  on  the  ratio  estimated  from 
EUROSTAT  information  on  average  gross  earnings.  The  value  of  leisure  time  was 
estimated based on the VOT presented by the UNECE study (as described in the CE Delft 
handbook of external costs in the transport sector). The VOT for leisure was indicated to 
be  €  4  (EU  average,  1998).  This  value  was  updated  to  2010  value  (€  5.04)  using  EU 
inflation  figures.  This  value  was  then  made  comparable  to  the  shadow-price  of  labour 
(methodology presented in the Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, DG 
REGIO, 2008) and differentiated for EU countries. 

8

 For further details, see Panteia et al. (2014) Ex-post evaluation report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative 
framework on training of professional drivers.   

9

 Estimated lost profits, calculated as 12,5% of total wages, based on an average estimated profit of 5% in the sector, and an estimated wage 
share in total costs of 40%, based on Panteia (2013) 

10

 Panteia (2013): Cost comparison and cost developments in the European road haulage sector 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 7: Compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the 
mutual recognition principle over 5 year period 

Number of EU 
nationals 
potentially  
affected by the 
problem of the 
mutual 
recognition 
(1000) 

AT 

DE 

GR* 

LT** 

LV 

5.1* 

36.7 

2.4* 

~0 

~0  

Hourly 
wage 

Lost 
profits  

Value 
of 
leisure 
time 

Loss  
for 
busines
s 

Loss 
for 
drivers 

28.20 

3.53 

8.36 

144.0 

1494 

27.64 

3.46 

8.44 

888.4 

9277 

17.30 

2.16 

3.29 

37.0 

352 

5.14 

0.64 

1.13 

5.44 

0.68 

1.26 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0 

0 

0 

MT** 

~0% 

14.36 

1.80 

4.79 

NL**
* 

PL 

Totals 

1.7* 

~0 

29.25 

3.66 

6.56 

42.9 

420 

23.93 

2.99 

1.99 

0.0 

0 

1112.3 

11543.
7 

* Estimated share of HGV and bus drivers based on the overwhelming  majority  of national 
drivers  in  these  nine  countries,  as  the  share  of  non-nationals  possesses  low  reliability  to  be 
published.   
* * The estimates are made based on very small data samples which implies a low reliability 
of data 
***  The  estimates  of  non-national  drivers  include  those  drivers  who  did  not  report  their 
nationality 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 8: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the 
biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in the concerned 
Member States 11 

PV of 
losses for 
business 
16.8 

PV of 
losses for 
drivers 
54.9 

Year 
2018 

11

 Values are calculated for each of the Member State separately and put together in this table 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

18.8 
19.2 
904.9 
47.0 
37.2 
39.6 
40.4 

926.5 
69.1 
59.7 
62.6 
63.9 
2305.7 

66.2 
65.0 
2952.5 
147.3 
106.5 
114.7 
112.5 

2484.7 
177.9 
143.3 
149.0 
146.1 
6720.7 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 9: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the 
biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in the Netherlands 

PV of 
losses for 
business 
0.012 
0.7 
0.7 
34.6 
1.8 
0.8 
1.5 
1.5 
35.4 

2.6 
1.6 
2.3 
2.4 
85.9 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

PV of 
losses for 
drivers 
0.0 
7.0 
6.9 
319.3 
15.8 
6.5 
12.1 
11.9 
268.6 

19.0 
11.2 
15.7 
15.4 
709.3 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

12

 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in the Netherlands. Therefore, for the sake of analysis, the 

value of the drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Table 10: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the 
biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in Greece 

PV of 
losses for 
business 
3.0 
0.6 
0.6 
27.7 
1.5 
3.7 
1.3 
1.3 

28.4 
2.2 
4.4 
2.1 
2.1 
79.0 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

PV of 
losses for 
drivers 
7.5 
1.5 
1.5 
62.1 
3.2 
7.6 
2.6 
2.6 

52.3 
3.9 
7.5 
3.4 
3.3 
159.2 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 11: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the 
biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in Germany 

PV of 
losses for 
business 
13.8 
15.1 
15.4 
721.8 
37.5 
30.1 
31.7 
32.3 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

739.2 
55.2 
48.1 
50.1 
51.1 
1841.3 

PV of 
losses for 
drivers 
47.4 
49.8 
48.9 
2209.3 
110.4 
85.1 
86.2 
84.6 

1859.5 
133.5 
111.9 
112.0 
109.9 
5048.7 

25 

 
 
Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 12: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the 
biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in Austria 

PV of 
losses for 
business 
0.013 
2.4 
2.5 
120.7 
6.2 
2.6 
5.1 
5.2 
123.5 

9.1 
5.6 
8.1 
8.3 
299.4 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

PV of 
losses for 
drivers 
0.0 
7.9 
7.8 
361.8 
17.9 
7.3 
13.7 
13.4 
304.3 

21.5 
12.7 
17.8 
17.5 
803.5 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

3  REGULATORY COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

POLICY MEASURES 

This section reviews the development of the costs and savings linked to different measures, 
and how they are distributed between different stakeholders group. 

