COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (recast)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: cross-border cooperation, electronic equipment, exchange of information, road transport, toll, traffic offence, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 190 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (recast) {COM(2017) 280 final} {SWD(2017) 191 final} {SWD(2017) 192 final} {SWD(2017) 193 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.  Short description of the EETS legislative framework ....................................... 1 

1.2.  What is the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)? ................................... 2 

1.3.  Evaluation of the existing legal framework ....................................................... 3 

1.4.  Contribution to the reduction of the regulatory burden on companies .............. 4 

2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? ................................. 5 

2.1. 

Introduction to the description of the problem .................................................. 5 

2.2.  Description of the problems .............................................................................. 5 

2.2.1.  Problem  1:  Barriers  to  entry  and  lack  of  truly  competitive 

market for electronic toll collection services ....................................... 6 

2.2.2.  Problem 2: Foreign-registered vehicles can escape tolls ................... 10 

2.2.3.  Problem 3: Burdensome obligations on EETS providers .................. 11 

2.3.  How  are  different  stakeholders  affected,  what  is  the  scale  of  the 

problems and how will they evolve in the future ............................................ 12 

2.3.1.  Road users ......................................................................................... 12 

2.3.2.  Toll chargers ...................................................................................... 14 

2.3.3.  EETS providers ................................................................................. 16 

2.4.  How would the problems develop, all things being equal ............................... 17 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 18 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? ........................................................................ 19 

4.1.  General objective ............................................................................................. 19 

4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 20 

5.  WHAT  ARE  THE  VARIOUS  OPTIONS  TO  ACHIEVE  THE 

OBJECTIVE? ............................................................................................................ 21 

5.1.  Preliminary screening of potential main policy measures to achieve the 

identified objectives ......................................................................................... 21 

5.1.1.  Measures  aiming  at  reducing  the  cost  and  burden  for  EETS 
providers  to  enter  new  toll  domains  and  to  provide  services 
therein (first part of specific objective 1) .......................................... 21 

5.1.2.  Measures  to  ensure  a  competitive  functioning  of  the  market 

(second part of specific objective 1) .................................................. 24 

5.1.3.  Measures  to  facilitate  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  tolls 

(second specific objective) ................................................................ 26 

ii 

 
 
 
5.1.4.  Options to soften the current requirement for EETS providers 
to  cover  with  their  services  all  EETS  domains  within  24 
months  from  their  registration  (first  aspect  of  specific 
objective 3) ........................................................................................ 27 

5.1.5.  Specific rules on light duty vehicles (second aspect of specific 

objective 3) ........................................................................................ 29 

5.2.  Succinct assessment of other proposed policy measures ................................ 31 

5.3.  Complete list of policy measures retained for further analysis ....................... 33 

5.4.  Policy options retained for analysis ................................................................. 36 

5.4.1.  Policy option 0: Baseline ................................................................... 36 

5.4.2.  Policy option 1: Self-regulation to achieve specific objective 

1 + legislative measures to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. ........ 36 

5.4.3.  Policy option 2: Legislative approach ............................................... 37 

5.4.4.  Policy  option  3:  A  single  EU  ETC  standard  to  facilitate 
technical  and  procedural 
legislative 
measures  to  promote  competition  on  the  market  and  to 
achieve specific objective 2 and 3. .................................................... 37 

interoperability  + 

6.  WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  POLICY  OPTIONS 

AND WHO WILL BE AFFECTED? ........................................................................ 38 

6.1.  Economic impacts ........................................................................................... 38 

6.1.1. 

Impacts on operating costs for road users ......................................... 38 

6.1.2. 

6.1.3. 

Impacts  on  operating  costs  and  conduct  of  business  for  toll 
chargers .............................................................................................. 39 

Impacts on operating costs and conduct of business for EETS 
providers ............................................................................................ 43 

6.1.4. 

Impacts on conduct of business for OBU manufacturers .................. 45 

6.1.5. 

Innovation impacts ............................................................................ 45 

6.1.6.  Competitiveness impacts ................................................................... 47 

6.1.7.  SME impacts ..................................................................................... 47 

6.1.8. 

Impacts on the peripheral Member States and regions ...................... 48 

6.1.9. 

Impacts on third countries ................................................................. 48 

6.1.10.  Summary of the economic impacts ................................................... 49 

6.1.11.  Impacts  on  regulatory  burden  reduction  (contribution  to  the 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme) ............................ 50 

6.2.  Social and environmental impacts ................................................................... 50 

6.2.1. 

Impacts on jobs .................................................................................. 50 

6.2.2.  Fundamental rights impacts ............................................................... 51 

6.2.3. 

Impacts  on  the  protection  of  personal  data  and  right  to 
privacy ............................................................................................... 51 

6.2.4.  Environmental impacts ...................................................................... 52 

iii 

 
7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .................................................................. 52 

7.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 52 

7.1.1.  Effectiveness in achieving the general objective ............................... 52 

7.1.2.  Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives ............................ 53 

7.1.3.  Effectiveness in achieving the objective to reduce  regulatory 

burden for companies (REFIT objective) .......................................... 55 

7.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 56 

7.2.1.  Cost-benefit analysis ......................................................................... 56 

7.2.2.  Comparison of other impacts ............................................................. 58 

7.3.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 59 

7.4.  Proportionality ................................................................................................. 59 

7.5.  Preferred policy option .................................................................................... 60 

8.  HOW  WOULD  ACTUAL 

IMPACTS  BE  MONITORED  AND 

EVALUATED? ......................................................................................................... 60 

SO1:  Remove  market  entry  barriers  and  foster  the  development  of  a 

competitive market for electronic toll collection services ............................... 60 

SO2:  Improve  the  level  of  enforcement  of  tolls  from  foreign-registered 

vehicles ............................................................................................................ 62 

9.  ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 63 

9.1.  Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the 

impact assessment report and the related initiative ......................................... 63 

9.1.1.  References ......................................................................................... 63 

9.1.2.  Organisation and timing .................................................................... 63 

9.2.  Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation .................................................................. 67 

9.3.  Annex 3: Who is affected by the initiative and how ....................................... 81 

9.4.  Annex 4: Analytical models used in preparing the Impact Assessment ......... 83 

9.4.1. 

Introduction ....................................................................................... 83 

9.4.2.  Modelling – assessment for HGVs .................................................... 83 

9.4.3.  Modelling – assessment for buses ..................................................... 84 

9.4.4.  Modelling – assessment for cars ........................................................ 85 

9.4.5.  Key  assumptions  used  for  the  modelling  of  the  baseline  and 

of the impacts of the different policy options .................................... 86 

9.4.6.  Reliability and appropriateness of the model .................................... 88 

9.5.  Annex 5: Glossary ........................................................................................... 89 

9.6.  Annex  6:  List  of  provisions  relative  to  the  obligations  of  EETS 
providers active on the market for light vehicles vs. those active on the 
market for heavy vehicles ................................................................................ 92 

iv 

 
9.7.  Annex  7:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  users  for  using  road  toll 

infrastructure .................................................................................................... 93 

9.7.1.  HGVs ................................................................................................. 93 

9.7.2.  Buses .................................................................................................. 94 

9.7.3.  Light duty vehicles ............................................................................ 96 

9.8.  Annex  8:  Evaluation  of  investment  costs  for  toll  chargers  in  Policy 

option 3 ............................................................................................................ 98 

9.9.  Annex 9: Composition of certification costs for EETS providers ................... 99 

9.10.  Annex 10: The road initiatives – the 'big picture' .......................................... 100 

9.10.1.  Introduction ..................................................................................... 100 

9.10.2.  The EU road transport market ......................................................... 100 

9.10.3.  Why is there a need for action? ....................................................... 101 

9.10.4.  What are the main problems? .......................................................... 102 

9.10.5.  Options and main impacts ............................................................... 102 

9.10.6.  Expected synergies of the package .................................................. 104 

9.11.  Annex 11: Impacts on SMEs ......................................................................... 105 

9.11.1.  Consultation that captures the SME angle ....................................... 105 

9.11.2.  Identification of affected businesses ............................................... 105 

9.11.3.  Measurement of the impact on SMEs ............................................. 106 

9.11.4.  Assessment of alternative options and mitigating measures ........... 106 

9.12.  Annex 12: Electronic toll collection market in the EU ................................. 107 

v 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Impact Assessment report uses many technical terms and abbreviations. All of 
them are explained in Annex 5. 

1.1. 

Short description of the EETS legislative framework 

This  Impact  Assessment  accompanies  two  proposals  of  the  European  Commission 
modifying  Directive  2004/52/EC1  and  Commission  Decision  2009/750/EC.2  The  latter 
form  together  the  existing  legislative  framework  for  electronic  toll  collection  (ETC)  in 
the  EU  and  provide  for  making  all  European  ETC  schemes  interoperable  through  a 
European Electronic Toll Service (EETS). It is important for the understanding of the rest 
of  this  Impact  Assessment  that  the  content  of  the  current  EETS  legislation  is  briefly 
explained. 

Directive 2004/52/EC called for the setup of a European Electronic Toll Service (EETS), 
by  which  road  users  only  subscribe  to  a  single  contract  and  use  a  single  on-board  unit 
(OBU) to pay electronic tolls all over the EU. To ensure that different tolling systems are 
technologically compatible and therefore ready to  connect to this single tolling  service, 
the  Directive  specified  that  all  new  electronic  toll  systems  brought  into  service  after  1 
January 2007 which require the installation of on-board equipment shall use one or more 
of the following three technologies: satellite positioning (GNSS)3 which is recommended 
in  the  Directive;  and/or  mobile  communications  (GSM-GPRS)  and/or  microwave 
technology (DSRC). 

Decision  2009/750/EC  defined  the  EETS  and  provided  for  it  to  be  offered  by  market 
players (EETS providers) on commercial terms. It outlined the "actors" of the EETS in 
four categories: Member States, toll chargers (TC), i.e. those who impose the electronic 
toll upon the road users; clients, i.e. road users; and EETS providers, i.e. intermediaries 
between  the  clients  and  the  toll  chargers.  The  Decision  stated  that  the  EETS  providers 
should negotiate with all toll chargers in the EU the authorisation to provide the EETS on 
their road networks and offer the EETS to their clients. 

The  Decision  specified  the  rights  and  obligation  of  all  actors  in  more  detail.  Member 
States were to put in place the necessary regulatory framework to make the provision of 
EETS possible: in particular, they were to establish independent 'conciliation bodies' to 
supervise  both  the  correct  application  of  the  rights  and  obligations  of  all  partners.  Toll 
chargers were to accept on a non-discriminatory basis all interested EETS providers and 
their certified equipment; they were to have the right to request full co-operation of the 
EETS  providers  to  guarantee  the  correct  functioning  of  the  service  and  eventually  the 
correct  collection  of  the  toll.  EETS  providers  were  to  provide  their  services  in  all 
electronic toll domains in the EU within 24 months of their official registration by their 
Member State of establishment and to guarantee the quality and continuity of the EETS, 
in  full  co-operation  with  the  toll  chargers.  Finally,  EETS  users  were  to  ensure  the 
correctness of all the data provided in the framework of the EETS and to comply with the 

1  Directive  2004/52/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on  the 
interoperability  of  electronic  toll  systems  in  the  Community  (Text  with  EEA  relevance),  OJ  L  166, 
30.4.2004, p. 124) 

2 Commission Decision of 6 October 2009 on the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service and its 
technical  elements  (notified  under  document  C(2009)  7547)  (Text  with  EEA  relevance) 
(2009/750/EC). 

3 Annex 1 contains a glossary of difficult terms and abbreviations used in this document. 

1 

 
 
                                                 
obligation  to  pay  the  toll;  they  were  to  have  the  right  to  sign  contracts  with  the  EETS 
provider of their choice and to pay all their tolls through this channel. 

1.2.  What is the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)? 

Figure  1  presents  the  relationships  between  the  parties  to  an  electronic  toll  collection 
system. Electronic tolls can be collected in two alternative ways: either the toll charger 
enters into a direct relationship (green arrows in Figure 1) with the road user, or a third-
party "EETS provider" acts as intermediary between the two (red arrows).  

There  are  more  than  140  different  toll  chargers  in  the  EU,  which  means  potential 
complexity  for  the  road  user.    Hence  the  attraction  to  the  users  of  EETS  providers  as 
intermediaries:    instead  of  dealing  with  up  to  140  different  entities  to  pay  tolls  for  the 
different stretches of road  used, the user only needs to interact with one entity: the EETS 
provider. There can be many EETS providers on the market, who must all offer access to 
all  toll  domains  in  the  EU;  road  users  can  choose  the  EETS  provider  who  offers  the 
service best suited to their needs. 

Using  the  services  of  an  EETS  provider  can  also  be  attractive  for  the  toll  charger.  The 
latter's  main  activity  and  expertise  is  in  the  construction,  maintenance  and/or 
management of roads, so the need to service up to hundreds of thousands of toll payers 
from  different  countries  comes  at  high  cost  and  effort,  and  in  any  case  distracts  toll 
chargers from their core business.  EETS providers can  perform these  activities  for the 
toll charger as specialised providers of these services based on their expertise in the field 
and international presence. 

Figure 1: What is EETS? 

2 

 
 
 
1.3.  Evaluation of the existing legal framework 

An  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  existing  legal  framework  in  the  field  of  EETS  was 
performed in 2015-2016 and updated with the most recent information in the beginning 
of 2017. The assessment covered Directive 2004/52/EC (EETS Directive)4 and Decision 
2009/750/EC (EETS Decision)5. The ex post evaluation assessed the level and accuracy 
of  implementation  of  the  legal  framework,  the  relevance  of  the  objectives  and  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  individual  provisions  in  achieving  the  stated 
objectives.  The  ex  post  evaluation  was  based  on  a  deep  review  of  publicly  available 
written  sources  and  –  like  the  impact  assessment  itself  –  on  a  thorough  and  inclusive 
consultation of stakeholders.6  

The evaluation points out that the legislation failed to deliver on most of the objectives: 
costs of electronic tolling have hardly decreased for toll chargers and for road users, an 
EETS has not been set up (and interoperability hardly progressed) and OBUs have not – 
with  few  exceptions  –  been  integrated  with  other  devices.  It  also  indicates  that  cross-
border  interoperability  is  expensive  and  difficult  to  achieve  because  of  the  significant 
differences in how the three technologies allowed by the EETS legislation were applied 
in the individual national tolling schemes. Besides, the lack of efficient provisions in the 
EETS  legislation  to  ensure  the  enforcement  of  tolls  from  vehicles  registered  in  another 
Member  State  is  another  obstacle  to  cross-border  interoperability.  Furthermore,  the 
evaluation  suggests  that  the  current  legislation  is  only  partially  relevant  in  terms  of  its 
scope, as the mandatory coverage by all EETS providers of all types of vehicles and all 
toll domains in Europe is found to be an excessive requirement in practice. 

The  results  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  are  well  reflected  in  this  impact  assessment  –  in 
particular  in  section  2  dedicated  to  the  problem  definition.    Table  1  indicates  how  the 
conclusions of the ex post evaluation are reflected in the text of the report. 

Table  1:  Links  between  the  conclusions  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  and  the  Impact 
Assessment. 

Main ex post evaluation conclusions 

Impact Assessment 

Conclusions on effectiveness 

"Interoperability  on  a  wider  scale  has 
been blocked by the lack of commitment 
and  –  in  the  worst  case  scenario  – 
resistance  of  some  Member  States  to 
open their markets" 

The Impact Assessment recognises that the 
problems  mainly 
lie  with  market 
deficiencies  and  national  market  entry 
barriers.  These  problems  are  described  in 
in  section  2.2.1  ("Problem  1: 
details 
truly 
Barriers 
to  entry  and 
toll 
competitive  market  for  electronic 

lack  of 

4  Directive  2004/52/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on  the 
interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (Text with EEA relevance),  OJ L 166, 
30.4.2004, p. 124–143. 
5 Commission Decision of 6 October 2009 on the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service and its 
technical  elements  (notified  under  document  C(2009)  7547)  (Text  with  EEA  relevance),  OJ  L  268, 
13.10.2009, p. 11–29. 
6 The summary results of the main consultation activities performed in the framework of the preparation of 
under 
the 

the 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/consultations/2016-eets_en.  

assessment 

evaluation 

published 

impact 

post 

are 

ex 

of 

3 

 
                                                 
fails 
detailed 
to 

"The  Decision 
sufficiently 
framework 
harmonisation  of 
systems in the EU" 

to  mandate  a 
standardisation 
the  needed 
tolling 

electronic 

support 

"The  evaluation  shows  that  the  market 
rules  defined  in  the  Decision  are  biased 
to the detriment of the EETS providers" 

collection services")  

The  problem  of  missing  references  to 
standards  which  define 
interfaces 
between  toll  chargers  and  EETS  providers 
is  specifically  discussed  in  section  2.2.1.5 
of the problem definition. 

the 

This  problem  is  analysed  in  section  2.2.3 
on  EETS 
obligations 
"Burdensome 
providers",  and  particularly 
in  section 
2.2.3.1  "Excessive  requirements  for  EETS 
providers in Decision 2009/750/EC" 

"Lack  of  effective  provisions  allowing 
for  a  cross-border  enforcement  of 
offenses to the toll obligation" 

This  problem  is  the  topic  of  section  2.2.2 
"Foreign-registered    vehicles  can  escape 
tolls" 

Conclusions on efficiency 

cheap 
could  provide 
"[RFID] 
alternative to DSRC in specific contexts" 

a 

The  consideration  and  suitability  of  RFID 
for  e-tolling  is  discussed  in  section  5.1.5 
and in section 6.1.5 "Innovation impacts" 

Conclusions on relevance 

"The  mandatory  coverage  by  EETS  of 
all types of vehicles and all toll domains 
in  Europe  is  considered  an  excessive 
requirement" 

"EETS  providers  should  offer  their 
services  everywhere  where  significant 
demand exists" 

These findings of the ex post evaluation are 
the reason behind the change in the general 
objective  of  the  initiative  from  the  current 
'EU-wide  interoperability  for  all'  to  'More 
interoperability  in  tolling  services  in  line 
with  and  proportionate  to  the  road  users' 
needs'.  This  is  discussed  in  details  in 
section 4.1 "General objective". 

"The  objective  of  having  three layers  of 
procedural, 
interoperability 
contractual  and  technical  – 
is  still 
relevant" 

– 

This  objective  is  kept  and  expanded,  as 
specific  objective  1  (c.f.  section  4.2 
"specific objectives") 

The full text of the ex post evaluation report is annexed to this staff working document. 