PM  1:  Requirement  to  recognize  CPC  certificate  based    on  a  standardized    attestation 
document  

This measure affects only those eight Member States, which currently mark Code 95 solely on 
the  driving  licence  and  for  the  foreign  drivers  active  there.  According  to  the  finding  of  the 
external  consultant,  the  price  of  a  CPC  attestation  card,  which  is  a  standardized  secured 
attestation document, is assumed to be 65 Euros14.  

13

 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in Austria. Therefore for the sake of analysis, the value of the 

drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0.  

14

 According to the findings of the impact assessment support study "Assistance on impact assessment on Directive 2003/59/EC on  initial 
qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain good vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers", Panteia et al (2015), the value 
of  the  a  standardized  secured  attestation  document  in  Germany,  Austria  and  Greece  account  for  65  euros,  while  the  value  of  the  same 
document in the Netherlands is 57 euros. To account for a maximum effect on costs for the Member States, the value of the document in the 
Netherlands is also assumed as being 65 euros.   

26 

 
 
                                                 
As according   to our assumptions the first round of periodic training is accomplished in 2016 
and only since that moment all foreign drivers are subject to follow the periodic training in the 
country of their residence.  

Table 13: Discounted cost flow (thousands of euros) 

Year 

2018 

2019 

2020 
2021 

2022 

2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 

Discounted 
cash flow 

49.8 

51.4 

52.5 
2468.1 
128.3 

105.6 
108.3 
110.5 
2527.3 
188.6 
167.2 
171.1 
174.6 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Total NPV of this measure is minus € 6 303,000.  

Table 14: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in the 
Netherlands 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 

PV of costs 
0.015 
1.8 
1.7 
81.1 
4.0 
1.6 
3.1 
3.0 
68.2 

4.8 

15

 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in the Netherlands. Therefore, for the sake of analysis, the 

value of the drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

2.8 
4.0 
3.9 
180.1 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 15: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in the 
long-run in Greece 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

PV of costs  
3.0 
2.6 
2.5 
105.7 
5.5 
12.9 
4.5 
4.4 
89.1 

6.7 
12.8 
5.8 
5.7 
271.1 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 16: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in 
Germany 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

PV of costs 
37.0 
38.9 
38.2 
1724.7 
86.2 
66.5 
67.3 
66.0 

28 

 
 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

1451.6 
104.2 
87.4 
87.5 
85.8 
3941.2 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 

Table 17: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in 
Austria 

Year 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 

2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Totals  

PV of costs 
0.016 
6.2 
6.1 
282.7 
14.0 
5.7 
10.7 
10.5 
237.8 

16.8 
9.9 
13.9 
13.6 
627.8 

Source:  calculations  made  based  on  the  Labour  Force  Survey  statistics  on  employment  of 
HGV and bus drivers (2014) 
According  to  the  findings  of  the  external  contractor17,  Member  States  tend  to  reallocate 
financial burden for issuing secured papers on the targeted population of drivers. Therefore, it 
might  be  considered  that  the  final  payers  for  the  measure  would  be  drivers.  However, 
following  the  statements  made  by  Germany  and  Austria  in  the  CPC  committee18  this 
assumption  might  not  always  be  the  case  and  Member  States  might  consider  a  part  of  this 
burden. In this analysis an even distribution of the costs between governments and drivers is 
assumed.  

16

 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in Austria. Therefore for the sake of analysis, the value of the 

drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0.  

17 Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional, 
Panteia et a. (2014) 

18

 Meeting of the CPC-Committee 23 October 2014.  

29 

 
 
                                                 
PM 2: Issuing a DQC to foreign drivers 

This  measure  obliges  Member  States  authorities  to  issue  a  DQC  in  a  form  of  standardized 
secured  attestation  document  to  foreign  drivers  who  undergo  the  periodic  training  on  its 
territory. The price of the document and number of drivers affected is the same as discussed 
under PM 1.  

PM 3: The use of RESPER as a system of exchange of information on completed CPCs 

This policy measure affects all Member States. The costs incurred are the result of  

  costs of a set-up of a national CPC register for those countries where it is not still put 

in place (one-off compliance cost); 

  costs  of  interlinking/updating  the  Member  States'  interface  to  RESPER  (one-off 

compliance cost)  

  Running  costs  or  time  spent  by  the  authorities  in  transferring  the  information 

(implementation costs).  

National register 

According  to  the  information  provided  by  the  national  authorities  in  the  course  of  the 
evaluation and impact assessment support studies, 12 Member States do already own the CPC 
register and one Member State decided not to set it up due to the complexity of the training 
system. 14 Member States did not provide the information. It is reasonable to assume that a 
third  of  Member  State  which  did  not  provide  information  could  already  have  a  national 
register in place. This would imply that 10 Member States still need to set up a register.  

To  calculate  the  set-up  costs  of  the  national  register,  we  will  use  an  approach  and  data  on 
ERRU register assessed by Ricardo Energy & Environment et al under the ex-post evaluation 
of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. 

As the ERRU register and RESPER are built on the same IT-architecture, and therefore share 
the  core  and  main  elements  and  features,  costs  related  to  the  ERRU-register  are  considered 
relevant to estimate the costs for similar measures under RESPER. 

Ricardo assessed  that the costs of setting up a national  register  are broadly  proportionate to 
the  “size”  of  the  national  register.  They  categorized  Member  States  under  three  different 
headings, i.e. small, medium and small and assessed the costs for each of the groups 

Table 18: Ex-post costs for set up / upgrading of national registers (disregarding any 
prior costs) 

Register 
size 

Number of 
Member 
States 

Small 

Medium 

Large 

9 

12 

7 

Member States 

Ex-post set up 
cost  
(€ millions)* 

HR, CY, DK, EE, FI, LT, LU, 
MT 

AT, BE, BG, CZ, EL, HU, IE, 
PT, RO, SE, SI, SK  

FR, DE, IT, NL, PL, ES, UK 

0.37 

0.51 

1.25 

Source:  Ricardo Energy & Environment et al  

However, as mentioned above only 10 Member States do need to set up a register. We assume 
an  equal  distribution  among  three  categories  of  9  countries  for  which  information  is  not 

30 

 
 
available and we will classify a Member States without the register as a large Member State. 
The total (one –off) for this element would amount for 7.64 million euro.  

Costs of interlinking of RESPER to the national register 

Member States need to update the interface to exchange information with the RESPER system 
to  allow for the exchange of information.  The approach for the assessment of these  costs is 
taken following the estimates provided by Ricardo Energy & Environment et al for the ERRU 
register under the support study for the evaluation of the Road Haulage market19 and TUNER 
project (Wilson et al, 2009): 

Table 19: Ex-post cost estimates for interconnection 

Ease of 
implementation 
Easy 

Number of 
Member States 
10 

Medium 

Difficult 

Total 

11 

7 

28 

Ex-post interconnection cost 
€ millions) 

0.05 

0.12 

0.31 

3.94 

Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment et al (2015)  

This leads for 3.94 million of one-off investments for Member States. 

Maintenance costs are used to be negligible, as all Member States have already put in place 
system of information exchange under the RESPER.  

Running costs (administrative costs) 

National administration will need to register the data on completed CPCs. These costs are of a 
running nature  and will depend  on the number of foreign  drivers seeking the recognition of 
their training. Given the estimated 30 minutes for the registration of the CPC in the country of 
training and issuing the document in the country of the residence (15 minutes and 15 minutes 
respectively),  the  rolling  costs  for  the  period  2018  -2030  will  make  up  around  2.27  million 
euros.  

The total costs of policy measure 3 to the society over the period 2018-2030 are estimated to 
be 11.14 million euros for the national authorities. 

PM 4 Driver attestation recognised without code 95 

This option is not expected to produce any costs for the affected authorities, as all MS may 
continue with their current practise to indicate the code or not. 

PM 5 Driver attestation recognised only with code 95 

This option would imply costs on the authorities of those MS who do not currently mark code 
95 on the licence. Based on information from 6 MS20 3 would have to change their practise. 
For the remaining MS we do not have information, but for the sake of calculations we might 
assume  this  measure  could  affect  more  than  half  of  the  remaining  MS.  The  main  costs  are 

19

20

 Ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, Ricardo Energy & Environment et al (2015) 

 Information was received on 9 October 2015 concerning Germany, Austria, Lithuania, Romania, Poland and the Netherlands, whereby the 

three latter would have to change practise. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
considered a one off cost related to the change of procedure, which is estimated to around 10 
000 Euro per Member State. This gives a total cost of between 30 000-140 000 Euro. 

PM 6:- Revision of Section I of Annex I (Content of Initial training) 

The average initial qualification currently costs 1709 Euros per driver. The revision of section 
I of Annex I is estimated to lead to a one-off price increase of 5%. This would lead to cost 
increases of 85 Euros respectively per driver. It is reasonable to assume that the change of the 
system will primarily be of transitional nature, affecting the costs for the first four years only, 
while  afterwards  the  system  will  be  adjusted  to  the  new  requirements.  These  costs  are 
substantive compliance costs borne by the drivers. This measure does not concern 11 Member 
States, which opts for test only option as the change of the training curriculum affects them 
only marginally.  

Table 20: Cost development for new drivers under course and test system in thousand 
euros (applicable for 16 Member States)  

Year 

Discounted 
cost flow 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

Total 

4,813  

4,722  

2,316  

2,272   14,123  

PM 7 – Revision of Section 4 of Annex I (Content of Periodic training) 

Review of Section 4 of the Annex I related to the periodic training will bring only marginal 
level of costs compared to the current situation, as the revision would not impose new courses 
compared to the initial qualification training, but only require more diversity in the courses, 
and the topic of road safety to be covered. 

PM 8 – Clarify the possibility to use e-learning in the revised Directive 

This  PM  will  not  in  itself  produce  any  monetary  costs  or  benefits,  as  it  will  be  left  to  the 
Member States to decide whether or not to make use of this possibility.   