1.4.  Contribution to the reduction of the regulatory burden on companies 

The  initiative  is  mentioned  as  a  REFIT  initiative  in  point  5  of  Annex  1  to  the 
Commission  Work  Programme  2017.7  It  is  thus  part  of  the  Commission's  Regulatory 
Fitness  and  Performance  programme  that  aims  at  making  EU  laws  simpler  and  less 
costly.  The  REFIT  objectives  will  be  reflected  in  the  specific  objectives  of  this  Impact 

7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/work-programme-commission-key-documents-2017_en. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment,  and  special  attention  will  be  given  to  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  on 
regulatory burden on companies. 

2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? 

2.1. 

Introduction to the description of the problem 

Years  after  the  adoption  of  the  EETS  legislation  in  2004  and  2009  (see  above),  the 
market  remains  largely  fragmented,  with  around  140  electronic  toll  collection  (ETC) 
systems  in  operation  across  the  EU  and  Norway.  The  level  of  interoperability  between 
these toll domains is far from satisfactory and generates costs to road users and e-tolling 
service providers. Whilst a small number of schemes offer cross-border interoperability 
(for  example  between  the  ETC  schemes  for  heavy  duty  vehicles  –  HDVs  –  in  Austria, 
Denmark, Sweden and Norway), the majority do not. 

Additionally,  despite  the  2009  Commission  Decision  requiring  the  opening  of  ETC 
markets in all Member States to EETS providers, few EETS providers have so far been 
registered, and those that have registered do not offer coverage beyond a small number of 
adjacent  Member  States,  although  this  is  a  legal  requirement.8  Indeed,  members  of 
AETIS,  the  EU  representative  body  for  EETS  providers,  consider  that  the  risks 
associated  with  offering  a  service  in  all  Member  States  is  too  high  due  to  costly  and 
complex  minimum  contractual  requirements  for  EETS  providers  and  only  partial 
implementation  of  EETS  legislation  in  certain  markets  (these  reasons  are  further 
explained in section 2.2 below). Consequently, instead of a competitive market for fully 
interoperable  toll  collection  services,  road  users  and  toll  chargers  face  a  highly 
fragmented market characterised by a low degree of competition. 

toll  operator, 

The result of this fragmented and uncompetitive market is primarily increased costs, both 
for  the  road  users  and  for  the  toll  chargers.  For  example,  when  driving  across  multiple 
EU  Member  States,  road  hauliers  are  likely  to  have  to  purchase  or  rent  multiple  On 
Board Units (OBUs) to communicate with different ETC systems and to make individual 
contracts  with  each 
to  additional  administrative  burden. 
leading 
Additionally, the lack of multiple toll service providers in each market stifles competition 
and  promotes  higher  costs  for  both  road  users  (in  the  form  of  higher  fees  for  the 
provision of OBUs and means of payment like fuel cards) and toll chargers (in the form 
of higher remuneration requested by service providers). For toll chargers, fragmentation 
of the market also increases costs due to the high costs associated with the development, 
deployment and operation of bespoke tolling systems with bespoke equipment, systems 
and  processes.  Difficulties in  recovering  unpaid  tolls  from  international  road  users  also 
result in reduced revenues for toll chargers. 

2.2.  Description of the problems 

This  section  details  the  problems  and  their  drivers.  The  structure  of  the  problem 
definition is presented in a problem tree in Figure 2 below. 

8 The most "advanced" EETS provider at the current time covers only 5 countries with its services: Spain, 

Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria. 

5 

 
                                                 
Figure 2: Problem tree diagram 

2.2.1.  Problem 1: Barriers to entry and lack of truly competitive market for 

electronic toll collection services 

Many  national  markets  for  the  electronic  collection  of  tolls  are  functioning  in  a 
suboptimal,  often  anti-competitive  manner.  Road  users  can  choose  between  only  very 
few (mostly only one) toll service providers, which can use their strong market position 
to impose sub-optimal commercial conditions on both road users and toll chargers. These 
quasi-monopolies generally go unchallenged in the market, because potential new market 
entrants – EETS providers – are blocked by the high levels of cost and uncertainty linked 
to the process of accreditation to national ETC systems. So there are significant barrier to 
entry in certain markets, and less competition in the market with negative consequences 
for the toll chargers and the users of the concerned road networks. 

There are five drivers to this problem, namely: 

2.2.1.1. Toll chargers have established de facto monopolies for the provision 

of toll collection services which abuse their position.  

In  some  Member  States,  the  presence  of  vertically  integrated  companies  providing 
services in the role toll charger as well as that of toll service provider, or the presence of 
long-established national toll service providers can present a potential barrier to entry to 
EETS providers and other toll service providers. Vertically integrated operators typically 
appear when Member States tender out to one company not only all activities related to 
electronic  tolling,  including  the  setup  and  operation  of  the  system  itself,  but  also  the 
collection of the toll – an activity generally also performed, on competitive markets, by 
EETS  providers.  Such  companies  have  a  privileged  position  which  they  can  use  to 
prevent competitors from entering the toll collection market. 

6 

 
 
Vertically  integrated  companies  are  present,  currently,  in:  Austria,  Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic, Germany, Italy,9 Poland, Slovakia, and soon Slovenia (once its new electronic 
tolling  system  is  deployed  in  2018).  It  is  true  that  the  level  of  openness  and 
competitiveness of the market is different in each of these countries. Austria seems to be 
in the process of fully opening its toll collection market to competition, as six EETS/toll 
service  providers  are  in  the  final  stage  of  negotiations  to  entering  the  Austrian  market. 
Belgium has so far opened to one EETS provider, in Italy several service providers have 
started  the  accreditation  process,  but  in  the  other  countries,  no  steps  have  been  made 
towards an opening of the market so far. 

Various EETS providers have raised their concerns about this situation. For example, a 
number of EETS providers applying for accreditation in Belgium have complained that 
the  national  toll  service  provider,  Satellic,  had  unfair  access  to  the  toll  chargers' 
representative ViaPass during the national system design and early tendering phase. This 
thereby  allowed  Satellic  to  streamline  its  accreditation  efforts  and  design  its  OBUs  to 
match  the  specification  of  the  planned  ETC  system  earlier  than  other  toll  service 
providers (e.g. Axxès) and thereby to have an unfair first mover advantage in accessing 
Belgian  tolling  customers.  Another  example  is  Germany,  where  the  national  service 
provider Toll Collect is seen to have an unfair advantage over EETS providers, given that 
there is no provision in national law or readiness on the side of national administration to 
remunerate  toll  service providers  other  than  Toll  Collect  (even  if  they  are registered  as 
EETS  providers),  thereby  presenting  an  unsurmountable  barrier  to  entry  in  the  German 
market for many EETS providers. 

2.2.1.2.  Widely  differing  accreditation  processes  for  new  EETS  providers 

in different Member States.  

Any EETS provider must undergo accreditation with each toll charger that he wishes to 
provide  his  services  to,  as  provided  for  in  Annex  IV  of  the  Decision.  However,  the 
accreditation  procedures  vary  widely  between  markets,  with  significant  variations  in 
timeline, cost, procedures and technical requirements. 

The duration of an accreditation procedure ranges from as little as 6 months (time that it 
took to accredit Axxès to the Belgian HGV tolling scheme) up to 20 months (estimated 
accreditation  time  to  all  motorway  concessions  in  France  or  in  Italy).  In  Germany,  the 
time for accreditation is estimated to a minimum of 13 months. 

All the toll chargers request a fee to cover their expenses during the certification process. 
These fees vary considerably between markets: for example €220,000 just for Viapass in 
Belgium  but  €350,000  for  all  the  French  toll  chargers  together.  It  is  estimated  that 
accreditation to just France, Italy, Austria, Belgium and Germany could cost between 6 
and  8  million  euro.10  Certification  to  all  toll  domains  in  the  U  could  cost  around  14 
million.11 To this must be added the potential costs of re-certification of certain elements 
of the OBU in case of significant changes to the toll charger's or EETS provider's system. 

9 Telepass, the only toll service provider active in Italy at the moment of writing of this report, is not itself 
operating any of the ETC systems in Italy, but it is a subsidiary of the largest Italian toll charger, the 
motorway concession holder Autostrade per l'Italia. 

10 Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision of EETS Legislation (Directive 

11 

2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

4icom, 

Expert 

Review 

of 

the 

EETS 

Legislative 

Acts, 

2015, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/doc/2015-09-ex-post-evaluation-eets-4icom.pdf.  

7 

 
                                                 
Furthermore,  either  in  parallel  to,  or  after,  the  technical  tests,  the  EETS  provider 
negotiates  the  contract  with  the  toll  charger.  In  the  case  where  different  parts  of  the 
network  are  managed  by  separate  concession  holders  (e.g.  19  in  France),  these 
contractual negotiations can be very complex and time consuming as well. In Belgium, in 
additional  to  the  contract  with  Viapass,  a  separate  contract  must  be  negotiated  with  an 
independent toll charger managing the Liefkenshoek tunnel near Antwerp. 

2.2.1.3.  Use of the agency model by certain toll chargers.  

The Eurovignette Directive12 makes a clear distinction between taxes and tolls, the latter 
being a fee for the use of the road. Yet some Member States qualify tolls as taxes in their 
internal legal order - this means that the toll operator becomes in effect a tax collector, 
and  indeed  in  these  circumstances  the  EETS  provider  is  regarded  as  a  collection  agent 
(e.g.  in  Poland,  Germany,  Flanders,  Brussels).  On  the  other  hand,  where  tolls  are  not 
classified as taxes, the toll represents payment for a service and the EETS provider can 
be  regarded  simply  as  a  sub-seller  (e.g.  France,  Italy,  Wallonia,  Austria).  Hence  the 
description of the alternative business models as respectively the ‘agency model’ or the 
‘reseller  model’.  For  the  agency  model,  the  EETS  provider  cannot  directly  issue  an 
invoice  to  the  road  user  and  must  issue  a  separate  statement,  with  the  invoice  coming 
directly from the tax authority – thereby complicating the overall toll collection process. 
This  is  not  the  case  with  the  reseller  model,  where  simple  VAT  invoices  can  be  used 
between all the actors in the value chain. 

As an example of complications which arise, consider the situation in Belgium. The three 
regional authorities concerned in the tolling system differ in their categorisation of tolls, 
two  regarding  them  as  taxes  (Brussels  and  Flanders)  and  one  as  service  remuneration 
(Wallonia). The different treatment of VAT between these regions has created enormous 
difficulties  for  EETS  providers  in  designing  a  common  billing  system  covering  all  toll 
domains within Belgium. In this respect, Belgium presents in microcosm difficulties that 
providers  face  in  creating  a  uniform  billing  system  for  their  customers  covering  the 
whole EU. 

It was pointed out by several (prospective) EETS providers in their answers to the public 
consultation that where the toll is regarded as a tax and the agency model is adopted the 
EETS provider may be required to abide by the requirements of the PSD2 Directive13 and 
to be licenced as a financial institution. In the REETS (Regional EETS) project this was a 
difficulty said to have been faced by German providers wishing to operate in Austria.14 

2.2.1.4.  Complexity and lack of harmonisation of the process of registering 

users to a toll domain. 

The registration of vehicles in an electronic tolling system can be extremely complex, 
in particular when the toll is considered a tax. Belgium provides truck drivers (whether 
represented by EETS providers or not) with a 15-page-long "vehicle documents guide" to 
explain  the  registration  process.  The  necessary  registration  documents  are  different  for 

12 Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of 

heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ L 187 20.7.1999, p.42). 

13  Directive  (EU)  2015/2366  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2015  on 
payment  services  in  the  internal  market,  amending  Directives  2002/65/EC,  2009/110/EC  and 
2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (Text with EEA 
relevance), OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35–127. 

14 www.reets.eu.  

8 

 
                                                 
each  tolling  scheme,  and  this  constitutes  a  great  administrative  challenge  for  EETS 
providers and road users alike. 

Another  problem  reported  to  the  Commission  illustrates  the  issue:  while  the  service 
provider holds in its database the number plates of vehicles as simple sequences of letters 
and numbers, one toll charger requires also the spaces apparent on the licence plate to be 
reproduced  in  the  information  which  he  receives.  This  then  might  force  the  EETS 
provider to duplicate its databases to suit the specific requirements of one toll charger in 
order  to  be  accredited.  If  information  is  mistyped  when  the  vehicle  is  registered  in  the 
system,  the Commission  was  anecdotally  informed  that this is  used  as  a  basis  for  fines 
received by users. 

2.2.1.5.  Limited  and  inconsistent  use  of  specific  standard  profiles  and 

different technical solutions required by different markets.  

Whilst the 2004 Directive defines three main technologies that can be used for electronic 
toll collection under Article 2, it only references a limited set of standards to define the 
specific  mechanics  of  implementation  with  regards  to  DSRC-based  and  autonomous 
(GNSS) systems.  However, existing standards relevant for ETC in Europe and EETS in 
particular are much  wider. Many of these standards are referenced in the  Guide for the 
application  of  the  Directive  on  the  interoperability  of  electronic  road  toll  systems15 
published  by  the  Commission.  However,  it  is  largely  outdated  given  the  rapid 
development  of  standardisation  in  this  sector,  its  application  is  not  mandatory,  and  it 
provides too much flexibility for interpretation.   

The  EETS  Decision  created  a  Co-ordination  Group  of  Notified  Bodies  in  the  field  of 
ETC as a working group of the Electronic Toll Committee. The Decision provides that 
"the Coordination Group shall compile and maintain a comprehensive list of standards, 
technical  specifications  and  normative  documents  against  which  EETS  interoperability 
constituents'  conformity  to  specifications  and  suitability  for  use  can  be  assessed.  The 
Coordination Group shall serve as a forum for discussing any problems that may arise in 
relation to the conformity to specifications and suitability for use assessment procedures 
and for proposing solutions  to  these problems".16 However, the low number of notified 
bodies  (four  currently)  has  contributed  to  a  relatively  low  effectiveness  of  this  co-
ordination group in fostering harmonisation of procedures for assessing conformity with 
specifications and suitability for use. 

Despite the fact that a number of specific ‘profiled’ standards now exist to define a more 
consistent  implementation  of  EETS,  these  are  not  –  apart  from  EN  15509  and  ETSI 
200674-117 – referenced in the EETS legislation. Hence toll chargers have the flexibility 
to use toolbox standards (standards allowing several alternative applications for the same 
process)  or  even  to  introduce  requirements  which  are  incompatible  with  established 
standards.  This  is  a  particular  issue  regarding  standards  which  define  the  interfaces 
between  the  toll  charger  and  the  EETS  providers,  which  are  of  crucial  importance  for 
ensuring  interoperability.  From  the  public  consultation  it  emerged  that  the  most 
important  reference  missing  is  the  one  to  ISO  12855  and  its  profile  CEN  TS  16986, 

15  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/media/publications/doc/2011-eets-european-electronic-

toll-service_en.pdf.  

16 Article 18 of the EETS Decision. 
17  These  two  standards  define  the  communication  between  the  OBU  and  the  roadside  infrastructure  by 

Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC). 

9 

 
                                                 
which  harmonise  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  back  offices  of  the  toll 
charger and the EETS provider. 

In  summary,  different  technical  solutions  are  adopted  in  different  EETS  domains  and, 
whilst  they  may  conform  to  the  broad  toolbox  standards  and  technological  choices 
referenced  in  the  legislation,  the  differences  between  markets  render  technical 
interoperability  more  difficult  and  costly  to  achieve.  Finally,  standards  are  constantly 
evolving due to the evolution of technology and with unclear governance processes for 
updating the standards relevant to EETS, it is difficult to accommodate updates as they 
become available to ensure full compatibility between devices and processes deployed at 
different points in time. 

2.2.2.  Problem 2: Foreign-registered vehicles can escape tolls 

Today,  the  authority  to  enforce  tolls  typically  stops  at  the  borders  of  the  country. 
Enforcement authorities do not have the means to establish the identity of the owner of a 
foreign  registered  vehicle  on  the  basis  of  the  number  plate  and  picture  of  the  vehicle 
registered  by  automatic  enforcement  devices.  This  problem  has  three  negative 
consequences. First, it leads to revenue leakages, which are relatively small on the scale 
of  a  whole  large  country,  but  can  be  very  significant  in  particular  situations  (e.g.  on  a 
tolled  road  running  close  to  another  country,  such  as  the  AP-7  running  in  Catalonia 
between  Barcelona  and  Perpignan)18.  Some  figures  on  the  scale  of  the  problem  are 
provided  in  section  2.3.2.3  below.  Second,  the  difficulty  in  recovering  tolls  and  fines 
from foreign-registered vehicles creates frustration among "national" drivers (who get the 
feeling that "foreigners don't pay") and thus reduces the level of acceptance for the toll.19 
Finally, because of the problems with the cross-border enforcement of tolls, many road 
managers stick to traditional tolls with barriers that generate a compliance rate of more 
than  99%,20  even  though  they  are  less  safe  and  more  costly  than  free-flow  electronic 
tolling systems and contribute to congestion.  In addition, no common agreement exists 
regulating  the  exchange  of  vehicle  registration  data  between  Member  States.  A  small 
number of Member States have agreements in place allowing for the exchange of vehicle 
registration data across borders, and the pursuit of unpaid tolls by authorities. This is for 
example  the  case  of  Austria  and  Germany.  Enforcement  data  provided  by  the  Austrian 
toll  charger,  ASFINAG,  indicate  that,  as  a  result,  the  percentage  of  unpaid  tolls  not 
recovered  from  German  vehicles  (11%)  is  around  half  that  from  other  EU  vehicles 
(21%). 

Where  no  bilateral  agreements  are  in  place,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  EU  agreement, 
recovering  unpaid  tolls  across  borders  is  complex;  some  toll  chargers  use  toll  recovery 
agencies, but most such companies provide a service that is less than satisfactory in terms 
of  public  accountability  and  ethics.  They  provide  only  a  low  level  of  transparency  on 
their  access  to  sources  of  information  and  personal  data,  and  are  reported  to  use 

18 This motorway section has been mentioned as problematic in the aspect of foreign toll offenders by its 

manager. 

19  It  is  interesting  to  mention  that  precisely  in  Catalonia,  from  where  the  example  of  a  problematic 
motorway  comes  from,  a  citizens'  action  of  disobedience  ("no  vull  pagar")  was  launched  in  2012, 
whereby drivers refused to pay for the use of motorways. Over 100.000 fines were issued by the end of 
the 4 month protest.  

20  Toll  barriers are  an  effective  enforcement  tool, but even on  toll plazas  a  few  methods of  avoiding  the 
payment of the toll exist: massive protests, such as the one referred to in footnote 19; "small train", i.e. 
driving  very  close,  bumper-to-bumper,  behind  the  preceding  vehicle,  so  that  the  system  does  not 
recognise the passage of the second vehicle; and, finally, destroying the barrier by driving onto it – this 
is mainly done by heavy goods vehicles. 

10 

 
                                                 
controversial methods to recover debts.21 But in the absence of toll recovery agencies, it 
is effectively impossible to recover unpaid tolls from foreign registered vehicles. 

2.2.3.  Problem 3: Burdensome obligations on EETS providers 

The  ex  post  evaluation  and  the  public  consultation  showed  that  certain  requirements  in 
the  legislation,  rather  than  promoting  interoperability,  have  in  fact  contributed  to 
blocking  it.  Excessive  requirements  for  conducting  EETS  business  means  that  some 
companies refrain from officially registering as EETS providers, which is a sine qua non 
requirement  to  enter  certain  important  ETC  markets,  including  Germany.  These 
obligations also present a significant barrier to entry to new market entrants, adding cost 
and  complexity  to  any  prospective  EETS  provider  considering  registration  to  a  new 
system. There are two main drivers of this problem: 

2.2.3.1. Excessive 

requirements 

for  EETS  providers 

in  Decision 

2009/750/EC 

The  Decision  sets  out  a  range  of  requirements,  rights  and  obligations  that  EETS 
providers must achieve in order to be officially registered and operate, under Articles 3 
and 4. This includes the requirement to cover all EU electronic toll domains in  the EU 
within 24 months of registration of the EETS provider. The evidence of experience from 
contractual  negotiations  between  toll  chargers  and  EETS  providers  suggests  that  this 
requirement  is  impossible  to  meet:  discussions  with  just  two  or  three  toll  domains  and 
adapting the OBU to their toll specific requirements can take up to 2 years and engage a 
significant share of the human resources of the EETS provider. Covering all toll domains 
within this timeframe seems to be effectively impossible. 

Furthermore,  full  EU  coverage  by  the  EETS  requires  such  huge  investments  (over  14 
million euro, cf. section 2.2.1.1), that only a couple of market players could afford it. The 
risk is that it will lead to the creation of an oligopolistic market, which will counter part 
of the benefits brought by interoperability (the risk being that the EETS providers collude 
on their pricing policies towards road users and towards toll chargers). 

2.2.3.2. Same requirements for EETS providers active in the HDV and LDV 

markets even though markets are very different 

There are intrinsic differences between the European tolling markets for light and heavy 
vehicles, and EETS providers tend to specialise in one or the other market. For instance, 
members of AETIS specialise in the provision of toll services to HDVs and have not so 
far  expressed  interest  in  offering  similar  services  to  LDVs.  On  the  other  hand, 
'Tolltickets.com'  and  potentially  other  companies  aim  particularly  at  the  light  duty 
vehicle market.  

However, the EETS legislation requires that a) each EETS provider services all types of 
user rather than only heavy or only light vehicles; and b) that each EETS provider must 
service light vehicles with GNSS-based OBUs even though no satellite tolling schemes 
exist  in  Europe  for  such  vehicles.22  These  requirements  act  for  some  companies  as  a 
disincentive to enter the EETS business and/or to register as EETS provider, and in any 
case certainly add to the lack of clarity of the rules in place. 

21 Toll recovery agencies declined the invitation to present their position on the topic. 
22 The relevant provisions of the legislation are quoted in Annex 7. 

11 

 
                                                 
2.3.  How  are  different  stakeholders  affected,  what  is  the  scale  of  the 

problems and how will they evolve in the future 

All the main parties in the electronic tolling market are affected by the above-described 
problems, including road users, toll chargers and EETS providers. 

2.3.1.  Road users 

Road users must install many OBUs in order to interact with the roadside infrastructure 
and/or back office of the toll charger in each relevant toll domain. There is a direct cost 
associated with the rental or purchase of the OBU (depending on local requirements), as 
well  as  indirect  costs  associated  with  the  installation,  maintenance  and  general 
management of several OBUs. Table 2 shows the evolution of these costs in the baseline, 
compared  with  a  scenario  of  'full  interoperability'.23  As  a  growing  number  of  users  are 
expected to use EETS OBUs to pay tolls where it is made possible (for the moment in 
Portugal,  Spain,  France,  Belgium,  Austria  and  soon  for  certain  infrastructures  in 
Denmark  and  Sweden),  costs  are  declining  over  time,  but  remain  above  the  level 
associated with a scenario of full EU-wide interoperability. 

Table 2: Summary of baseline costs for road users (figures in brackets indicate the 
difference to a scenario of full interoperability 

Type of 
vehicle 

201624 in 
€million/year 

202024 in 
€million/year 

202524 in 
€million/year 

Full 
interoperability24  
in €million/year 

HGV25 

196 (+60) 

186 (+50) 

179 (+43) 

136 

Buses  and 
coaches26 

LDV 
(ETC)27 

2.1 (+0.8) 

2 (+0.7) 

1.9 (+0.6) 

1.35 

75 (+41) 

70 (+37) 

69 (+36) 

LDV 

62 

62 

62 

33 

0 

23 'Full interoperability' corresponds to what would in practice be a rather abstract scenario, in which each 
vehicle would be equipped with only one OBU, and would need only this OBU to pay tolls anywhere 
in the EU. It is not linked to any specific framework conditions or policy option in the current report. 
For detailed assumptions, cf. Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision 
of EETS Legislation (Directive 2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

24 Costs are calculated for users from all EU countries. The part of these costs borne by EU vehicles is 96% 

for HGVs, 63% for buses and coaches and 89% for LDVs. 

25 Includes the cost of lack of interoperability of electronic tolls which are within the scope of the EETS 

Directive only. 

26 There are no figures, even approximate ones, for the number of buses engaged in non-scheduled cross-
border transport (such as organised tourist trips). Hence the calculation of costs is based only on the 
number of buses and coaches engaged in scheduled transport. 

27 Unlike the costs for HGVs and buses and coaches, the cost estimates for LDVs include not only costs 
related  to  the  lack  of  interoperability  of  electronic  tolls  which  are  within  the  scope  of  the  EETS 
Directive,  but  also  the  time  losses  related  to  the  purchasing  of  vignettes  (paper  or  electronic)  and 
registering  to  urban  charging  schemes.  The  rationale  for  this  different  approach  is:  (1)  vignettes  are 
more frequent and proportionately more costly for cars than for trucks; (2) LDV drivers are typically 
private users and therefore on average less aware of the different systems in place. They are thus more 
prone  to  use  the  services  of  a  third  party  to  do  all  the  procedural  work  for  them  (if  available)  than 
(professional) truck or bus drivers. 

12 

 
                                                 
(vignettes)  

LDV (city 
tolls)  

1.2 

1.2 

3 

0 

Total 

336 (+166) 

321 (+151) 

315 (+145) 

170 

To  illustrate  the  reality  behind  the  figures  in  Table  2,  Table  3  presents  various  actions 
which  just  one  haulier  had  to  undertake  to  equip  with  OBUs  trucks  bought  over  from 
another haulier, and on other specific conditions imposed by the respective toll chargers. 
It  shows  the  complexity  (and  thus  administrative  costs  and  burden)  of  the  "OBU 
management" processes. 

Table  3:  Operations  required  to  prepare  a  new  vehicle  for  compliance  with  the 
tolling systems in centrally located EU countries. 

Member 
State 

Austria 

Operation 

Devices  can  be  modified  at  a  GO-MAUT  point  by 
drivers, the name of the new owner of the truck and the 
type of payment must be communicated to ASFINAG 

Deposit 
for 
OBU 

the 

Cost  if  not 
returning 

5 EUR 

- 

Czech 
Republic 

Devices must be returned by courier or to a Contact Point 
in the Czech Republic. 

50 EUR 

- 

Registration  certificate  of  the  trucks  must  be  presented, 
the form "Claim (service, billing, request for info)" must 
be filled in. 

The deposit will be returned only if the OBU is returned 
undamaged  –  but  if  the  device  has  not  been  used  for 
more than 1 year, the deposit is not refundable 

France 
and Spain 

Devices must be returned by courier 

0 EUR 

170 EUR 

Germany  Toll Collect OBUs  are not transferable from a company 
to another. In this situation the devices must be removed 
by  an  authorized  Toll  Collect  Service  Partner.  After  the 
OBU  is  removed  from  the  vehicle,  a  de-registration 
request  to  Toll  Collect  must  be  submitted.  If  the  trucks 
are  sold  with  devices,  tolls  will  still  be  charged  to  the 
original company's customer number, and the cost of 400 
euro will be paid by this company if not returning OBU. 

The re-installation of an OBU can only take place in an 
authorised workshop. 

Hungary  After  deregistration  from  HU-GO,  trucks  must  be 
registered  on  the  new  company's  HU-GO  client  name 
and  the  fleet  management  devices  used  by  the  new 
company must be connected to the HU-GO system 

Italy 

Devices must be returned to the fuel card company or can 
be  used  by  other  company  only  if  it  is  a  fuel  card 
company. 

13 

0 EUR 

400 EUR 

- 

- 

0 EUR 

30 EUR 

 
 
Poland 

Devices must be returned to a contact point, distribution 
point  or  border  distribution  point  -  deposit  and  unused 
credit will be returned on the fuel card 

30 EUR 

- 

Slovakia  Devices  must  be  returned  by  drivers  or  by  courier  to 
SkyToll  a.s.,  including  the  form  "Request  for  refund", 
drivers  ID,  registration  certificate  of  the  truck  -  the 
deposit and the unused credit will be returned in the bank 
account indicated on the form. 

50 EUR 

257 EUR 

2.3.2.  Toll chargers 

For toll chargers, the main impact relates to the need to develop, provide to clients and 
support bespoke OBUs. Other impacts relate to the reduced competition for services in 
the  national  electronic  toll  collection  markets,  and  to  the  difficulty  in  recovering  fines 
from tolls evaded by road users established in other Member States. 

2.3.2.1. Cost of making available bespoke OBUs to road users  

OBUs  and  the  management  of  relations  with  road  users  are  significant  cost  elements 
mainly  in  GNSS-based  systems,  as  shown  in  Table  4.  In  DSRC-based  systems,  EETS-
independent elements, such as the central system and tolling gantries are responsible for 
the bulk of costs, and OBUs represent just a few percent of the overall costs.28  

Table 4: Summary of costs to establish and run a representative GNSS-based free-
flow electronic toll collection scheme for heavy goods vehicles29 

Cost element 

OBU (production/distribution/mobile 
telecommunication) and relations with 
clients 

Initial investment 
cost (€m) (% of 
total costs) 

Yearly operating 
costs (€m) (% of 
total costs) 

120 (60%) 

14.5 (48%) 

Other 

TOTAL 

81 (40%) 

15.5 (52%) 

201 

30 

It appears from Table 4 that a representative GNSS-based nation-wide system could 60% 
lower initial investment costs and 48% lower operating costs if toll chargers could rely 
entirely  on  EETS  providers  for  the  management  of  contacts  with  road  users  and  the 
distribution and servicing of OBUs.30  

28 See detailed information on the cost of building and running different types of electronic tolling schemes 
in  Ricardo  et  al.,  Support  study  for  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Revision  of  EETS  Legislation 
(Directive 2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

29  Source:  Ricardo  et  al.,  Support  study  for  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Revision  of  EETS  Legislation 

(Directive 2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

30  Toll  chargers  typically  purchase  OBUs  and  rent  them  out  to  users  against  a  deposit.  Hence  the 
procurement of 'national' OBUs represents a cost for the toll chargers. On the other hand, the cost of 
purchasing 'EETS' OBUs (those which can be used in many toll domains under an EETS contract) is 
borne by EETS providers. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
In reality, many toll chargers will still need to service a large group of clients unwilling 
or unable to sign a contract with an EETS provider.31 For instance, vehicles which never 
leave the borders of the concerned Member State are unlikely to use the EETS, which by 
definition is interesting for vehicles involved in cross-border transport. Realistically, the 
potential savings from EETS for GNSS-based ETC systems are therefore lower, rather in 
the  range  of  15%  (initial  costs)  and  20%  (operating  costs).  With  only  four  countries 
having  put a GNSS-based system in  place  (Germany,  Hungary, Slovakia and Belgium) 
and one in the process of implementing it (Bulgaria), the potential savings on operating 
costs from the introduction of EETS into all their value chains are about €30 million 
per  year  (20%  of  €30  million  for  each  of  the  five  systems),  and  the  potential  one-off 
reduction in the cost of establishing the Bulgarian scheme is about €30 million (15% of 
€201 million).32 

2.3.2.2. Cost  of  reduced  competition  for  services  in  the  national  electronic 

toll collection markets 

Beyond  the  "direct"  costs  of  lack  of  interoperability  of  electronic  tolls,  some  more 
"indirect" costs must also be considered: 

  On those national markets which EETS providers could not enter because of the high 
entry costs and obstacles,33,34 toll chargers must maintain direct relationships with all 
road users.35 There is a cost associated with supporting these relationships, including 
the cost of providing customer support / helplines, accounting and invoicing, contract 
management, etc. It has been raised by several respondents to the public consultation 
that  EETS  providers  are  better  suited  to  be  responsible  for  managing  these 
relationships across multiple toll domains, benefiting from their experience and direct 
customer access on many national markets. Toll chargers, on the contrary, do not have 
the experience and international presence of EETS providers to provide international 
customer services in a cost-efficient manner. 

  The  lack  of  competition  on  the  toll  collection  market,  due  to  the  low  level  of 
penetration  of  EETS  providers,36  can  result  in  higher  costs  for  the  toll  charger 
(because of the monopolistic or oligopolistic structure of the market for toll services). 
Toll chargers must accept worse contractual conditions for the collection of tolls than 
they could achieve if the market was fully competitive. This was raised in the public 
consultation by several toll chargers, EETS providers and toll service providers, who 
argue that if only a few strong companies are present on the EETS market, they will 

31  See  Figure  1  for  an  explanation  of  how  road  users  can  choose  between  being  provided  by  EETS 
providers with  an  interoperable  OBU, or by  the  toll  charger  with  an OBU which  is  compatible  only 
with this toll charger's ETC system. 

32  All  figures  from  Ricardo  et  al.,  Support  study  for  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Revision  of  EETS 

Legislation (Directive 2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

33 For the moment, EETS providers are present in Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium (only one) and Austria. 
They  are  expected  to  enter  the  Danish  and  Swedish  markets  in  early  2017  (these  two  markets  are 
however very small: a few tolled bridges). In Italy, there is only one active service provider, who is 
also  registered  as  EETS  provider  providing  services  in  many  Member  States  (Telepass).  Finally,  no 
EETS  providers  are  active  in  the  following  major  markets:  Germany,  Poland,  Czech  Republic, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Croatia. 

34 See section 2.2.1 for further details on these obstacles. 
35 Some examples of countries with highest numbers of registered ETC road users: Italy (nearly 9 million); 
France  (over  6.5  million);  Austria  (900  thousand  –  only  trucks);  Germany  (950  thousand  –  only 
trucks); source: ASECAP. 

36 Cf. footnote 8. 

15 

 
                                                 
be in  a position  to  dictate to  the toll chargers a price  for their services that is  above 
their market value. No quantification of this problem is however available.  

2.3.2.3. Cost of the difficulty to recover unpaid tolls from foreign-registered 

vehicles. 

Foreign-registered  vehicles  typically  represent  a  disproportionately  high  share  of  total 
toll offences: 38% in Poland, 25% in Portugal, 40% in France and 89% in Austria. These 
figures vary inside  each State, with higher shares  of foreign  offenders  on road sections 
with high proportion of cross-border traffic. In absolute numbers, the foregone revenues 
are typically not huge, but still significant. In Austria, foreign HGVs were responsible for 
close to 110.000 offences, while some 95.000 cars have been detected as not having paid 
the vignette (in reality, the number of foreign offenders for the vignette scheme might be 
much  higher,  as  only  a  share  of  all  violations  is  detected  or  reported);  According  to 
Abertis, respectively 26% and 69% of foreign drivers fail to pay the toll on the Dartford 
Crossing in the UK and on the M50 ring of Dublin (Ireland).  

The  working  assumption,  based  on  expert  input  and  anecdotal  evidence,  is  that  non-
payment  of  tolls  and  fines  by  foreign  registered  vehicles  leads  to  an  average  revenue 
leakage corresponding to 1% of the tolls collected.  

In  the  absence  of  other means,  certain  toll chargers  use  the services  of debt  recovering 
agencies  for  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  tolls.  Apart  from  the  ethical  and  legal 
implications of this tool (discussed in section 2.2.2), the price to pay can range from 10-
30%  of  the  recovered  sum.  Many  toll  chargers  thus  simply  write  off  the  foregone 
revenues from foreign vehicles, contributing to a sentiment of injustice among compliant 
nationally-registered road users. 

2.3.3.  EETS providers 

The heterogeneity of ETC systems in the EU contributes to the high cost of accreditation 
of EETS providers to the different toll domains. Annex 9 presents the typical structure of 
the costs of certification/accreditation of an EETS provider to a toll domain. 

The average cost of an accreditation is around €100,000 for a DSRC toll domain and €1 
million37  for  a  GNSS  toll  domain  (based  on  the  Viapass  example).  For  the  EU  as  a 
whole,  the payments  requested  by toll  chargers  for  performing  all  the tests  for  systems 
applying to heavy goods vehicles alone are estimated at around 14 million euro. 

A major issue for EETS providers is the lack of business certainty. The legal obligation 
to offer their service across the EU in 24 months, the existing obstacles to enter certain 
national  markets,  unfair  competitive  practices  of  some  vertically  integrated  operators, 
KPIs and other requirements of toll chargers being always subject to possible change: all 
these  contribute  to  making  the  EETS  business  risky.  For  instance,  Axxès  made 
considerable investment to enter the Belgian market despite the lack of clarity as to the 
remuneration which it could ultimately count on. This remuneration is now subject to a 
conciliation procedure between Axxès  and the Belgian Regions represented by Viapass 
in  front  of  the  Belgian  Conciliation  Body.38  Similarly,  the  requirements  of  the  new 

37 Tis figure includes, on top of the fee requested by the toll charger, the cost of activities on the side of the 

EETS provider. 

38 Article 10 of the EETS Decision requires Member States to establish Conciliation Bodies to supervise 
the correct application of the rights and obligations of all parties, in particular to resolve any potential 
disputes between toll chargers and EETS providers. 

16 

 
                                                 
German ETC system, due to be introduced in 2018, are yet largely unknown – this is the 
source  of  a  lot  of  business  uncertainty  for  EETS  providers,  who  need  to  start  the 
accreditation processes very soon in order to be able to enter the German market from the 
day of the launch of the new system. 