PM 9 - Legal clarification of exemptions 

The  effect  of  this  PM  is  related  to  which  extent  it  affects  the  number  of  drivers  who  are 
subject  to  the  requirements  of  the  Directive.  There  is  currently  a  significant  difference 
between Member States on the number of divers exempted21. However, the available evidence 
does  not  suggest  that  this  difference  is  due  to  different  application  of  the  exemptions.  This 
difference might be due to different factors, such as different share of the affected transport 
operations.  On  this  basis  it  is  not  expected  that  the  share  of  drivers  exempted  will  be 
significantly  changed  by  clarifying  the  exemptions.  The  effects  will  go  both  ways,  as  some 
transport  operations  in  some  Member  States  previously  exempted  will  be  covered  by  the 
Directive and vice versa. However no significant increase or decrease on the total number of 
drivers is expected.  

More  clarity  is  expected  to  reduce  uncertainty  among  stakeholders  and  thus  lead  to  fewer 
requests  to  Member  States  authorities,  leading  to  a  reduction  of  the  administrative  costs  for 

21

 Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional, 

Panteia et a. (2014) 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
national authorities. Based on the available information, it has however not been possible to 
quantify this effect. 

PM 11- Authorise Member States to allow the periodic training to be combined with other 
forms of training requirements  

This  PM  will  not  in  itself  produce  any  monetary  costs  or  benefits,  as  it  will  be  left  to  the 
Member States to decide whether or not to make use of this possibility.   

33 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5: 
Information supporting analysis of the problem definition 

 Table 1: Share of national and international road haulage on the basis of tkm22   

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0

International

National

Source: European Commission 2014, EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2014 

Table  2: Minimum age requirements in the various Member States 

Minimum age 
for drivers of 
C and CE 
categories 

Minimum age 
for drivers of 
D and DE 
categories 

Member 
State 

With 
CPC 
18 
18 
18 
18 
18 
21 
21 
18 
18 
18 
21 
18 
21 
18 
21 
19 
18 
18 
18 
18 
21 

AT 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
GR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PO 
PT 
SL 
SK 

Without 
CPC 

21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
18 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 

With 
CPC 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
24 
24 
21 
21 
21 
24 
21 
24 
21 
24 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
24 

22

Tkm = ton-kilometres 

Without 
CPC 

24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
21 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
21 
21 

21 
21 

18 
18 

SE 
UK 

24 
24 
Sources:  Information  provided  by  Member  States  to  Commission  in  2012;  Assistance  on 
impact assessment on Directive 2003/59/EC on initial qualification and periodic training of 
drivers of certain good vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, Panteia et al (2015), 
Communication  by  Croatia  to  the  Commission  in  2014,  Communication  by  Hungary  to  the 
Commission in 2015 

Table 3: Overview on the marking of code 95 

Member 
State 

Driving 
Licence 

Driver 
Qualification 
Card 

Driver 
Qualification 
Card for 
foreigners 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 
Estonia24 
Finland25 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

The 
Netherlands 

Poland 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X26 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X23 

X 

X 

X 

23 

24 

25 

26 

As of 1st December 2014

Both options are possible

Driver can choose 

Under special circumstances 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Portugal 

Romania 
Slovenia27 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Norway 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Source: European Commission 

Table 4   Costs of initial qualification and periodic training (EURO) 

Initial training 
& test (140 
hours) 

Initial training 
& test (280 
hours) 

Test only 
system 

Periodic 
training 
(35 hours) 

AT 
BE 

BG 

Not relevant 
Not relevant 
No data 
received 

CY  Not relevant 

CZ 

DE 

DK 
EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

1,000 

3,500 

2,234 
450 
No data 
received 
3,500 

4,500 

GR  Not relevant 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

No data 
received 
Not relevant 
No data 
received 

750 

2,800 
LU 
LV 
Not relevant 
MT  Not relevant 
Not relevant 
NL 

27

 Driver can choose 

Not relevant 
Not relevant 
No data 
received. 
Not relevant 
No data 
received. 
No data 
received. 
4,468 
1,350 
No data 
received. 
7,000 
No data 
received. 
Not relevant 
No data 
received. 
Not relevant 
No data 
received. 
No data 
received.. 
4,500 
Not relevant 
Not relevant 
Not relevant 

280 
400 

Not relevant 

68 

Not relevant 

No data 
received. 
Not relevant 
Not relevant 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 

40 

Not relevant 

280 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 
93 
70 
150 

36 

250 
600 

170 

50 

197 

600 

560 
160 

165 

750 

600 

110 

170 

250 

700 

215 

960 
70 
50 
800 

Periodic 
training 
(35 hours), 
corrected for 
PPP (2012) 
237 
552 

352 
57 

273 

593 
399 
208 

174 
616 

555 
119 

282 
214 

683 

336 
786 
98 
64 
743 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Initial training 
& test (140 
hours) 

Initial training 
& test (280 
hours) 

Test only 
system 

Periodic 
training 
(35 hours) 

PL 

PT 

1,690 

2,165 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 

RO  Not relevant 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 
No data 
received 
No data 
received 