Because of the lack of certainty on the future business decisions of (prospective) EETS 
providers, calculations of the cost of the  status quo for the sector are subject to a large 
element  of  uncertainty.  Table  5  presents  gross  calculations  on  the  market  realities  to 
illustrate  this  cost,  based  on  the  assumption  that  all  current  or  prospective  EETS 
providers  participating  in  the  REETS  consortium  enter  the  EETS  market  for  HDV  as 
announced.39 It appears from this table that the costs of initial accreditation under 
baseline assumptions correspond to more than 7 years of net operational profits of 
EETS  providers.  Even  disregarding  the  considerable  uncertainties  regarding  the 
possibility to conclude contracts on crucial markets (such as the German market) at the 
end  of  the  accreditation,  the  figures in  Table  5  by  themselves  do  indicate  the lack  of  a 
good business case for the provision of EETS. 

Table  5:  Potential  accreditation  costs,  gross  revenues  and  net  profits  of  EETS 
providers in the baseline (€ million). 

Costs 
accreditation 

of 

Yearly  toll 
revenues 

15440 

14,00041 

Potential  turnover  of 
EETS  providers 
in 
the baseline 
42042 

Potential  net  operational 
profits  of  EETS  providers 
in the baseline 
2143 

2.4.  How would the problems develop, all things being equal 

A number of EETS providers have developed roadmaps stating their intentions to cover 
additional markets by 202044, however in many cases they may encounter barriers caused 
by  the  various  complexities  described  above  around  the  lack  of  harmonisation  of 
processes and national legislation, as well as  the lack of a level playing field in certain 
markets,  varying  technical,  contractual  and  procedural  specifications  and  sometimes 
complex and heterogeneous accreditation procedures between Member States. 

For the baseline  scenario, it is  assumed that  Member  States will retain the same policy 
approach, except when a revision process has been launched (e.g. Italy is in the process 

39 Cf. http://eetsinfoplatform.eu/index.php?option=com_best_practice&view=bestpracticess&Itemid=145. 
40  11  (prospective)  EETS  providers  participate  in  REETS.  This  number  is  multiplied  by  the  cost  of 

accreditation to all EETS domains in the EU. 

41 No figure on toll revenues from heavy goods vehicles is available for the EU as a whole. We assume that 
half  of  the  revenues  of  ASECAP  members  (€28  billion)  come  from  HDVs  and  the  other  half  from 
LDVs. Source: http://asecap.com/members-statistics.html.  

42  We  assume  an  average  gross  remuneration  of  EETS  providers  at  the  level  of  3%  of  tolls  collected 
(source: Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision of EETS Legislation 
(Directive 2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published). 

43 We  assume  that,  in  a  competitive  market  involving 11 EETS providers,  the net benefits will  be  at the 

level of 5% of the turnover. 

from 

available 

44 These roadmaps are generally confidential and therefore cannot be disclosed, although some information 
here: 
the  REETS  Cross-Border  Deployment 
is 
http://eetsinfoplatform.eu/index.php?option=com_best_practice&view=bestpracticess&Itemid=145. 
This  information  and  information  from  interviews  with  EETS  providers  have  been  aggregated  and 
anonymised as part of the baseline assumptions; these assumptions allowed calculating the evolution 
of costs and other aspects of the problems as presented in section 2.3. 

available 

Plan, 

17 

 
 
                                                 
of opening  up to  EETS providers).  Markets are therefore assumed to  remain (partially) 
foreclosed in many Member States, i.e. in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Greece and Croatia. 

Table  6  provides  a  summary  of  the  estimated  costs  for  road  users  and  toll  chargers 
stemming  from  the  lack  of  EU-wide  deployment  of  EETS.  These  costs  are  to  be 
understood as the difference between the operating costs under baseline assumptions and 
the operating costs in a situation of full interoperability. The table is therefore a summary 
of the information provided in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.  

It  does  not  include  the  costs  of  setting  up  new  ETC  schemes,  such  as  the  upcoming 
Bulgarian system, the costs of lack of effective tools for the cross-border enforcement of 
tolls,  nor  the  costs  of  EETS  providers  (see  Table  5)  for  which  a  comparison  to  a  "full 
interoperability scenario" is not relevant. These cost categories are recalled in Table 7. 

Table  6:  Estimated  costs  of  the  lack  of  an  EU-wide  deployment  of  the  EETS  for 
road users and toll chargers (€ million) 

Stakeholder 
category 

Road users 

Toll chargers 

Total 

2016 

166 

30 

196 

2020 

151 

30 

181 

2025 

145 

30 

175 

Table 7: Other costs associated with the status quo on the ETC market in the EU. 

Stakeholder category 

Cost description 

Toll chargers 

Toll chargers 

EETS providers 

High price paid to toll service providers for 
their 
lack  of 
to 
competition on the market 

services,  due 

the 

Cost of tolls not paid by vehicles registered 
in  another  Member  State  which  are  not 
recovered  because  of  the  lack  of  efficient 
tools  for  cross-border  enforcement  (gross 
estimate:  1%  of  tolls  collected,  i.e.  €300 
million) 

Cost  of  accreditation  to  EETS  domains 
amounting  to  >7  years  of  expected  net 
operational profits 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

The  problems  are  by  their  nature  pan-European,  because  ensuring  interoperability  for 
ETC systems across the EU (a stated aim of the existing legislation) requires action that 
involves all EU Member States. 

18 

 
 
 
Much  as  cooperation between  stakeholders and further proliferation  of ETC systems in 
Europe is expected to increase interoperability to some extent, without changes in the EU 
legislation it seems clear that significant barriers to market entry will persist. In addition, 
although  some  Member  States  are  announcing  market  opening  measures,  recent  cases 
show that new ETC systems can still be costly to establish and excessively burdensome 
for  EETS  providers  (e.g.  in  Belgium).  Consequently,  it  is  the  right  time  for  the  EU  to 
improve the legislative framework so that the ETC market can develop in a more optimal 
way with lower regulatory costs. 

Nearly all of the problems described in section 2 are within the scope of application of 
Directive 2004/52/EC. The EU's right to act seems effectively therefore justified by the 
existence of this Directive. Most of the problems relate to issues on which the legislators 
have  already  given  to  the  Commission  the  right  to  act  under  the  Regulatory  Procedure 
with Scrutiny (PRAC). 

Currently, only the issue of cross-border enforcement of tolls is not explicitly covered by 
the  EETS  legislation,  although  article  4.10  of  the  EETS  Decision  provides  that  "EETS 
providers  shall  collaborate  with  toll  chargers  in  their  enforcement  efforts".  However, 
cross  border  co-operation  in  the  enforcement  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  is 
provided  for  in  the  so-called  "Cross-border  enforcement"  Directive.45  This  Directive, 
which  uses  Article  91  of  the  Treaty  as  the  legal  basis,  gives  precedence  to  measures 
aiming at facilitating the cross-border enforcement of other road traffic related offenses, 
such as non-payment of tolls. 

For  all  the  problems  identified  in  section  2,  Article  91  of  the  Treaty  (Transport)  is  the 
appropriate legal basis for any legislative solutions envisaged. 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objective 

The  general  objective  of  the  proposed  initiative  would  be  to  contribute  to  the  correct 
functioning of the Internal Market by ensuring more access to interoperability in tolling 
services in line with and proportionate to the road users' needs. 

This constitutes a certain change compared to the current legislation, which provides that 
each user should have access to EU-wide interoperability, i.e. an EETS covering all toll 
domains  across  the  EU.46  The  following  considerations  were  behind  the  change  in  the 
objective: 

–  full  EU-coverage  comes  at  a  cost  for  EETS  providers  (in  excess  of  €14  million  per 
EETS  provider47)  which  is  very  significant  in  light  of  the  size  of  the  EETS  market, 
estimated at €420 million/year (c.f.  Table 5); this high entry cost combined with the 

45 Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015  facilitating 
cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offenses, OJ L 68, 13.3.2015, p. 9-
25. 

46 The future evaluation of the Directive should also look at the market and technology development to see 
if full interoperability could be achieved at lower costs and if it would be more desired from the market 
functioning perspective. 

47 

4icom, 

Expert 

review 

of 

the 

EETS 

legislative 

acts, 

2015, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/doc/2015-09-ex-post-evaluation-eets-4icom.pdf. 

19 

 
                                                 
small size of the market leave space for few (possibly even only one) EETS providers. 
There is a risk that the market becomes oligopolistic (or even a monopoly);  

–  Interoperable  tolling  services  which  give  access  with  one  OBU  to  all  toll  domains 
from Portugal to Poland, and from Norway to Greece, are needed by very few users. 
Indeed, most haulage companies specialise in transport to- and from defined regions, 
while light duty vehicles (predominantly cars, but also vans) rarely cross more than 2-
3 borders. 

–  The removal  of the obligation to cover the entire EU will reduce market entry costs 

for smaller EETS providers, resulting in more competition on the market. 

The objective implies that both users engaged in regional transport, and those in need of 
EU-wide interoperability, will find an offer which meets their requests. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

Reflecting the identified problems, there are three specific objectives:  

Specific  objective  1:  Remove  market  entry  barriers  and  foster  the  development  of  a 

competitive market for electronic toll collection services 

Explanatory note on specific objective 1: 

This  specific  objective  builds  on  the  current  objective  of  the  existing  legislation  to 
'ensure technical, contractual and procedural interoperability of electronic tolls'. Indeed, 
the  market  entry  barriers  identified  in  section  2.2.1  are  of  technical  (non-standardised 
interfaces  between  toll  chargers  and  EETS  providers,  as  described  in  section  2.2.1.5), 
contractual (c.f. the problem of EETS providers to obtain fair remuneration, described in 
section 2.2.1.1, and problems resulting from the use of the 'agency model' by certain toll 
chargers, described in section 2.2.1.3) and procedural (c.f. the inconsistent accreditation 
processes,  described  in  section  2.2.1.2,  and  the  lack  of  harmonisation of  the  process  of 
registering users to a toll domain, described in section 2.2.1.4) nature. 

However, specific objective 1 goes one step beyond technical, procedural and contractual 
interoperability,  as  it  also  sets  the  aim  of  achieving  a  competitive  structure  of  the  toll 
collection market – an objective currently not spelled out in the legislation. 

Specific  objective  2:  Improve  the  level  of  enforcement  of  tolls  from  foreign-registered 

vehicles 

Specific objective 3: Remove the excessive obligations on EETS providers 

All  objectives  are  consistent  with  other  EU  policies,  and  notably  with  the  objective  of 
completing the Internal Market and creating a Digital Single Market. Specific objective 2 
has  been  checked  for  compatibility  with  the  Charter  for  Fundamental  Rights,  and  no 
major issues have been identified. 

Specific objectives 1 and 3 have a clear link to the objective of reducing the regulatory 
burden on companies (REFIT). 

20 

 
  
5.  WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE? 

5.1. 

Preliminary screening of potential main policy measures to achieve the 
identified objectives 

Given  that  the  identified  problems  are  linked  to  a  number  of  technical  and  regulatory 
issues, some pre-screening of possible approaches and measures has been done in order 
to limit the analysis to the acceptable and feasible options. In the public consultation the 
Commission  asked  respondents  for  their  opinion  on  a  long  list  of  possible  legislative 
measures to achieve the policy objectives presented in section 4. Further proposals were 
made  by  the  stakeholders  spontaneously.  The  most  important  of  those  measures  are 
screened  below  against  the  opinions  of  the  stakeholders,  opinions  of  experts  and  other 
considerations  such  as  their  political  acceptability  or  proportionality.  Based  on  this 
screening, some of them are recommended for more detailed analysis in section 6, while 
others are discarded. 

5.1.1.  Measures  aiming  at  reducing  the  cost  and  burden  for  EETS 
providers to  enter  new toll  domains and to  provide services therein 
(first part of specific objective 1) 

Four alternative approaches were proposed and discussed: 

I. Mandatory standardisation 

Under this  approach, entering new toll domains and providing services therein  is  made 
easier  for  EETS  providers  thanks  to  a  much  deeper  harmonisation  of  tolling  systems 
based on new precise standards. 

Comment: Views in the public consultation were mixed regarding this policy measure. 
Three  representatives  of  toll  chargers/Member  States  (Vinci,  ASECAP  and  Hungary), 
two service provider (WAG, DKV) and one technology provider (Xerox) supported some 
additional  standardisation  effort,  while  4  toll  chargers  /  Member  States  (ASFINAG, 
AISCAT,  the  Netherlands,  Sund  and  Belt),  one  technology  provider  (Kapsch)  and  one 
service provider (Egis) were against, notably arguing that too much standardisation will 
increase the cost of tolling (ASFINAG, Egis).  

It  must  be  underlined  that  even  those  in  favour  of  further  standardisation  effort  do  not 
necessarily  support  the  imposition  of  such  standards  through  legislation.  The  general 
view  expressed  by  experts  in  the  field  is  that  the  existing  body  of  standards  is  wide 
enough to support interoperability to a satisfactory level, and any gaps can be corrected 
via limited standardisation activity.  

Some support for this measure (imposition of very precise standards through legislation) 
was  expressed  by  the  association  of  light  vehicle  users  (FIA)  which  indicated  that "the 
European  Commission  should  play  a  key  role  in  setting  a  single  standard  and 
specifications  for  road  operators  for  the  benefits  of  citizens".  The  solution  equally  has 
support  from  the  wider  public  (vide  several  articles  in  the  general  press  calling  for  a 
"single EU-wide tolling scheme") 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment, because of the support for this 
option coming from a significant part of the road users community. 

II. Market self-regulation 

21 

 
Under this approach, the industry organises itself to achieve the first specific objective, 
namely  the  removal  of  barriers  to  the  deployment  of  EETS  in  a  competitive  market 
environment. The role of the Commission in this case is limited to setting the objectives 
(in  agreement  with  industry  representatives)  and  legally  recognising  the  industry 
representative  body  –  the  'EETS  Facilitation  Platform'  –  as  an  official  partner  for  the 
achievement of the first specific objective. 

Comment: Stakeholders from the electronic tolling sector have organised themselves in 
an inclusive co-operation platform (the 'EETS facilitation platform' – EFP) which gathers 
the  main  categories  of  stakeholders  (Member  State  administrations,  toll  chargers,  toll 
service providers) from 12 countries (11 Member States and Switzerland). The platform 
remains  open  to  new  members,  and  regularly  expands  (e.g.  membership  applications 
from four new service providers and one new national toll chargers are currently in the 
process of being examined).  EFP is already strongly engaged in  promoting harmonised 
practices and facilitating interoperability between European EFC systems, and played a 
non-negligible  role  in  the  achievement  of  first  interoperability  agreements  between  toll 
chargers  and  EETS  providers  in  2016.  All  this  makes  the  EFP  a  potential  partner  with 
whom the Commission could jointly pursue the first specific objective. 

The  self-regulation  approach  is  strongly  supported  by  ASECAP  (the  European 
association of motorway concessionaires) and several other Member States/toll chargers 
participating  in  EFP,  notably  Germany,  ASFA  (French  association  of  concessionaires), 
AISCAT (its Italian equivalent), but also by Vinci, Norway, and even the association of 
EETS  providers  AETIS  and  some  individual  EETS  providers  like  Total  (although  they 
see  self-regulation  as  a  complementary  activity  to  some  necessary  changes  in  the 
legislation). 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Retain  for  further  assessment  because  of  the  support  of 
many  toll  chargers/Member  States,  because  of  proportionality  considerations,  and 
because  of  the  significant  success  of  the  activities  deployed  by  EFP  so  far  to  promote 
interoperability in a number of Member States. 

III. Establishment of a single European co-ordination body 

The  Spanish  concession  operator  ABERTIS  suggested  the  establishment  of  a  central 
European Body which would replace national authorities and toll chargers in registering 
EETS providers and accrediting them to individual toll domains, and which would also 
play the role of a central clearing house. Some other players supported the idea (e.g. the 
EETS provider Total). 

Comment: In recent political discussions the creation of new EU agencies was rejected 
primarily  for  budgetary  reasons.  Hence,  the  measure  is  not  politically  achievable. 
Furthermore, several major players, including France, ASFA and Sund and Belt opposed 
the idea and insisted that accreditation of EETS providers to a toll domain should stay in 
the hands of the toll chargers. 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Discard  from  further  analysis,  because  the  measure  is  very 
unlikely  to  receive  the  necessary  political  support  and  is  not  widely  supported  by  the 
stakeholders. 

IV. Regulatory changes coupled with some standardisation 

Under this approach, several complementary measures were discussed: 

22 

 
  Harmonisation  of  accreditation  procedures  (incl.  equipment  testing)  across  all  toll 

domains 

Comment:  This  measure  received  nearly  unanimous  support  in  the  open  public 
consultation  (56  out  of  70  answers)  and  in  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  (all 
service providers, users, toll chargers and Member States with the exception of France; 
however,  the  association  of  French  toll  chargers  supported  the  measure).  Given  the 
strong  support  for  harmonisation  and  the  fact  that  other  possible  measures  making  the 
accreditation procedures easier and less burdensome would be much less effective (e.g. 
manuals  of  procedures  or  partial  harmonisation)  they  are  not  considered  as  alternatives 
for this measure. 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further analysis – universally supported  

  Standardisation of interfaces between EETS providers and toll chargers 

Comment: It is a crucial measure to ensure technical interoperability, and for this reason 
it  is  strongly  supported  by  all  EETS  providers.  Despite  the  fact  that  it  might  involve 
significant adaptation costs for toll chargers, the measure also received support from this 
community  (notably  ASFINAG,  AISCAT,  Norway,  Hungary)  with  only  ASECAP 
raising  some  opposition.  The  standardisation  of  interfaces  is  considered  as  minimum 
standardisation  already  increasing  interoperability  to  an  adequate  level,  while  further 
standardisation is considered under approach (I). 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Retain  for  further  analysis  –  important  for  achieving 
technical interoperability and supported by the main impacted group – the toll chargers. 

  Mandatory  use  of  the  reseller  model  in  the  contractual  relationship  between  the  toll 

charger and the EETS provider 

Comment: This measure is very important for EETS providers (it is on the list of ten top 
priorities prepared by AETIS48 as input to discussions with toll chargers in REETS) and 
has  unanimous  support  of  all  of  them.  It  was  also  supported  by  the  equipment 
manufacturer Kapsch. The reseller model is the only one compatible with the objective of 
a single invoice for paying all tolls in the EU (in the agency model, there is a separate 
invoice for each toll domain). It also greatly simplifies the provision of the EETS service, 
as it leaves EETS providers free to define their invoicing policy. While toll chargers and 
Member States did not raise it as a problem in the public consultation, it can reasonably 
be expected that some of the Member States currently requesting the agency model, such 
as Germany or Poland, will do so in the future, if the measure is proposed. Indeed, the 
agency  model  is  easier  to  apply  in  the  schemes  where  tolls  are  regarded  as  taxes. 
However, the experience of one country (Austria) who recently accepted to change from 
the  agency  to  the  reseller  model  shows  that  the  difficulty  of  the  change  is  sometimes 
exaggerated.  

As there are only two models of contractual relationships (agency and reseller), no other 
alternative  regulatory  measure  could  be  considered  here.  The  mandatory  aspect  of  the 
measure is justified by the fact that many Member States with agency model are unlikely 
to shift to the reseller model voluntarily. 

48 European Association of (prospective) EETS providers. 

23 

 
                                                 
Preliminary  conclusion:  Retain  for  further  analysis  (although  the  measure  might 
prove controversial with certain Member States) 

  Toll  chargers  to  set  up  the  necessary  framework  for  manufacturers  to  test  their 

equipment against the requirements of each toll domain. 

Comment: This measure was suggested by the equipment manufacturer Kapsch, but is 
equally supported by EETS providers, for which it would largely ease the accreditation 
process.  It  also  received  the  explicit  support  of  the  Toll  Charger  Sund  and  Belt.  Toll 
Chargers  who  already  opened  their  markets  (e.g.  concessionaires  in  France,  Spain  and 
Portugal, Belgian Viapass, etc.) should already have in place testing sites or equivalent 
facilities  to  perform  tests  with  EETS  providers.  For  instance  the  association  of  French 
motorway concessionaires ASFA has test lanes at the toll plaza in Eprunes. Performing 
certain the tests upstream with OBU manufacturers could also be a source of savings for 
the  toll  chargers,  as  the  number  of  repetitive  tests  would  diminish.  Imposing  common 
testing requirements at the EU level would be excessive given the differences in the toll 
domains. 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further analysis. 

A  lighter  assessment  of  secondary  measures  under  this  approach  is  provided  in  section 
5.2 below. 

5.1.2.  Measures to ensure a competitive functioning of the market (second 

part of specific objective 1) 

Two alternatives, and some complementary solutions within the second alternative were 
proposed and discussed in the framework of the public consultation: 

I. Market self-regulation 

Market  players,  and  in  particular  national  toll  chargers/  Member  State  authorities,  can 
agree voluntarily to apply certain rules to ensure fair competition on the individual tolling 
markets  under  their  authority.  The  instruments  used  in  this  case  would  be  the  same  as 
those described in section 5.1.1 (II) above. 

II. Regulatory changes 

  Establishing  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  services  provided  by  the  EETS  provider  which 

should give rise to a remuneration by the toll charger 

Comment:  The  measure  was  opposed  by  three  toll  chargers/Member  States  (Vinci, 
Norway,  the  Netherlands);  however,  Vinci  and  Norwegian  toll  chargers  are  known  to 
already provide a (relatively)  fair  remuneration,  while the Netherlands do not have  any 
electronic tolling. The list of supporters of the measure is much longer and includes all 
EETS/service providers, as well as several toll chargers and Member States (ASFINAG, 
Austria, Hungary, Abertis). 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment 

  Toll chargers to put in place the conditions to allow EETS providers to offer services 

in the toll domain as of its launch 

24 

 
 
Comment: This is one of the most controversial measures. While it was not specifically 
stated by toll chargers and/or Member States in the public consultation, it is clear that the 
measure  is  not  welcome  for  them.  Indeed,  when  deploying  a  new  system,  toll 
chargers/Member  States  want  to  first  establish  a  stable  closed  scheme,  and  only  then 
allow third parties to access it. Such an approach damages, however, the EETS market: 
once  the  national  market  is  saturated  with  OBUs  provided  by  the  incumbent/single 
national  service  provider,  it  is  very  difficult  for  EETS  providers  to  enter  and  regain 
market  shares.  The  measure  is  therefore  one  of  the  most  crucial  requests  coming  from 
EETS  providers,  and  also  one  of  the  measures  which  could  determine  the  success  or 
failure of the EETS project. 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment because of its importance for 
the success of EETS and despite possible opposition from certain Member States and/or 
toll chargers 

  Separation of accounts between toll charger- and toll service provider kind of services 

Comment:  This  measure  received  nearly  unanimous  support  from  all  kinds  of 
stakeholders,  including  all  EETS  providers,  technology  providers  (Kapsch),  users 
(UAPME,  NHOLT,  IRU)  and  toll  chargers/Member  States  (France,  ASFA,  ASFINAG, 
AISCAT,  APCAP,  the  Netherlands,  Norway,  Sund  and  Belt,  Hungary,  Abertis).  It  was 
also supported by 45 (65%) respondents to the open public consultation. 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment 

  Turning  Conciliation  Bodies  into  market  regulators  with  powers  to  enforce  their 

decisions 

Comment:  Many  players,  including  all  EETS  providers,  road  users  (IRU,  WKÖ, 
UAPME)  and  even  two  toll  chargers  (Norway,  Abertis)  supported  this  measure.  It  was 
also  supported  by  36  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  (most  of  them 
representing  road  users)  with  only  16  against.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  opposed  by 
France,  the  Netherlands,  Germany,  Kapsch  and  by  the  Belgian  Conciliation  Body.  The 
main  argument  against  changing  the  role  of  the  Conciliation  Bodies  is  that  their 
effectiveness in the current form has not yet been tested (the first case was presented to a 
conciliation body – the Belgian one – only in the second half of 2016). It is therefore too 
early to change the system, at least until more evidence of the functioning of the current 
system becomes available. 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Discard  from  further  assessment,  because  there  is  not 
enough evidence that the current system doesn't work correctly. 

  Obligation  for  Member  States  to  organise  separate  tenders  for  toll  charger-  and  toll 

service provider kind of activities 

Comment:  The  reaction  to  this  measure  was  mixed.  All  EETS  providers  supported  it. 
Norway,  Kapsch  (a  major  technology  provider,  but  also  a  vertically  integrated  toll 
operator  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  Poland!),  Egis  and  Xerox  were  also  in  favour. 
Germany, the Netherlands and Vinci were against. The measure is quite intrusive in the 
sense that it complicates the tendering for a new tolling system (the need to launch two 
parallel tenders instead of one), which already by nature is a very difficult and politically 
risky  process  for  the  concerned  Member  State.  The  relatively  small  opposition  of 
Member States voiced in the public consultation might not be giving full account of the 

25 

 
real opposition to this measure. In addition, the separation of tenders is not essential to 
achieve a competitive market, as shown by the example of Austria. 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Discard  from  further  assessment  (too  intrusive,  not 
proportionate) 

  De facto separation of vertically integrated companies 

Comment: This measure was supported by the EETS providers and only one toll charger 
– ASFINAG (only in the case when the company goes abroad). It was explicitly opposed 
by the Netherlands, Norway and even by the haulage association UETR, who feared that 
such  separation  would  increase,  for  toll  chargers,  the  costs  of  establishing  and  running 
the  tolling  system,  and  that  this  increase  in  costs  would  eventually  be  reported  on  the 
users. 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Discard  from  further  assessment  (not  proportionate, 
potentially  increasing  the  cost  of  the  system,  which  is  contrary  to  the  objectives  of  the 
EETS legislation) 

  Giving the Commission the right to issue opinions on the tender specifications before 

they are published by the Member State 

Comment: This measure was supported by EETS providers and by road users, as well as 
two toll chargers who are not concerned by the problem, because unlikely to tender out 
any  activities  (Abertis  and  Sund  and  Belt).  It  also  received  the  support  of  45  (64%) 
respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  measure  was 
explicitly  opposed  by  Vinci,  SEOPAN,  Austria,  the  Netherlands  and  Norway.  Overall, 
the main impact of the measure would be that it would extend the time needed to deploy 
a  new  tolling  system.  It  is  therefore  likely  to  be  opposed  by  many  Member  States,  in 
particular those planning to deploy a new or renewed system in the future. 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Discard  from  further  assessment  (potential  opposition 
disproportionately high in comparison to the expected added value) 

Some additional lighter measures have been considered in section 5.2 below. 

5.1.3.  Measures to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of tolls (second 

specific objective) 

Three incremental options were envisaged to address the second specific objective: 

  Requesting the EFP to find a solution for better enforcement of tolls (self-regulation) 

Comment: Given that up to now Member States have not found a way to cope with the 
issue  it  is  very  unlikely  that  any  recommendation  of  the  platform  would  be  followed. 
Actually,  several  members  of  the  EFP  (notably  France,  ASFA,  SEOPAN,  Austria, 
Poland) are among the stakeholders calling on the Commission to propose a regulatory 
framework for the cross-border enforcement of tolls. Besides, a voluntary scheme might 
not ensure sufficient data protection depending on the approach chosen. 

Recommendation: Discarded from further assessment (not effective) 

26 

 
 
  The establishment of a mandatory mechanism for the exchange of information on the 
identity of toll offenders using the same tools as Directive 2015/413/EU on the cross-
border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences. 

Comment: This measure was supported by 53 (76%) of respondents to the open public 
consultation. It also received nearly unanimous support from respondents to the targeted 
consultation,  from  all  stakeholder  groups:  Member  States,  Toll  Chargers,  users, 
technology  providers  and  EETS  providers.  There  were  two  exceptions:  Germany 
indicated  that  it  believes  that  such  a  system  is  not  needed,  because  current  tools  are 
sufficient (this view was opposed by all the other Member States who responded); IRU 
also opposed the measures, although the reasons for this opposition were not clear (the 
explanation  said  "The  realisation  of  the  single  market  for  electronic  tolling  systems 
should result in an overall cost reduction for EU hauliers and should not lead to higher 
tolls or user charges when using EETS compared to national and local providers." 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment – nearly universally supported 
by the stakeholder community 

Two requests to make the measure more precise were made: 

-  Several  respondents  representing  concessionaires  (Vinci,  ASECAP,  SEOPAN, 
ASFA) asked that private entities are given access to the tool for cross-border exchange 
of  information.  This  however  does  not  seem  justified,  as  it  would  not  ensure  sufficient 
level  of  personal  data  protection  (Preliminary  conclusion:  discard  from  further 
assessment) 

-  Sund  and  Belt  suggested  that  the  tool  for  exchanging  information  on  toll 
offenders  be  used  independently  on  the  type  of  vehicle  with  which  the  offence  was 
committed; 
implicitly  supported  also  by  other  stakeholders 
(Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment) 

this  suggestion 

is 

  The establishment of a mandatory mechanism for Member States to assist each other 

in the recovery of fines related to the non-payment of tolls 

Comment:  This  measure  was  suggested  by  Hungary  and  by  the  Polish  General 
Inspectorate of Road Transport. No other stakeholder expressed an opinion on this issue. 
While this measure would considerably strengthen the effectiveness of the cross-border 
enforcement of tolls, it would go beyond what is foreseen by the established EU rules for 
the  enforcement  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  (Directive  2015/413/EU)  and  by 
the rules for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (Council 
Directive 2010/24/EU), where the obligation of assistance is limited to claims in excess 
of € 1,500. The measure seems therefore disproportionate, but could be envisaged in the 
future once the effectiveness of the simple exchange of information has been assessed. 

Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment (but consider it as an option 
for future revisions) 

5.1.4.  Options  to  soften  the  current  requirement  for  EETS  providers  to 
cover  with  their  services  all  EETS  domains  within  24  months  from 
their registration (first aspect of specific objective 3) 

It  appears  clearly  from  the  problem  definition  that  the  requirement  as  it  is  currently 
formulated  in  the  legislation  may  well  be  excessive  and  impossible  or  at  least 

27 

 
prohibitively expensive to meet. Participants to the public consultation were asked about 
their preference between several alternative options: 

  Maintain the requirement for EETS providers to cover all the toll domains in the EU, 

but extend the deadline of 24 months 

  Replace the obligation to cover all toll domains by the requirement to cover a certain 

high percentage thereof 

  Replace the obligation to cover all toll domains by the requirement to cover a certain 
region of the EU and to complete it through partnerships with other EETS providers 

  Replace  the  obligation  to  cover  all  toll  domains  by  the  requirement  to  cover  the 

country of registration and all neighbouring countries 

  Leave the question of timing and coverage by the service entirely to the discretion of 

the EETS provider 

Comment:  In  the  open  public  consultation,  half  of  the  respondents  (34),  mostly  road 
users, recommended to leave the decision entirely to the EETS providers. 18 respondents 
proposed  to  maintain  the  current  obligation  to  cover  all  toll  domains,  while  another  18 
suggest other solutions. 

Regarding  the  targeted  consultation,  the  solution  which  gathered  by  far  the  widest 
support was equally the one where EETS providers decide by themselves where to offer 
their services. Interestingly, this solutions was supported by the EETS providers (with the 
exception  of  Axxès,  who  insisted  on  keeping  the  full  EU  coverage  obligation),  by  the 
users  (UAPME,  UETR,  WKÖ),  who  feared  that  the  obligation  to  cover  all  EU  would 
increase the price of the services, and by many toll chargers and Member States (Ireland, 
Vinci, SEOPAN, ASFA, ASFINAG, Austria, AISCAT, Sund and Belt, Switzerland). The 
main  reason  invoked  by  the  quoted  Member  States  and  Toll  Chargers  was  that  the 
obligation of full EU-coverage would likely lead to the creation of a monopolistic EETS 
market, with negative consequences both for the users and for the toll chargers. 

The  solution  where  the  obligation  is  maintained  to  cover  the  whole  EU  was  mainly 
supported by three Member States which currently do not have or hardly have electronic 
tolling  systems  (Sweden,  Finland  and  the  Netherlands),  but  also  by  France  (in 
contradiction with the position of French toll chargers  – cf. previous paragraph) and by 
Germany. 

Solutions in between, in particular the one where EETS providers are asked to complete 
the EU-wide coverage through partnerships, have been supported by a few stakeholders, 
and notably by Norway, DARS (the Slovenian toll charger), IRU (the main road haulage 
association), Hungary and Abertis. 

Overall,  the  benefits  of a  full  EU  coverage,  which  is  only  needed  by  a  relatively  small 
proportion of road users, do not justify the risk of creating a monopolistic market. Hence 
it does not appear to be opportune to maintain the requirement that EETS providers cover 
the whole EU.  

As to any intermediary solutions, there appears to be little agreement among stakeholders 
how  they  should  be  defined,  and  whether  they would  effectively  address  all the  issues. 
This is confirmed in the public consultation, where none of the conceivable intermediate 

28 

 
solutions appeared to gather support from a group of stakeholders (toll chargers, EETS 
providers, users…) or indeed from a significant number of individual respondents.  

Retaining  any  of  these  intermediate  solutions  for  further  analysis  does  therefore  not 
appear to be justified. Hence the most accepted and reasonable approach appears to be to 
leave  the  decision  on  the  coverage  of  EETS  to  the  market,  i.e.  to  the  individual  EETS 
providers.  

Given  the  fact  that  the  decision  on  the  markets  covered  is  left  to  the  commercial 
decisions of EETS providers, there might be risk that no EETS provider decides to cover 
all/the  majority  of  toll  domains  in  the  EU.  However,  the  aggressive  expansion  policy 
currently practiced by two most advanced EETS providers (Axxès and Telepass) gives a 
clear  indication  of  the  willingness  of  the  biggest  players  to  offer  interoperable  tolling 
services  on  as  many  markets  as  possible.  This  was  actually  confirmed  by  Axxès  in  its 
answer to the targeted consultation, in which it expressed its preference for maintaining 
the  requirement  for  EETS  providers  to  cover  all  toll  domains  in  the  EU  with  their 
services. 

Preliminary  conclusion:  Retain  for  further  assessment  the  option  where  EETS 
providers decide where to provide their services. 

5.1.5.  Specific  rules  on  light  duty  vehicles  (second  aspect  of  specific 

objective 3) 

The  following  two  alternative  options  were  envisaged  to  reflect  the  specific 
characteristics of the market for EETS for light duty vehicles: 

  Excluding light duty vehicles from the scope of the legislation 

Comment:  Numerous  stakeholders  argued  that  there  is  little  demand  for  cross-border 
interoperability  of  tolls,  and  that  therefore  efforts  should  concentrate  solely  on  the 
creation of an EETS for heavy duty vehicles. This position was presented by several toll 
chargers and Member States (France, Germany, ASECAP, ASFA, ASFINAG, Austria), 
as  well  as  by  the association  of  EETS  providers  AETIS  and  the  EETS  provider  WAG. 
Interestingly,  other  representatives  of  the  same  categories  of  stakeholders  had  the 
opposite  view,  i.e.  indicated  that  light  vehicles  should  remain  within  the  scope  of  the 
legislation and that demand for interoperability for such vehicles exists. This opinion was 
presented by the Netherlands, but maybe more importantly by several representatives of 
users  (UAPME,  UETR,  WKÖ)  and  several  EETS  providers  (notably  Axxès,  DKV  and 
Tolltickets).  Also  44  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  (63%)  believed  that 
light vehicles should remain within the scope of the EETS legislation. 

It therefore appears that those with the best knowledge of the demand for services (users, 
EETS  providers)  believe  there  is  a  market  for  EETS  for  light  vehicles  and  it  should 
continue to be governed by EU rules. 

Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further analysis 

  Introduce specific rules for the EETS for light duty vehicles 

The following three complementary measures were put to discussion: 

29 

 
  Allow EETS providers to equip light duty vehicles with OBUs which support 

short range microwave communication (DSRC) only 

Comment: This solution appears natural, as DSRC is the only technology currently used 
in the EU in electronic tolling systems for light vehicles which require the installation of 
an  OBU.  The  measure  received  explicit  support  from  the  toll  chargers/Member  States 
Vinci, Sweden, APCAP, Norway, Sund and Belt, DARS, and from the EETS providers 
AETIS, Total, Via Verde and DKV. No stakeholder expressed any opposition. 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment 

  Allow EETS providers to provide services to their clients in systems which do 
not  require  the  installation  of  OBUs,  and  in  particular  those  using  the 
automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology 

Comment: ANPR is used in many systems used by light vehicles, and notably by urban 
tolling  schemes  (such  as  the  London  Congestion  Charge  or  the  Stockholm  Congestion 
Charge). The extension of EETS into these schemes was explicitly supported by the toll 
charger Vinci, the technology provider Kapsch, the user representatives IRU and WKÖ, 
as well as by the service provider Egis. Explicit opposition was voiced by Germany and 
AISCAT only. 

Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment, although  some opposition to 
the measure can be expected. Schemes with little cross-border traffic should be excluded 
from the scope to avoid unnecessary compliance costs. 

  Allow the use of the RFID technology for tolling light duty vehicles 

Comment:  This  measure  was  explicitly  opposed  by  several  toll  chargers  and  Member 
States (France, Vinci, ASFA, ASFINAG, Norway, Sund and Belt) but also by the EETS 
provider  WAG  and  the  technology  provider  Kapsch.  The  main  reasons  invoked  for 
rejecting  RFID  were  the  following:  first,  adding  another  technology  to  the  list  of 
technologies  allowed  to  be  used  in  the  EU  would  render  the  achievement  of 
interoperability yet more complicated.; second, RFID is a less efficient technology than 
DSRC, and is likely not to function correctly at higher vehicle speeds (above 50 km/h). 
Only two stakeholders (Hungary and DARS) voice some support for the measure. 

The  use  of  RFID  for  tolling  in  the  European  context  presents  a  number  of  additional 
inconveniences: 

-  it  uses  frequencies  (865-868  MHz  and  915-921  MHz)which  are  also  used  by  mobile 
communications  (4G,  GSM-R),  and 
tolling 
communications is very important. 

the  risk  of 

interferences 

the 

to 

-  the  power  of  the  signal  from  the  RFID  antenna  necessary  for  the  system  to  function 
correctly could be up to several times stronger than the power allowed under European 
spectrum management legislation. 

Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment 

30 

 
5.2. 

Succinct assessment of other proposed policy measures 

Table  8  provides  a  succinct  assessment  of  less  crucial  policy  measures  which  were 
discussed in the public consultation or proposed directly by stakeholders. 

Table 8: Succinct assessment of other proposed policy measures 

Measure 

Comments 

Recommendation 

Measures aiming at reducing the cost and burden for EETS providers to enter new toll 
domains and to provide services therein (first aspect of specific objective 1) 

for 

  Obligation 
toll 
chargers 
provide 
to 
EETS  providers  digital 
maps of their toll domain 

  Measures  to  prevent  the 
misuse by toll chargers of 
sensitive 
commercially 
data 
the  EETS 
provider 

of 

Suggested by two EETS providers. 
Opposed by the Netherlands on the 
basis 
that  digital  maps  are  a 
commodity,  and  EETS  providers 
would have to pay for it. 

A badly needed measure, as EETS 
providers are obliged to share a lot 
of  data  relative  to  their  client  base 
with the toll charger. Supported by 
the  Netherlands,  user  association 
FIA  and  EETS  providers  (AETIS, 
WAG) 

  Streamline 
the 
of  EETS 
acceptance 
providers  to  different toll 
same 
in 
domains 
the 
country 
the 
through 
creation of single national 
contact points 

  Make 

the  use  of 

the 
English 
language 
mandatory  for  contacts 
between toll chargers and 
EETS providers 

Suggested 
by  DKV,  who 
complained  about  the  cost  and 
negotiating 
burden 
simultaneously 
many 
counterparts  (notably  in  Spain  and 
in Italy). 

with 

of 

several  EETS 
by 
Suggested 
providers, 
the  measure  would 
facilitate the business environment, 
but would go against the principles 
of  multilinguism  in  the  EU  and 
would  encroach  on  the  principles 
of  commercial  law  in  the  Member 
States 

Discard 

Retain 

Retain 

Discard 

  Harmonise 

the  way 
vehicles  are  registered  to 
individual  toll  domains 
(standard 
registration 
forms) 

several  EETS 
by 
Suggested 
providers, 
the  measure  would 
reduce  administrative  costs  and 
burden  with  no  evident  negative 
impacts for toll chargers. 

Retain 

  Prohibit  the 

imposition 
by  toll  chargers  of  any 
specific  requirements  on 
three 
the  way 

the 

Crucial  measure,  as  contradictory 
specific  requirements  as  to  the 
functioning  or  construction  of 
OBUs could completely jeopardise 

Retain 

31 

 
interoperability. 

technologies  are  applied 
by  the  EETS  providers, 
which  would  go  beyond 
established standards and 
are  not  measurable  key 
performance indicators 

The  measure  only  brings  more 
existing 
precision 
requirement,  and  is  therefore  not 
problematic. 

an 

to 

Retain 

to  consult 

  Obligation  for  Member 
the 
States 
Commission  on  planned 
new  criteria  for  varying 
tolls.  Right 
the 
Commission  to  issue  an 
opinion,  after  taking  into 
account  the  position  of 
EETS providers 

for 

for 

  Obligation 
toll 
chargers 
foresee 
to 
transition  periods  when 
upgrading 
their 
EETS 
interfaces 
providers 
a  new 
version of a standard 

to 

to 

Important  measure  without  which 
large  fleets  of  EETS  OBUs  on  the 
market  could  become  obsolete 
before they have been amortised. 

Keep 

Measures to ensure a competitive functioning of the market (second aspect of specific 
objective 1) 

  Prohibit  discrimination 
by  Member  States  or  toll 
chargers  between  EETS- 
and  non-EETS  users  in 
access to toll discounts 

Other measures 

  Increase 

level  of 
the 
protection  of  road  tolling 
in  the  5.8 
applications 
GHz 
frequency  band 
(DSRC) 

Retain 

Discard 

EETS 

Suggested  by  Sund  and  Belt  and 
several 
providers. 
Discrimination between EETS- and 
non-EETS 
already 
users 
provided  for  in  the  Decision;  this 
provision  makes  a  specific  case 
about possible discrimination in the 
field of discounts. 

is 

Suggested  by  Norway  and  several 
EETS  providers.  Tolling  already 
benefits from significant protection 
in  "SRD  Decision"49  –  DSRC 
antennas  used  for  tolling  can  emit 
with  an  80  times  stronger  power 
than other applications in the same 
band.  Furthermore, 
the  EETS 
legislation  is  not  the  right  place  to 
the  radio 
the  use  of 
regulate 

49  Commission  Decision  of  9  November  2006  on  harmonisation  of  the  radio  spectrum  for  use  by  short-

range devices, OJ L 312, 11.11.2006, p. 66. 

32 

 
                                                 
spectrum 

5.3.  Complete list of policy measures retained for further analysis 

Following  the  assessment  in  sections  5.1  and  5.2,  the  following  list  of  measures  is 
retained for further analysis; for each measure, a commentary is added as to its level of 
importance for the achievement of the objectives set in section 4: 

Table 9: List of measures retained for further analysis 

SO1 (first aspect): Facilitate accreditation and operation of EETS providers in toll domains 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

The Commission will request the European standardisation bodies to prepare an exhaustive list of 
very  detailed  standards  for  all  the  "interoperability  constituents"  (on-board  units,  roadside 
infrastructure, enforcement and back-offices) and processes linked to the electronic toll collection 
and  EETS.  It  will  then  render  standards  mandatory  by  legislation.  Comment:  The  measure  is 
essential  with  respect  to  the  standardisation  of  interfaces  (also  proposed  in  measure  4). 
Standardisation  of  internal  processes  inside  each  system  could  contribute  to  facilitating 
interoperability,  but  is  not  as  important  as  the  standardisation  of  interfaces  which  would  allow 
different  systems  to  "talk  to  each  other".  The  measure  is  an  alternative  to  measure  4  and  to 
measure 2. 

The industry organises itself to achieve the removal of barriers to the deployment of EETS in a 
competitive  market  environment.  The  Commission  participates  in  setting  the  operational 
objectives  and  monitoring  indicators  in  agreement  with  industry  representatives  and  legally 
recognising  the  industry  representative  body  –  the  'EETS  Facilitation  Platform'  –  as  an  official 
partner for the achievement of the first specific objective. Comment: This measure is essential for 
the achievement of interoperability if no legislation is proposed. It is an alternative to a legislative 
approach (measures 3-10) and to a mandatory full standardisation approach (measure 1). 

Member States should not make specific requirements on the way the three technologies listed in 
the Directive are applied, which would go beyond established standards (slim vs. fat OBU, special 
chips, etc.) – they can only impose measurable KPIs, and it's the EETS provider's business to see 
how  to  achieve  these  KPIs.  Comment:  This  measure  is  essential  to  prevent  the  creation  of 
insurmountable  obstacles  to  interoperability  in  case  different  Member  States  have  incompatible 
requirements. It is complementary with measures 4-11. 

New  or  renewed  tolling  schemes  must  adopt  an  interface  for  information  exchange  with  EETS 
providers  based  on  the  Interoperable  application  profiles  for  information  exchange  between 
Service  Provision  and  Toll  Charging  CEN/TS  16986.  Comment:  This  measure  is  essential,  as 
compatible interfaces are a pre-condition to interoperability. It is alternative to measure 1 and to 
aspects of measure 2. It is complementary with measures 3 and 5-11. 

The tolling authority must consult in advance the Commission and EETS providers on the choice 
of criteria for varying tolls. The Commission will issue an opinion as to the impact this choice of 
criteria  will  have  on  the  ability  of  EETS  providers  to  serve  the  market  with  existing  OBUs. 
Comment: This measure is not essential, but could help prevent the creation of technical barriers 
to interoperability on certain market. It is complementary with measures 3-4 and 6-11. 

The  accreditation  procedure  for  EETS  providers,  including  required  tests  (and  their  cost), 
certificates,  key  performance  indicators,  applied  standards,  harmonized  certification  process 
description,  tolled  network  description,  contractual  terms,  key  performance  indicators,  the  tests 
plan  and  exceptions  thereto,  must  be  published  in  the  toll  domain  statement  at  least  9  months 
before  the  launch  of  a  new  or  renewed  electronic  tolling  system.  All  the  tests  phase  must  not 
exceed  a  period  of  six  months.  The  6  month  period  does  not  include  the  trial  operations  in 
production environment. The certification process must start six months at least prior the start of 
operations.  The  same  accreditation  procedure  must  be  used  for  all  applicants.  Comment:  This 
measure  is  essential  to  prevent  the  creation  of  a  monopoly  when  a  tolling  system  is  created  or 
substantially changed. It is complementary with measures 3-5 and 7-11. 

(7) 

The Commission will adopt by delegated act the standard format of a toll domain statement which 
33 

 
(8) 

(9) 

will  become  mandatory  for  all  toll  chargers.  Comment:  This  measure  is  not  essential  for 
interoperability. It is complementary with measures 3-6 and 8-11. 

Each  toll  charger  must  propose  a  test  environment  where  the  OBU  manufacturer  can  fine  tune 
their  OBU  to  secure  the  compliance  with  toll  domain  specific  requirements  and  obtain 
certification. No re-testing of such a certified OBU (except for end-to-end tests) will be required 
from  the  EETS  provider  using  the  OBU.  Comment:  This  measure  is  not  essential  to  achieve 
interoperability,  although  it  will  help  limit  the  cost  of  the  latter.  It  is  complementary  with 
measures 3-7 and 9-11. 

The accreditation procedure will integrate the certification of all the interoperability constituents 
and a suitability for use test. The first phase will include all verifications of the conformity of the 
interoperability  constituents  with  respect  to  applicable  technical  standards  and  specifications; 
verifications may include documentation proof, laboratory and/or field tests. EETS Providers will 
provide  the  necessary  declarations  to  demonstrate  that  their  interoperability  constituents  are 
conform.  The  second  phase  will  include  all  verifications  allowing  to  validate  the  correct 
functioning and performances of the interoperability constituents; after a system integration phase, 
proper  pre-defined  tests  will  be  carried  out  in  both  a  controlled  and  productive  environment, 
including  pilots  with  real  users.  The  successful  (or  not)  conclusion  of  each  of  the  steps  of  the 
accreditation  procedure  will  be  certified  on  the  basis  of  measurable  criteria  and/or  parameters 
(such  as  -  for  example  -  KPIs)  that  will  be  clearly  defined  within  the  toll  domain  statement. 
Comment:  This  measure  is  not  essential  for  interoperability,  but  will  help  lower  the  costs  and 
burden associated to its achievement. It is complementary to measures 3-8 and 10-11. 

(10)  Member  States  must  ensure  that  a  co-ordinated  accreditation  procedure  is  available  to  EETS 
providers and/or OBU manufacturers for all electronic toll domains (e.g. all concessions) on their 
territory; in particular, it must be possible to perform laboratory tests of the equipment only once 
for all toll domains on the Member State's territory. Comment: This measure is not essential for 
interoperability,  but  will  help  lower  the  costs  and  burden  associated  to  its  achievement.  It  is 
complementary to measures 3-9 and 11. 

(11) 

(12) 

(13) 

The contractual relationship with the EETS provider must follow the "reseller model". Comment: 
This  measure  is not essential  for  the  achievement  of  interoperability.  It  is  however  essential  for 
allowing EETS users to receive one invoice for the use of all roads in the EU. It will also reduce 
the administrative costs and burden for EETS providers. It is complementary to measures 3-10. 

The  Commission  will  adopt,  by  delegated  act,  the  format  of  a  standard,  electronic  registration 
form of road users to a toll domain, which must be accepted for their registration in any electronic 
toll  domain  subject  to  EETS  legislation.  Comment:  This  measure  is  not  essential  for  the 
achievement of interoperability, but will help avoid errors in the registration of users. 

As  the  standards  are  constantly  under  evolution  process,  the  application  of  latest  version  of  a 
standard  must  not  be  a  source  of  discrimination  for  EETS  regarding  their  ETC  services.  A  toll 
charger can request the latest version of the standard. Nevertheless, if some OBUs are already in 
operation  in  any  of  the  MS  then  the  toll  charger  must  accept  the  OBUs  compliant  with  a  prior 
version of the standard even if some features or attributes are not available. The acceptation period 
is  limited  and  fixed  between  the  Toll  charger  and  the  EETS  provider  taking  into  account  the 
lifecycle  of  the  OBUs  in  operation.  Comment:  This  measure  is  essential  for  the  economic 
sustainability  of  the provision of  interoperable  tolling services. It  is complementary to  the  other 
measures in the table. 

SO1 (second aspect): Ensure a competitive functioning of the market 

(14) 

(15) 

Separation  of  accounts  between  the  operator  of  the  toll  collection  system  and  the  toll  service 
provider,  when  both  roles  are  performed  by  the  same  company.  Comment:  This  measure  is 
essential  for  the  achievement  of  the  objective  of  promoting  a  competitive  market.  It  is 
complementary to measures 15-18. 

Provide  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  services  performed  by  EETS  providers  which  must  be 
remunerated by the road manager at market value (e.g. providing OBUs, payment guarantees, data 
transfer, role in the enforcement process, etc.). Comment: This measure is essential to break the 
State-protected monopolies in certain Member States. It is complementary to measures 14 and 16-

34 

 
18. 

(16) 

If a rebate scheme is proposed by the toll charger or by the Member State, then EETS clients must 
have access to the same rebates and frequent-user schemes as clients of the national toll service 
provider. Comment: This measure is not essential for interoperability, although it is important for 
avoiding discrimination between users. It is complementary with measures 1-15 and 17-18. 

(17) 

EETS  Providers  are  only  required  to  provide  the  Toll  Chargers  with  the  minimum  information 
necessary to calculate and apply the charge, namely: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

the Vehicle’s License Plate Number (including nationality); 

the identifier of the user account 

the identifier of the On-Board Unit 

the applicable values of the vehicle's parameters upon which tariff is modulated 

Comment:  This  measure  is  essential  to  ensure  a  competitive  functioning  of  the  market.  It  is 
complementary with measures 1-16 and 18. 

(18) 

In case of violation, the toll charger may request complementary information like address of the 
violator.  In  that  case,  the  EETS  provider  would  have  to  provide  the  requested  information. 
Comment: This measure is the extension of measure 17 and must be proposed together with it.  

(1) 

SO2. Cross-border enforcement of tolls 

(19) 

(20) 

Provide for a mechanism for the mandatory exchange of information between Member States on 
the  identity  of  vehicle  owners  who  are  proven  or  suspected  of  fraud  to  the  toll  system.  The 
mechanism should be largely based on the provisions of Directive 2015/413/EU ("CBE") for the 
cross-border enforcement of road safety related offenses. Comment: This measure is essential for 
the achievement of the objective of facilitating the cross-border enforcement of tolls. 

EETS providers must disclose upon request to system operators the identity of the presumed toll 
offenders  who  are  their  clients.  This  disclosure  obligation  is  only  valid  in  the  framework  of 
enforcement  activities  and  the  information  on  concerned  EETS  clients  cannot  be  shared  by  the 
system operator with any of the EETS provider's competitors, even if one of the latter is part of 
the same organisational structure as the system operator. Comment: This measure is essential to 
facilitate  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  tolls  and  to  ensure  a  competitive  functioning  of  the 
market. It is complementary with measure (19) 

SO3 (first aspect): Reduce the unnecessary regulatory burden for EETS providers 

(21) 

No  requirement  anymore  for  EETS  providers  in  terms  of  mandatory  coverage,  but  EETS 
providers must make public and regularly update detailed and dated plans on extending the service 
to  further  toll  domains.  Comment:  This  measure  is  essential  to  encourage  EETS  providers  to 
provide the service, and thus to achieve interoperability. 

SO3 (second aspect): Rules on light duty vehicles 

(22)  Make it possible for an EETS provider to offer EETS for heavy vehicles only or for light vehicles 
only.  Comment:  This  measure  is  essential  for  the  achievement  of  interoperability  for  light 
vehicles and to increase the legal clarity regarding the obligations of EETS providers. 

(23) 

(24) 

The OBU used by the EETS provider-HDV must include the three technologies; The OBU used 
by  EETS  provider-LV  must  include  DSRC  (no  obligation  for  satellite+GSM).  Comment:  This 
measure is essential for the achievement of interoperability for light vehicles. It is complementary 
with measure (21). 

'EETS  providers  light  vehicle'  shall  be  allowed  by  system  operators,  on  a  non-discriminatory 
basis, not only to provide the services related to electronic toll collection in electronic toll domains 
(EETS  per  se),  but  also  to  re-sell  paper  and  electronic  vignettes  and  serve  their  customers  in 
35 

 
congestion  and  environmental  charging  schemes  (e.g.  London  congestion  charge)  and  restricted 
access zones. Comment: This measure is not essential for the achievement of interoperability, but 
it  will  make  the  EETS  for  light  vehicles  more  attractive  both  for  users  and  for  the  service 
providers.  

5.4. 