SE 

SI 

No data 
received 

600 

SK 
UK  Not relevant 

650 

3,800 

Not relevant 

No data 
received 
850 
Not relevant 

Not relevant 

Not relevant 
304 

250 

240 

80 

480 

200 

150 
433 

Periodic 
training 
(35 hours), 
corrected for 
PPP (2012) 
441 

279 

144 

373 

241 
213 
372 

Source:  Ex-post  evaluation  study report:  Study on  the  effectiveness  and improvement  of  the 
EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers Panteia et al. (2014) 

37 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: 
Preselection of Impacts  

1  DISCARDED FORMS OF POLICY INTERVENTIONS  

1.1  Soft law – Promotion of best practices and exchange of information 

Possible  soft  law  measures  include  setting  up  working  groups,  workshops  and  seminars, 
platforms  for  exchange  of  best  practices  or  organising  information  campaigns. The  positive 
contribution  these  measures  can  make  to  the  better  implementation  of  the  Directive  are 
undisputed.  Soft  law  measures  may  be  effectively  used  in  combination  with  hard  law 
measures  to  reach  some  of  the  operational  objectives  set  out  above,  such  as  clarification  of 
legal  uncertainties.  However,  left  on  their  own,  soft  law  measures  alone  do  not  allow 
addressing the problems identified with the current Directive. The non-binding nature of soft 
law  measures  would  not  ensure  the  uniform  application  of  recommendations  for  example 
recommendations  for better quality assurance  of training or for greater focus on road safety 
relevant  elements  in  training.  So  far  the  soft  law  measures  applied,  such  as  the  issuing  of 
notes  of  interpretation  by  the  Commission  and  discussions  during  the  CPC  committee 
meetings, have failed to help overcome the existing difficulties with the correct application of 
the exemptions established in the Directive, as well as the uncertainty regarding the minimum 
age requirement.  

An uneven application of soft law measures could on the one hand fail to achieve the desired 
outcome and on the other hand risk creating an even more unlevel playing field. This option 
was therefore discarded. 

1.2  No EU action – Repealing the Directive without replacing it 

The repeal of Directive 2003/59/EC, without replacing it by any other initiative at EU level, 
would  bring  the  single  market  back  to  the  time  before  Directive  2003/59/EC.  Initial 
qualification and periodic training of drivers, and the related certification, would rest entirely 
upon Member States. The expected result of this is that some Member States would establish 
national qualification and training requirements for professional drivers, while other Member 
States  would  decide  not  to  fill  the  void  left  by  the  repeal  of  the  Directive  with  national 
legislation.  This  would  create  differences  between  drivers  and  undertakings  depending  on 
which  Member  States  they  are  based  in,  negatively  affecting  the  functioning  of  the  single 
market. It would also deprive the transport sector from a quality-oriented, minimum standards 
instrument. The positive effect of the Directive on the quality of services and quality at work 
was also pointed out by UITP and ETF in a joint statement28. A repeal of the Directive could 
also create difficulties in the mutual recognition of qualification of workers and subsequently 
the mobility of workers. Bilateral agreements may be reached between some Member States. 
However,  this  would  not  address  the  persistence  of  an  unlevel  playing  field  in  the  EU. The 
already mentioned transnational nature of transport by road would render national measures 
less effective, reducing the incentives for Member States to adopt them. The 'No EU action' 
option  therefore  carries  the  inherent  risk  of  leading  to  a  race  to  the  bottom  in  terms  of 
conditions for the transport sector at the expense of safety. 

28

 UITP-ETF, 2014, Joint Statement.  

38 

 
 
                                                 
1.3  Extension of the scope of the Directive to vans and small trucks  -  

In the reply to the public consultation almost half of the stakeholders (47 %, 187 respondents) 
suggested to include also professional drivers with B licences driving vehicles below 3.5t in 
the scope of the Directive. Of these 62% suggested to include vans, 28% suggested to include 
taxis) 

The ex-post evaluation underlined that taxis and vans mainly operate at a domestic level and 
drive mostly short distances. Furthermore the road safety performance of light goods vehicles 
(LGV)  is  generally  better  than  that  of  the  entire  fleet  and  also  compared  to  Heavy  goods 
vehicles (HGV) and buses and coaches, and the ex-post evaluation suggested that inclusion of 
LGVs  in  an  initiative  to  be  less  relevant29.  In  these  circumstances  this  option  has  been 
discarded from further analysis. Member States are considered best placed to regulate on the 
matter at national level to the extent they deem it appropriate.  

1.4  Changing the structure of the training 

Stakeholder  views  and  the  ex-post  evaluation  recognized  some  shortcomings  linked  to  the 
structure  of  the  training  and  quality  of  trainers  and  training  centres.  Some  Member  States 
proposed that the training should be indicated in terms of needed know-how, and not in terms 
of hours of training. However, due to the lack of available data, the scope of these problems 
could not be estimated, and to what extent these shortcomings are linked to the Directive or to 
alternative factors. Furthermore, the current Directive does allow for different approaches to 
training and focus e.g. on needed know-how. On this basis it is not considered justified with 
legislative or other binding actions at EU-level and these options are discarded from analysis 
in the Impact Assessment, see also point 1.1 of the report.  