Policy options retained for analysis 

From the analysis in section 5.1 it appears that only part of specific objective 1 can be 
addressed  in  several  alternative  ways,  namely  through  self-regulation,  changes  to  the 
regulatory framework or standardisation. Regarding standardisation, it appears that only 
two meaningful alternative approaches (beyond the baseline) can be proposed: 

  Harmonisation  of  both  the  interfaces  between  different  market  players  and  of  the 

internal processes of each market player, proposed as part of PO3 below; and 

  Harmonisation of interfaces only, proposed as part of PO2 below. 

No meaningful standardisation options between these two could be identified. 

For  the  achievement  of  objectives  2  and  3  no  real  alternative  approaches  could  be 
devised from the policy measures retained for further analysis. Hence, the policy options 
are mainly built around the approach taken to address specific objective 1.  

5.4.1.  Policy option 0: Baseline 

This is the option whereby the EU would not undertake any new action. In line with the 
standards  of  the  Commission,  it  is  assumed  that  no  actions  other  than  those  already 
initiated by Member States and stakeholders would take place (hence, for example, it is 
assumed that the negotiations between EETS providers and toll chargers which already 
started in the framework of the EFP  on the Italian market would be concluded; however, 
the conclusion of those negotiations which have not yet entered the proper accreditation 
phase – e.g. in Poland50 – is not included in the baseline). 

5.4.2.  Policy  option  1:  Self-regulation  to  achieve  specific  objective  1  + 

legislative measures to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. 

In  this  policy  option,  the  problems  linked  directly  to  the  letter  of  the  EETS  legislation 
(problems 2 and 3 – see sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3) are addressed with regulatory measures, 
which take the form of measures (19) to (24) in Table 9. 

Problem 1 is addressed through self-regulation, i.e. measure (2) in  Table 9. In practice, 
the  Commission  would  present  to  the  EETS  Facilitation  Platform  (EFP)  specific 
objective  1  and  a  list  of  indicators  to  check  the  level  of  achievement  of  the  objectives 
(see  section  8  on  monitoring).  The  objective  and  indicators  could  be  presented  in  a 
Communication  from  the  Commission  and  agreement  sought  in  the  form  of  a 
memorandum of understanding to be signed by the Commission and the members of the 
EFP. The Commission would agree with the EFP on a mechanism for regular monitoring 
of  the  level  of  achievement  of  the  objectives  and  on  a  number  of  soft  measures  to 

50 GDDKiA, the main Polish toll charger, held information meetings with interested EETS providers, but 

discussions did not go beyond that stage.  

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
facilitate  co-operation  (hosting  of  meetings  by  the  Commission,  disseminating  the 
achievements, where needed financially supporting relevant projects, etc.). 

5.4.3.  Policy option 2: Legislative approach 

In this policy option, all regulatory and market failures would be addressed with changes 
to the EETS legislation. These changes would take the form of all the measures listed in 
Table  9  apart  from  measures  (1)  and  (2).  The  interdependence  of  the  measures  stems 
from the fact that they constitute a complete package of different measures necessary to 
address all aspects of the identified problems. For this reason it is also better to analyse 
their impacts together, as independently the impacts could be lower than the total impact 
of  the  package.  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  the  measures  could  not  be 
implemented independently, as their scope of intervention is complementary. 

It is important to underline that policy option 2 contains some standardisation measures, 
concentrating on areas indicated as a priority by respondents to the public consultation. 
Concretely, policy option 2 proposes to legally impose the use by toll chargers of the ISO 
12855 standard in its 2015 version, as well as of the profiled standard CEN TS 16986. 
Both standards refer to the interface between the back-offices of the toll charger and of 
the EETS provider. This mandatory harmonisation is thus limited to a single, important 
aspect, contrary to the total harmonisation of all processes proposed under policy option 
3 (see below). 

5.4.4.   Policy  option  3:  A  single  EU  ETC  standard  to  facilitate  technical 
and  procedural  interoperability  +  legislative  measures  to  promote 
competition on the market and to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. 

In  addition  to  measure  (1)  from  Table  9,  which  would  be  an  alternative  to  most  of  the 
measures addressing first aspect of SO1, Policy option 3 contains: 

   measure (11) which imposes the use of the reseller model in EETS, 

  measure  (13)  which  provides  for a  transition  between  different  versions  of  the  same 

standards, 

  measures (14)-(18) which promote fair competition on the market, 

  measures (19) and (20) relative to the cross-border enforcement of tolls, 

  measure  (21)  which  removes  the  obligation  for  EETS  providers  to  cover  all  toll 

domains in the EU, and 

  measures (22)-(24) which contain specific rules on the EETS for light duty vehicles. 

37 

 
6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS AND WHO WILL BE 

AFFECTED? 

6.1.  Economic impacts 

6.1.1.  Impacts on operating costs for road users 

The results obtained on the economic impacts on road users are illustrated with respect to 
HGVs,  buses  and  cars.  The  total  costs  obtained  in  the  baseline  scenario  are  compared 
against the total costs estimated for each policy option.  

All  the  policy  options  analysed  show  a  positive  net  economic  impact  on  road  users 
through reduced  cost  of  OBUs  (including  costs of  installation,  de-installation,  purchase 
or  rental  costs,  etc.)  and  cheaper  management  of  contractual  relations  with  the  toll 
chargers,  but  the  scale  of  benefits  varies  across  the  policy  options.  In  terms  of  overall 
performance, PO3 shows the highest expected benefit for road users calculated over the 
period 2016-2025 compared to the baseline, i.e. € 407 million (net present value). PO2 
follows (i.e. € 370 million) and PO1 generates the lowest positive impact on road users 
(i.e. € 117 million). 

With respect to the three categories of users considered, HGVs would benefit most given 
the greater focus of EETS on international road freight transport. In this respect, the share 
of the benefits increases from 80% in PO1 and PO2 to 85% in PO3. Cars have the second 
largest proportion of overall benefits, equal to 20% in PO1 and PO2, reducing to 14% in 
PO3. Finally, the impact on buses is negligible across the policy options given the small 
size of the modelled fleet.51 

With  respect  to  the  place  of  establishment,  all  users  would  individually  benefit  in  the 
same  manner.  Collectively,  users  from  Member  Stares  which  are  strongly  focused  on 
international  road  transport  (Poland,  Spain,  Romania,  the  Netherlands,  etc.)  would 
benefit  more  than  those  from  countries  with  proportionately  smaller  internationally 
oriented truck fleets (notably France). 

Table 10 presents the results of the modelling of impacts on road users in all three policy 
options  in  terms  of  reduction  of  costs  compared  to  the  baseline.  Gross  flows  of  costs 
(rather than a comparison to the baseline) are presented in Annex 7. 

Table  10:  Flow  of  net  gains  (reduction  of  costs  compared  to  the  baseline,  € 
million/year) to road users for using road tolling infrastructure 

Policy option  Costs by category of vehicles  2016  2020  2025  Total 2016-2025 
120.0 
PO1 
1.8 
29.8 
151.4 
117.4 
380.0 
4.7 

HGVs 
Buses 
LDVs 
Total net cashflow 
Discounted cashflow (NPV) 
HGVs 
Buses 

8.0  28.0 
0.4 
0.2 
2.9 
5.6 
11.0  33.9 
9.4  23.8 
40.9  65.3 
0.8 
0.5 

PO2 

51 It has to be reminded, however, that the calculation only covers buses engaged in regular international 

transport, due to the lack of figures on non-scheduled international bus transport. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
PO3 

LDVs 
Total net cashflow 
Discounted cashflow (NPV) 
HGVs 
Buses 
LDVs 
Total net cashflow 
Discounted cashflow (NPV) 

8.3  15.4 
49.7  81.5 
42.5  57.3 
40.9  86.2 
1.0 
0.5 
8.3  11.1 
49.7  98.3 
42.5  69.0 

83.5 
468.3 
370.5 
442.5 
5.3 
70.6 
518.4 
407.7 

6.1.2.  Impacts on operating costs and conduct of business for toll chargers 

6.1.2.1. Savings on redundant OBUs 

The  measures  included  in  the  three  policy  options  would  promote  interoperability  and 
lead to an increase in the number of vehicles equipped with 'EETS' OBUs (i.e. OBUs that 
are interoperable across the EU) rather than 'national' ones. The expected evolution over 
time of the number of each type of OBUs is presented in Table 11.52 

Table  11:  Evolution  of  the  estimated  number  of  'national'  and  'EETS'  OBUs 
installed  on-board  vehicles  used  in  international  HDV  transport.  Comparison 
between the baseline and the three policy options 

Number of OBUs (1,000s) 

Baseline National 

PO1 National 

PO2 National 

PO3 National 

Baseline EETS 

PO1 EETS 

PO2 EETS 

PO3 EETS 

2016 

1,598 

1,598 

1,598 

1,598 

215 

215 

215 

215 

2020 

1,397 

1,292 

881 

881 

290 

309 

447 

447 

2025 

1,203 

928 

411 

284 

379 

456 

650 

650 

The reduction in the number of 'national' OBUs would be a net saving for toll chargers. 
While toll chargers are likely to procure a larger fleet of OBUs than necessary (to avoid 
the  risk  of  running  out  of  OBUs  if  demand  for  'national'  OBUs  exceeds  expectations), 
this  fleet  would  in  any  case  be  smaller  under  each  policy  option  than  in  the  baseline 
scenario.  The highest  benefits compared to  the baseline are expected for PO3  followed 
by PO2 and PO1. 

52  Table  11  only  covers  vehicles  engaged  in  cross-border  transport.  It  is  assumed  that  vehicles  which 
always stay within the borders of one Member State would all remain equipped with 'national' OBUs. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 12: Savings on reduced number of 'national' OBUs in the three policy options 

PO1  PO2  PO3 

Combined (2016-2025) savings vs. baseline (€2016 million) 

12.3 

48.4 

51.1 

6.1.2.2. Higher level of payment of tolls 

The  mandatory  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  on  the  identity  of 
vehicle  owners  (provided  for  in  all  policy  options)  would  allow  toll  chargers  to  search 
and obtain more reliable information about the owner of a specific vehicle that has been 
detected  in  violation  of  a  charging  scheme.  This  would  provide  the  possibility  of 
establishing  a  procedure  for  the  recovery  of  the  toll  due  as  well  as  of  any  additional 
administrative fees. 

We assume that, when sent the invoice or fine to their home/office address, 50% of the 
offenders  would  pay  voluntarily,  even  without any  further assistance  from  the  Member 
State of establishment/residence in the recovery process.53 

The increase of toll revenues due to this measure is thus anticipated to amount to about 
0.5%  of  the  overall  aggregated  EU-level  toll  revenues,  i.e.  some  €150  million  per 
year  by  2025,54  for  all  policy  options.  This  additional  toll  revenue  would  obviously 
constitute a loss for those currently not complying with the toll payment obligation, but 
this can barely be considered as a negative impact.  

6.1.2.3. Cost of compliance to new requirements 

In policy option 2, toll chargers, introducing or developing an electronic toll collection 
system  would  be  obliged  to  integrate  within  their  back-office  architecture  an  interface 
compatible  with  the  back-offices  of  EETS  providers  in  conformance  with  the  CEN  TS 
16986 standard (application profile for the ISO 12855 standard). This implies the need to 
adapt existing business processes as well as back-office infrastructure. 

For toll chargers introducing new charging systems, the implementation of an interface in 
compliance with the CEN TS 16986 standard would basically come at no cost compared 
to the baseline. However, the situation would be different for those toll chargers who are 
already  operating  a  system  and  that  are  currently  using  back-office  systems  and 
interfaces  based on proprietary  specifications.  The adaptation of  these systems might 
come at a cost of €1-5 million, depending on the complexity of the system.  

The  other  significant  cost  of  compliance  to  the  requirements  of  policy  option  2  is  the 
need to set up at a national level a test environment where different manufacturers may 
perform pre-compliance verifications with their OBUs. It must however be said that such 

53  This  assumption  is  based  on  the  Evaluation  study  on  the  application  of  the  Directive  2011/82/EU 
(Replaced  by  Directive  2015/413/EU)  facilitating  the  cross-border  exchange  of  information  on  road 
safety 
(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-
fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-03-16-evaluation-study-application-cross-border-final-report.pdf), 
which established that approx. 50% of followed/investigated road traffic offences committed by non-
residents are paid voluntarily after having received information letter.  

offenses 

related 

traffic 

54  Based  on  the  figures  on  toll  revenues  by  countries  available  in  the  Support  Study  for  the  Impact 
Assessment  Accompanying  the  Revision  of  Eurovignette  Directive  1999/62/EC  (Ricardo,  2017)  and 
on the ASECAP website. 

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
test  environments  already  exist  in  some  countries  (e.g.  the  toll  plaza  at  Éprunes  in 
France).  Hence,  not  all  toll  chargers  would  see  this  measure  increase  their  costs 
compared to the baseline. 

It is estimated that the cost of compliance for the above-mentioned requirements in PO2 
would  amount  to  an  additional  €200  million  over  the  whole  period  2016-2025  (net 
present value €174 million). 

Greater standardisation of all aspects of toll charger-EETS provider relations is one of the 
core elements requested by the EETS partners to the EFP, and would certainly enter into 
any  self-regulation  agreement  between  the  EFP  and  the  Commission.  This  assumption 
finds its confirmation in the fact that all toll chargers who expressed their opinion thereon 
in  the  public  consultation  indicated  support  for  making  the  application  of  the  standard 
back-office  interfaces  mandatory.  It  is  therefore  assumed  that  similar  harmonisation  of 
back-office interfaces  and testing would  also take place as a result of self-regulation in 
policy option 1, and similar costs for toll chargers would be likely to materialise. Hence 
policy option 1 would lead to additional costs of compliance amounting to a total of €200 
million over the whole period 2016-2025 (net present value €174 million). 

In policy option 3 toll chargers (as well as toll service providers) would be required to 
upgrade  their  infrastructure,  namely  the  roadside  infrastructure  (for  tolling  and 
enforcement)  and  the  back-office  infrastructure,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  legislated 
technical standards. These upgrades would be likely to affect all toll chargers to varying 
degrees. The estimated cost of these upgrades for all EU toll chargers as a whole amounts 
to €1.1 billion (net present value €886 million). Detailed assumptions behind this figure 
are provided in Annex 8. 

Table 13: Toll chargers - additional costs of compliance to measures included in the 
policy options 

Policy option  Additional aggregated compliance costs (2016-2025) - €2016 million 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

174 

174 

886 

 In addition to the above, Member States will need to cover the costs adapting existing 
mechanisms for the exchange of vehicle registration data to the specific needs of cross-
border enforcement of tolls. According to information provided by EUCARIS, the costs 
will be as follows: 

  €14,000 for developing the new functionality in the EUCARIS system; 

  €100,000 for support at deployment and testing; 

As  costs  will  be  shared  by  all  Member  States,  each  of  them  will  have  to  pay  one  time 
around €4,000. This cost is so negligible that it will not be further reported in the rest of 
the report. 

41 

 
 
6.1.2.4. Other, non-quantifiable impacts on toll chargers 

The  increase  in  the  number  of  EETS  providers  active  in  each  market,  induced  by  the 
different policy measures envisaged in all three compared policy options, would exert a 
downward pressure on the price of the services offered by the service providers (EETS-
registered  or  not)  to  toll  chargers.  These  impacts  are  assessed  in  more  detail  in  section 
6.1.6 on competitiveness impacts. 

The  entry  of  many  EETS  providers  on  national  markets  would  also  mean  that  toll 
chargers would have to support, over the whole evaluation period (2016-2025), the cost 
of additional manpower to manage the procedures of accreditation of EETS providers to 
their toll domains. It would be possible for toll chargers to transfer only some, not all, of 
these costs onto the EETS providers. 

The  separation  of  accounts  between  the  toll  service  provider  and  system  operation 
activities  of  vertically  integrated  operators  (foreseen  in  policy  options  2  and  3)  would 
mean some additional effort for toll chargers in the design of tenders for the operation of 
new or renewed systems. 

Finally,  the  measure  included  in  policy  option  2  and  3,  which  defines  the  contractual 
relationship with the EETS provider as strictly following the "reseller model", would be 
welcomed  by  service  providers,  as  it  would  greatly  reduce  their  administrative  costs 
linked  to  the  invoicing  policy,  but  also  facilitate  the  provision  of  other  value  added 
services and invoicing them together with the tolls. While it is likely to encounter some 
opposition from certain Member States (in particular Germany, but possibly also Poland, 
the  Czech  Republic,  Slovakia  or  the  Flanders  and  Brussels  regions  in  Belgium,  the 
change to the reseller model could also have positive consequences for them. Indeed, the 
operation of the toll chargers would be simplified by adopting the "reseller model", from 
an accounting and a tax perspective: 

  In terms of accounting, the number of invoices to be produced by the toll charger for 
the  toll  transactions  would  dramatically  decrease  (only  one  invoice  per  reseller)  and 
this would strongly facilitate the work of the toll charger. 

  From a tax perspective, the "reseller model" is much simpler and widely accepted by 
the  national  tax  authorities  throughout  Europe,  as  the  roles  would  be  much  better 
defined and no ambiguity could exist with regards to the services provided by the toll 
charger or the service provider, in terms of the applicability for VAT. 

Finally, it should be recalled that the "reseller model" is currently used by a large portion 
of active service providers (such as for example fuel and fleet card issuers) and therefore 
it is the model with which toll chargers are most used to dealing with. 

Impacts  on  toll  chargers  would  be  similar  in  all  countries  with  ETC  systems  in  place. 
There would be neither costs nor benefits for toll chargers in the Member States in which 
no ETC systems exist.  

42 

 
6.1.3.  Impacts  on  operating  costs  and  conduct  of  business  for  EETS 

providers 

6.1.3.1. Cost of accreditation 

In PO2, a number of measures would be likely to have an impact on the cost borne by 
EETS providers for accreditation in different toll domains: 

  The  standardisation  of  the  information  exchange  interface  between  EETS  providers 
and  toll  chargers  for  new  or  renewed  tolling  schemes  would  ease  the  accreditation 
process  in  terms  of  interface  compatibility  tests.  Interface  compatibility  testing 
accounts  for  around  15%  of  total  accreditation  cost  (cf.  Figure  5  in  Annex  9).  The 
consequences  of  the  policy  option  are  that  this  cost  could  be  cut  by  two  thirds  so 
possible cost savings are at around 10% of the total cost of accreditation. 

  Another  measure  included  as  part  of  the  policy  option  stipulates  that  the  test 
environment  for  OBUs  should  be  provided  by  the  toll  charger.  This  would  make  it 
possible  for  EETS  providers,  having  procured  a  certified  OBU,  to  skip  the  OBU 
compatibility  tests.  This  cost  item  accounts  for  around  5%  of  the  total  accreditation 
cost so we evaluate a possible cost saving of 5% of the total cost of accreditation. 