The Commission will however consider non-legislative actions to raise the awareness on the 
potential benefits of different approaches to training and its quality assurance measures, and 
in  that  regard  take  into  account  European  tools  supporting  the  quality  of  training  and  the 
recognition of its outcomes (EQAVET, EQF, ECVET30).   

29

  See  Ex-post  evaluation  study  report:  Study  on  the  effectiveness  and  improvement  of  the  EU  legislative  framework  n  training  of 

professional, Panteia et a. (2014), point 2.4  

30

 EQAVET – European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training, EQF- European Qualification Framework, ECVET- The 

European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training 

39 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 7: 
Social impact 
Baseline 

A decline in the number of HGV-involved fatalities from 8,538 to 4,989 was observed over 
the period 2001 to 2010. Panteia31 estimates the trend to continue over time resulting in 2,742 
HGV-involved fatalities by 2020 and 1,454 by 2030. For buses and coaches, a decline in the 
number  of  fatalities  was  observed  over  the  period  2001  to  2010  from  1,115  to  692.  This 
would  mean  that  371  fatalities  in  2020  and  203  fatalities  in  2030  caused  by  accidents 
involving buses and coaches could be expected.  

Accident typology and relevance for driver training 

As  a  result  of  in-depth  accident  investigations  on  the  causes  of  accidents  involving  HGV, 
different types of accidents and different underlying causes for accidents could be identified. 
In  particular,  the  ETAC  study32  shows  that  85,2%  of  accidents  are  human  factor  related. 
Similar  findings  were  made  by  a  recent  study  by  Volvo  Trucks33  and  the  Dutch  Safety 
Board34.  It  is  in  these  human  factor  related  accident  where  driver  training  can  offer  safety 
improvement.  A  second  important  finding  of  in-depth  studies  on  accidents  involving  heavy 
goods vehicles is that often the interaction between different vehicles is problematic and that 
very often (more than half of the time) the other vehicle initiated the accident35.In particular 
the focus on danger recognition is considered very important  in driver training as described 
also  in  section  5.2.1.  Direct  effect  size  estimations  range  from  a  reduction  between  3%  and 
20% of accidents involving HGV for which human factors are identified.  

Safety effects associated to training 

Two  elements  are  considered  when  looking  at  the  impact  on  road  safety  of  the  policy 
measures on training content:  

 

Initial  training  content  aimed  at  improving  risk  awareness/  risk  perception  and  fuel 
efficient driving behaviour (PM 6);  

  Periodic  training  including  road  safety  topic  and  not  repetition  of  the  same  training 

(PM 7)  

The  literature  review  in  particular  Mayhew  &  Simpson  (2002)36,  Stanton,  Walker,  Young, 
Kazi  &  Salmon  (2007)37,  a  SWOV  study38  ,  the  ADVANCED39  project,  recognizes  that  at 
‘danger recognition training’ drivers learn to recognise situations and analyse the situation for 
potential (imminent) dangers. The main benefits of such a training system lie in the possibility 

31

32

33

 Panteia (2015) IA support study. 

 IRU, 2007, Scientific Study "ETAC" European Truck Accident Causation. 

 Volvo Trucks, 'European Accident Research and Safety Report 2013. 

<http://pnt.volvo.com/e/GetAttach ment.ashx?id=26704> accessed 20th February 2014. 

34

Dutch 

’Truck 
nl/docs/rapporten/Summary_Vrachtwagenongevallen_EN_web.pdf> accessed 20th February 2014 

motorways’ 

accidents 

Board, 

safety 

on 

(2012) 

<http://www.onderzoeksraad. 

35

36

37

 https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2010/1061-2010/1061-2010-Sum.pdf 

 Mayhew & Simpson, ‘The safety value of driver education and training Injury Prevention, 8, ii3-ii8’ (2002). 

 Stanton, Walker, Young, Kazi & Salmon, ’Changing drivers’ minds: the evaluation of an advanced driver coaching system, Ergonomics, 

50, 1209-1234’ (2007). 

38

  SWOV  (2012)  De  rijvaardigheidseisen  in  Midden-  en  Oost-Europese  lidstaten  en  ongevallen  en  overtredingen  van  buitenlandse 

bestuurders in Nederland. 

39

 CIECA, ‘Available Documentation’ (2010-2014). 

40 

 
 
                                                 
 
for  the  trainee  to  learn  to  recognize  set-schemes  (situation  recognition)  and  to  be  able  to 
constantly  make  use  of  the  experiences  gathered  during  the  training  session.  Moreover,  the 
focus on fuel efficient driving behaviour will also improve for road safety as this in general 
means a defensive, forward-looking driving style which is also safer driving behaviour. 

The  maximum  effect  of  updating  the  current  training  and  bringing  more  safety  oriented 
subjects with an explicit orientation on the danger recognition was considered two per cents. 
However, the effect of these policy measures is difficult to quantify due to the complexity of 
measures affecting the level of road safety and particular challenges in separating the effects 
of efforts on training 

Safety aspects of minimum age for access to the profession 

Available accident statistics in CARE have been analysed to assess whether negative effects 
of road safety may be expected in those Member States if the minimum age is lowered (PM 
10).  

Based  on  available  statistics  no  clear  correlation  between  minimum  age  for  professional 
drivers  and  road  safety  performance  could  be  identified.  Thus  no  negative  impact  on  road 
safety could be quantified as regards this policy measure.  

Figure 1: Fatal accidents by driver age  

Fatal accidents by driver age 

hgv drivers age

car drivers age

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Source:CARE database 

Figure 

2: 

Fatal 

accidents 

by 

HGV 

driver 

age 

involved 

Fatal accidents by HGV driver age involved  

Others countries

ES FI HU IT LU SK

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Source:CARE database 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: 
Exemptions  

Overview comparing exemptions of DIRECTIVE 2003/59/EC with REGULATION (EC) No 
561/2006 where alignment of the Directive with the Regulation is considered  

Directive 
2003/59/EC (CPC) 

Regulation  (EC) 
561/2006 (561) 

Assessment 

a)  vehicles  with  a 
maximum 
authorised speed not 
exceeding 45 km/h 

3(b): 
Art. 
vehicles  with  a 
maximum 
authorised  speed 
not  exceeding  40 
kilometres 
per 
hour 

- 5 kmh distinction 

-  Note  that  while  tractors  are 
generally 
from 
CPC,  this  is  not  the  case  for 
561 

excluded 

Preliminary 
conclusion 

-  Provisions  are 
legally  clear,  but 
not coherent  

- No indication of 
need 
to  extend 
scope of CPC  

-  limited  number 
of 
vehicles  
affetcted 

b)  vehicles  used  by, 
or  under  the  control 
of, the armed forces, 
the 
civil  defence, 
and 
fire 
responsible 
forces 
for 
maintaining 
public order 

service 

d)  vehicles  used  in 
states  of  emergency 
or assigned to rescue 
missions 

3(c): 
Art. 
vehicles owned or 
hired  without  a 
by 
driver 
the 
services, 
armed 
defence 
civil 
fire 
services, 
and 
services, 
forces  responsible 
for  maintaining 
public order when 
is 
the  carriage 
undertaken  as  a 
consequence 
of 
the  tasks assigned 
to  these  services 
and  is  under  their 
control 

3(d): 

Art. 
vehicles, 
including vehicles 
used  in  the  non-
commercial 
transport 
of 
humanitarian  aid, 
in 
used 
emergencies 
or 
rescue operations 

-Wording  more  or  less  the 
same 

Align 
including  

by 

is 

restricted 

-561 
"the 
carriage  is  undertaken  as  a 
consequence  of 
tasks 
assigned to these services" 

the 

-  Indications  of  uncertainty 
on  the  use  for  other  purposes 
–  would  be resolved  with  the 
above restriction   

- 561 more specific - includes 
"non  commercial  transport  of 
humanitarian aid"  

indications  of  clear 
post 

from 

ex 

-  No 
concerns 
evaluation. 

"the  carriage  is 
undertaken  as  a 
consequence 
of 
the tasks assigned 
to these services" 

For 
coherence 
and  legal  clarity 
include 
"non 
commercial 
transport 
humanitarian 
aid". 

of 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
for 

e)  vehicles  used  in 
the course of driving 
any 
lessons 
person  wishing 
to 
driving 
obtain 
licence or a CPC, as 
provided 
in 
Article 6 and Article 
8 (1) 

for 

f)  vehicles  used  for 
non-commercial 
carriage 
of 
passengers  or  goods 
for personal use 

-  561  is  more  specific  – 
restricts  to  "non-commercial 
carriage 
and 
includes 
passengers" 
and  
"instruction 
examination" 

goods 

and 

of 

-  Legal  uncertainty  indicated 
in  ex  post  evaluation  on 
combination with commercial 
transport  

by 
Align 
restricting 
to 
"non-commercial 
carriage  of  goods 
and  passengers" 
and 
"instruction 
and examination"  

-  CPC  I  some  sense  wider 
than  561(  no  weight  or 
passenger  limit)  but    limited 
to personal use 

Delete  "personal 
use"  

-  "personal  use"  causes  
Uncertainty  on  driving  for 
charities/non-profit 
organisations  

because 

-  personal  use  was  deleted 
with 
of 
561 
difficulties 
interpretation 
intent 
27 
(point 
Explanatory  Memorandum  of 
COM 
(COM 
proposal 
2001/0573/final)  

last 

13(1)(g): 
Art 
vehicles  used  for 
driving 
instructions 
and 
examination  with 
to 
a 
view 
obtaining 
a 
driving  licence  or 
a  certificate  of 
professional 
competence, 
provided that they 
are not being used 
for 
the 
commercial 
carriage  of  goods 
and passengers 

3(h): 
Art. 
vehicles 
or 
combinations  of 
vehicles  with  a 
maximum 
permissible  mass 
not  exceeding  7;5 
tonnes  used  for 
the 
non-
commercial 
carriage of goods 

Art 
13(i): 
vehicles  between 
10  and  17  seats 
used  exclusively 
non-
the 
for 
commercial 
carriage 
passengers 

of 

g)  vehicles  carrying 
or 
material 
equipment 
to  be 
used by the driver in 
the  course  of  his  or 
her  work,  provided 
that  driving  vehicles 
is  not  the  driver's 

3(aa): 
Art 
or 
vehicles 
combinations  of 
vehicles  with  a 
maximum 
permissible  mass 
not  exceeding  7,5 
tonnes  used;  for 
carrying 

(561 
-  Some  differences 
includes 
explicitly 
combinations of vehicles, 561 
applies  only  up  to  7,5  t,  561 
also  includes  machinery,  561  
has a 100 km radius limit) 

Include   

for 
and 

- 
"machinery" 
coherence 
marginal 
improvement  of 
clarity  

- Some clarity in court rulings  

- Add the 561 Art 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13(1)(b) 
exemption 
clearly 
farm 
goods 
by 
ancillary 
to 
activity 
farming.  

to 
exempt 
related 
transport 
of 
nature 
the  main 
of 

trucks 

principle activity 

of 

materials, 
or 
equipment 
machinery  for  the 
driver's  use  in  the 
his 
course 
work  and  which 
are 
only 
used 
within  a  100  km 
the 
radius  from 
base 
the 
of 
undertaking,  and 
on  condition  that 
the 
driving 
vehicles  does  not 
constitute 
the 
main 
driver's 
activity.  

–  Art.  13(1)(b): 
vehicles  used  or 
hired,  without  a 
driver, 
by 
agricultural, 
horticultural, 
forestry,  farming 
fishery 
or 
undertakings 
for 
carrying  goods  as 
part  of  their  own 
entrepreneurial 
activity  within  a 
radius  of  up  to 
100  km  from  the 
base 
of 
undertaking 

(13(1)(b)    was  in 
repealed 
the 
Regulation 
13 
3820/85(Art 
but 
kept 
c), 
tightened in COM 
proposal  in  2001 
("used  or  hired 
a 
without 
driver"). 
"entrepreneurial 
condition"  added 
during 
co-
decision.) 

under 561: 

a  wine 

 -  case  554/09:‘materials’  not 
covering packaging materials, 
such as empty bottles, carried 
and  drinks 
by 
merchant  who  runs  a  shop, 
makes  deliveries 
to  his 
customers  once  a  week  and, 
while  doing  so,  collects  the 
empty bottles to take them to 
his wholesaler. 

128/04:'material 

or 
 Case 
equipment'  covers  not  only 
'tools  and  instruments',  but 
the  goods,  such  as 
also 
building  materials  or  cables, 
which  are  required  for  the 
performance  of 
the  work 
involved  in  the  main  activity 
of  the  driver  of  the  vehicle 
concerned. 

fruit  and 
-  Transport  of 
vegetables  by  the  farmer  to 
market  covered  is  no  issue 
under  561  as  covered  by 
13(1) (b) or (c).  

of 

Understanding 
the 
exemption  of  the  Directive  is 
not  aligned  with  561-  ref  
ECJ  554/09  –  point  25"  "It 
follows  that  the  materials  are 
intended  to  be  used  or  are 
required  to  create,  modify  or 
transform something  else and 
are not intended to be simply 
their  own 
for 
transported 
delivery, sale or disposal. The 
materials  being  thus  subject 
to  a  transformation  process, 
they  do  not  constitute  goods 
intended  for  sale  by  their 
user." 

- Adding the 561 Art 13(1)(b) 
exemption  would  provide 
clarity for farm related goods 
transport  with  trucks  which 
would  also  take  into  account 
the SMEs in this sector.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
-  radius  can  be  relevant  to 
underline  the  objective    to 
facilitate  the  ancillary  nature 
(transport  to  local  markets 
etc),  and  not  long  distance 
transport.    

-  radius  can  reduce  risk  of 
undermining 
the  objectives  
(using  professional  drivers 
without  competence)  even 
without  "principal  activity 
clause" 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9: 
List of Abbreviations  

Abbreviation  

Abbreviated Term 

ADR 

CIECA 

CPC 

DSLV   

DQC 

EC 

EU 

EQAVET 

EQF 

ECVET 

GO 

HGV 

ICT 

IRU 

OO 

PO 

SO 

SME 

RESPER 

TACHOnet 

TEC 

TFEU   

Training for Drivers of Vehicles carrying  Dangerous 
Goods 

International Commission for Driver Testing 

Certificate of Professional Competence 

Deutscher Speditions- und Logistikverband 

Driver Qualification Card 

European Commission 

European Union 

European Quality Assurance Reference Framework  

European Qualifications Framework 

European Credit System for Vocational Education and 
Training 

General objective 

Heavy goods vehicle 

Information and Communication Technologies 

International Road Transport Union 

Operational objective 

Policy option 

Specific objective 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

European Union Driving Licence Network 

European Union Network for exchange of tachograph 
information 

Treaty Establishing the European Community 

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU   

46