  Finally,  the  harmonised  accreditation  practices  across  the  different  toll  domains,  as 
well  as  the  limitation  of  the  duration  of  the  accreditation  procedure,  could  lead  to  a 
reduction of the workload required for the evaluation of the various components of the 
accreditation  process,  as  well  as  the  possibility  of  re-using  the  same  tools  between 
accreditation  activities  for  different  toll  domains.  The  possible  cost  savings  are 
estimated at up to 25% of the total cost of accreditation. 

The  combination  of  all  these  measures  could  thus  lead  to  a  reduction  in  accreditation 
costs for EETS providers of up to 40%. This figure could however fluctuate from one toll 
domain to another, as the proportion of unavoidable cost items in the total may vary (e.g. 
end-to-end  tests,  certification  fees  covering  the  expenses  of  toll  chargers,  etc.).  The 
possible  net  present  value  of  the  cost  savings  for  EETS  providers  could  reach 
around €10 million by 2025.55  

While  PO1  does  not  contain  any  legal  obligation  to  adopt  the  measures  facilitating 
accreditation  included  in  PO2,  it  is  assumed  that  they  will  also  be  adopted  by  the  toll 
chargers in the framework of self-regulation. This is a relatively safe assumption given 
the support provided by several Member States and toll chargers to these measures in the 
public  consultation  (cf.  section  5.1.2).  The  process  will  however  be  slower,  and  the 
number of accreditation procedures to which the rules are applied will be lower. Hence 
the cumulative cost savings by 2025 will only reach €7 million.  

In PO3, the cost reduction potential due to standardisation amounts to 50% of the 
accreditation costs, which would mean a possible total cumulative cost saving for EETS 
providers of up to €14m by 2025. On top of these impacts, the standardisation of all the 
interoperability  constituents  (OBUs,  roadside  infrastructure,  enforcement  and  back-
offices)  would  limit  the  scope  and  costs  of  accreditation  activities  and  tests.  This  is 

55  This  estimation  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  three  groups  of  4  EETS  providers  will  go  through 
accreditation procedures in respectively: 3 GNSS toll domains and 8 DSRC toll domains; 2 GNSS toll 
domains  and  6  DSRC  toll  domains;  4  DSRC  toll  domains  (representing  the  likely  fullest  extent  of 
EETS  deployment  by  2025).  It  is  also  assumed  that  the  measures  impacting  the  accreditation 
procedure costs will start to take effect from 2019. 

43 

 
                                                 
especially  the  case  for  field  tests,  as  well  as  technical  administrative  requirements  for 
OBU and interface compatibility. 

Table 14: Cumulative savings on accreditation costs 

Policy 
option 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

EETS  providers  –  cumulative  savings  on  accreditation  costs  –  2016-
2025) - € million 

7 

10 

14 

6.1.3.2. Revenues 

Based on the experiences of Viapass in Belgium and of the former “Ecotaxe” in France, 
as well as the current talks between toll chargers and EETS providers on the subject, it 
can  be  assumed  that,  in  the  self-regulatory  context  of  PO1,  a  variable  remuneration 
amounting  to  4%  of  the  collected  toll  in  GNSS  toll  domains  and  1.5%  for  DSRC  toll 
domains, could be agreed upon. 

Extrapolating these figures to the EU-level, and using the assumptions on the expansion 
of  EETS  presented  in  footnote  55,  EETS  providers  could  expect  in  PO1  an  additional 
remuneration amounting to around €300 million annually by 2025.56 

In  the  context  of  PO2  and  PO3,  with  the  introduction  of  legislation  to  promote  fair 
competition  on  the  market  and  the  resulting  stronger  bargaining  power  of  EETS 
providers  (as  an  industry)  to  allow  greater  opening  up  of  the  EETS  market,  the 
remuneration could reach 5% of collected tolls in GNSS toll domains and 2.5% in DSRC 
toll  domains.  In  addition,  the  number  of  toll  domains  covered  by  each  of  the  EETS 
providers would be larger in PO2 than in PO1 (as well as the number of OBUs operated 
by  them).  Based  on  these  assumptions,  the  expected  additional  remuneration  of  EETS 
providers could amount to some €700 million annually by 2025 in these two scenarios. 

It is important to mention that the additional remuneration of EETS providers represents 
an  expense  to  the  toll  chargers,  who  would  pay  for  the  externalisation  of  some  of  the 
activities which they currently perform themselves. While it constitutes a positive impact 
for  EETS  providers,  the  remuneration  thus  would  have  a  zero  social  impact  (as  the 
increase of the remuneration of EETS providers in countered by the increase in payments 
by the toll chargers). 

Table 15: Cumulative additional remuneration of EETS providers 

Policy 
option 

PO1 

PO2 

EETS  providers  –  cumulative  additional  remuneration  compared  to 
baseline (2016-2025) - € million 

300 

700 

56  Based  on  the  figures  on  Toll  Revenues  by  countries  available  in  the  Support  Study  for  the  Impact 
Assessment  Accompanying  the  Revision  of  Eurovignette  Directive  1999/62/EC  (Ricardo,  2017)  and 
on the ASECAP website 

44 

 
 
                                                 
PO3 

700 

6.1.3.3. Other, non-quantifiable impacts on EETS providers 

A number of measures included in all three policy options would have an effect on EETS 
providers,  which  cannot  however  be  quantified.  Potentially  the  largest  impacts  could 
result  from  the  measure  which  allows  the  provision  of  EETS  to  light  vehicles  with  a 
DSRC-only  OBU.  This  could  unlock  the  market  for  EETS  for  light  vehicles,  currently 
not exploited (because EETS providers would be allowed to use the appropriate, cheap 
tool to serve the clients). The evolution of this market is however not possible with any 
reasonable level of precision. 

Finally, a number of measures in PO2 would contribute to reducing the level of business 
uncertainty of EETS providers: mandatory acceptance during a defined period of time of 
OBUs using the previous version of a standard (also included in PO3) would give EETS 
providers  reassurance  that  their  equipment  would  not  become  obsolete  before  its  time. 
The  time  limit  for  accreditation  procedures  would  allow  EETS  providers  to  better  plan 
the  transition  from  accreditation  to  commercial  operations.  And  finally  the  standard 
method  of  registering  users  to  a  toll  domain  would  reduce  administrative  costs  and  the 
number of errors. 

6.1.4.  Impacts on conduct of business for OBU manufacturers 

Under  each  policy  option,  the  number  of  'EETS'  and  'national'  OBUs  is  expected  to 
change compared to the baseline (cf. Table 11). Independently of the policy option, the 
overall number of OBUs on the market would be smaller than in the baseline. This is due 
to  a  strong  reduction  in  the  number  of  'national'  OBUs,  which  would  not  be  entirely 
compensated  by  the  increase  in  'EETS'  OBUs.  These  effects  are  lowest  for  PO1  and 
highest for PO3. 

In  absolute  numbers,  the  market  for  the  products  of  OBU  manufacturers  in  use  would  
therefore go down (the number of OBUs in use in 2025 would be  198,000 units lower in 
PO1 than in the baseline; the difference will reach 521,000 units for PO2; and 648,000 
units  for  PO3).  At  the  same  time,  the  number  of  EETS  OBUs  (all  of  which  are  of  the 
expensive GNSS type) in use would increase for the same year, compared to the baseline, 
by 77,000 for PO1 and 271,000 for PO2 and PO3. 

Whether these changes would result in a positive or negative economic impact for OBU 
manufacturers  would  depend  on  the  type  of  replaced  'national'  OBUs.  If  most  of  them 
were of the DSRC type, the impact of policy options on OBU manufacturers is likely to 
be positive, because they would sell more of the expensive EETS OBUs using the GNSS 
technology, and less of the cheap DSRC OBUs. If most 'national' OBUs replaced are of 
the  GNSS-type,  the  impact  on  OBU  manufacturers  would  be  negative  (there  would  be 
more GNSS OBUs taken off the market than those brought onto the market). 

6.1.5.  Innovation impacts 

A number of measures included in PO2 would be likely to produce only limited positive 
impacts on innovation: 

45 

 
 
  Ensuring  that  Member  States  cannot  make  specific  requirements  on  how  the 
technologies  are  used  should  allow  for  manufacturers  to  pursue  innovation  more 
easily whilst still meeting KPIs from toll chargers. 

the 

that 

include 

interoperable  constituents, 

  A  number  of  provisions  would  serve  to  increase  the  interoperability  of  OBU 
equipment,  such  as  any  requirements  for    interoperable  application  profiles  for 
information  exchange,  a  standard  format  for  toll  domain  statements,  harmonised 
accreditation  procedures 
testing 
requirements published nine months in advance, test cycles that are no longer than six 
months and that toll chargers must provide testing facilities for OBU manufacturers to 
fine tune their equipment.  This is because new entrants, as well as incumbents, would 
have  earlier  access  to  market  requirements  and  specifications  so  they  can  develop 
interoperable  innovations.  Shorter  test  cycles  would  also  allow  innovations  to  be 
brought to  market  more quickly,  whilst  certification that applies in  multiple markets 
would  reduce  the  complexity  and  cost  of  testing  and  thereby  potentially  reduce 
barriers to bringing new innovative products to market. Overall, these measures would 
provide a stable system for interface with EETS providers while allowing innovation 
to be focused on other elements.   

  By  increasing  transparency  in  relation  to  services  provided  by  toll  service  providers 
and  associated  remuneration  through  measures  such  as  providing  a  list  of  services 
performed  by  EETS  providers,  innovation  could  be  targeted  at  specific  service 
offerings, with more confidence as to the business case supporting the innovation. 

A number of the policy measures imposed by legislation in PO2 would be likely to 
be introduced – though in a less harmonised manner – in PO1, with similar impacts 
on innovation. 

Under PO3 there would be potential for some innovation, although this would need to be 
consistent  with  the  approved  standards.  Given  the  highly  restrictive  nature  of  these 
standards, any innovation would need to be carefully targeted and brought to market with 
the  broad  backing  from  industry.  This  would  be  generally  likely  to  have  a  negative 
overall impact on innovation, given the likely costs of rolling out such changes across the 
entire  EU  ETC  market  and  the  uncertainty  that  any  innovation  will  be  accepted  by  all 
stakeholders to be put on the market. 

Note on technologies: 

An  important  issue  to  address  in  this  chapter  is  the  impact  of  leaving  the  list  of 
technologies,  which  are  allowed  to  be  used  in  electronic  tolling  systems  requiring  the 
installation of an OBU, unchanged. By definition the impact will be null compared to the 
baseline, since the technological approach does not change in any of the policy options. 
However, it is important to assess if the extension of the list  could  not bring economic 
and social benefits. Three new technologies could potentially be considered: 

  Passive  RFID  stickers  in  frequency  bands  surrounding  900  MHz  are  considerably 
cheaper  than  the  semi-active  DSRC  tags  used  in  the  EU.  However,  as  explained  in 
section  5.1.5  above,  the  technology  is  unsuitable  for  use  in  most  of  the  tolling 
applications in the EU. In addition, the RFID antennae emit in a very busy part of the 
spectrum,  and  could  be  prone  to  interferences  with  other  applications,  and  notably 
mobile communications. 

  Bluetooth could be another alternative to DSRC. However, the range of a Bluetooth 

46 

 
signal  is  much  smaller  than  that  of  DSRC  antennae,  and  would  probably  be 
insufficient for the needs of tolling and toll enforcement. 

  C-ITS  in  the  5.9  GHz  frequency  band  which  is  the  immediate  neighbour  of  DSRC 
(5.8 GHz) could potentially be used as platform for tolling applications in parallel to 
all  the  other  road  safety  and  telematics  applications.  This  could  only  be  envisaged 
once a considerable share of the fleet is equipped with C-ITS, which is not likely to be 
achieved within the coming decade. 

It appears from this short analysis that the current list of technologies provided for in the 
legislation  covers  all  the  state-of-the-art  technologies  for  tolling  in  present  framework 
conditions. 

6.1.6.  Competitiveness impacts 

Many  of  the  measures  included  in  PO2  and  PO3  are  designed  to  increase  the  level  of 
competition on the market of electronic toll collection. Measures (3)-(13) would reduce 
the market entry barriers and administrative costs for EETS providers, thereby increasing 
the  number  of  competitors  for  electronic  toll  collection  services.  While  only  measures 
(11) and (13) are included in  PO3, the strict harmonisation of technical and procedural 
solutions  applied  in  different  toll  domains,  foreseen  under  this  option,  would  have  an 
even greater positive effect on the reduction of market entry barriers and on the increase 
in the level of competition. 

Measures (14)-(18) would, in turn, help to ensure that these new entrants can compete on 
equal  terms  with  incumbents,  hence  contributing  to  the  establishment  of  a  truly 
competitive market. 

It is expected that self-regulation induced under PO1 would produce actions which go in 
the same direction as the hard policy measures foreseen under PO2 (and partly PO3), but, 
due  to  the  uncertainty  as  to  exact  level  of  buy-in  of  the  actors  participating  in  self-
regulation  efforts,  overall  positive  impacts  on  competitiveness  would  be  likely  to  be 
lower. 

6.1.7.  SME impacts 

Changes  in  the  EETS  framework  would  affect  haulage  companies,  97%  of  which  are, 
according to Eurostat data, SMEs. The positive economic cumulative impacts on hauliers 
amounting to 92.5 € million in PO1, 300.9 € million in PO2 and 347.3 € million in PO357 
can  thus  be  assumed  to  be  nearly  entirely  positive  impacts  on  SMEs.  In  any  case,  the 
nature of the impacts would be the same for small and big companies. 

The smallest hauliers are also likely to benefit most from the standardisation of forms for 
registering road users to a toll domain, which is reported today as an important source of 
administrative burden. 

As toll chargers, EETS providers and OBU manufacturers are rather big companies, the 
respective impacts on them do not have to be looked from the SME perspective. 

57 See Annex 8 for the details of these figures. 

47 

 
 
                                                 
 
The analysis of impacts on SMEs is further detailed in Annex 11 "impacts on SMEs". 

6.1.8.  Impacts on the peripheral Member States and regions 

All policy options remove the obligation for EETS providers to cover all EETS domains 
in  the  European  Union  with  their  services.  At  first  sight,  this  would  have  a  negative 
impact  on  peripheral  Member  States  and  regions,  which  are  seen  by  some  EETS 
providers as uninteresting markets due to the low share of international traffic. In reality, 
however,  the  obligation  to  cover  all  EETS  domains  is  already  largely  disregarded  by 
EETS providers, whose activities concentrate on centrally located regions characterised 
by a lot of cross-border traffic. Hence, the negative impact of the measure is likely to be 
moderate, compared to the baseline. 

On the other hand, the reduction in the cost of accreditation of EETS providers to new 
toll domains observed as a result of each policy option (see section 6.1.3.1) could mean 
that entering a peripheral market will become cheaper. Some of the markets could then 
become  economically  interesting for one or  more EETS providers to  cover, despite  the 
relatively  low  potential  number  of  clients.  This  view  was  strongly  supported  by  EETS 
provider WAG in its response to the public consultation. According to WAG, the main 
reason  why  EETS  providers  "cherry  pick"  toll  domains  are  the  high  administrative 
barriers imposed by toll chargers and the excessive costs of entering other toll domains. 
Compared to the baseline all options would have a positive impact – with PO3 bringing 
the highest and PO1 the lowest benefits to peripheral regions. 

Furthermore,  the  increase  in  the  interoperability  of  ETC  systems  in  centrally  located 
countries would benefit hauliers from peripheral regions in the same manner as all other 
hauliers.  Indeed,  it  would  allow  them  to  access  the  main  markets  of  activity  with  only 
one OBU. The removal of the obligation for EETS providers to cover all EETS domains 
in  the  EU  would  therefore  have  an  overall  positive  impact  on  hauliers  from  peripheral 
countries  and  regions  compared  to  the  baseline,  even  if  this  positive  impact  would  be 
relatively lower than for hauliers from centrally located Member States. 

6.1.9.  Impacts on third countries 

Hauliers  from  third  countries  would  benefit  from  the  progress  of  EETS  in  the  same 
manner as EU hauliers. The cumulative amount of estimated positive impacts on hauliers 
from third countries (compared to the baseline) is presented in Table 16. 

Table 16: Cumulative (2016-2025) positive impacts on hauliers from third countries 
resulting from PO1, PO2 and PO3 (€ millions, not discounted) 

Category of third country  PO1  PO2  PO3 

Switzerland 

EEA  

Western Balkans 

Other 

Total 

2.5 

2.0 

1.2 

5.6 

5.3 

3.6 

2.7 

5.6 

3.8 

2.9 

12.9  13.8 

11.4  24.5  26 

48 

 
 
PO2  and  PO3  would  affect  Norway  in  the  same  manner  as  EU  Member  States,  since 
EETS legislation is of EEA relevance. 

PO1 would have a significant impact on Switzerland, given the fact that this country is 
fully involved in the EETS Facilitation Platform – the partner for self-regulation in this 
policy option. Furthermore, the open character of the EFP would allow easier integration 
of other third countries, if they express their wish to join the interoperability project. In 
particular,  Belarus,  whose  ETC  system  is  technically  very  similar  to  the  Polish,  Czech 
and Austrian ones, could easily be covered by EU EETS providers.  

Finally,  in  PO3,  interoperability  with  the  Western  Balkans  might  be  rendered  easier  if 
those countries decide to follow the EU acquis. On the other hand, interoperability with 
Switzerland, Belarus or Russia  – unlikely to follow the EU acquis in this field  – might 
become more difficult to attain than in the baseline. 

Turkey, which uses a technology incompatible with the EETS framework (RFID), would 
remain outside the European interoperability project in all policy options. 

6.1.10. Summary of the economic impacts 

Table  17  provides  a  summary  of  the  quantified  net  present  value  of  the  costs  (-)  and 
benefits  (+)  for  actors  to  the  electronic  toll  collection  in  the  EU  resulting  from  the 
different policy options. It does not include those quantified "zero  sum"  impacts which 
constitute costs for one category of actor and a benefit for another. These are presented in 
Table 18. 

Table 17: Cumulative (2016-2025) net economic impacts of policy options 

NPV 

Policy option 1  Policy option 2  Policy option 3 

Road users 
Toll  chargers  (incl.  costs  of 
compliance 
new 
requirements  and  savings  on 
'national' OBUs) 
EETS providers 
Total 

to 

+117 
-162 

+7 
-38 

+370 
-126 

+10 
+254 

+408 
-835 

+14 
-413 

Table  18:  Economic  impacts  which  have  a  zero  net  social  impact  (they  constitute 
benefits for one category of actors and a corresponding loss to another category of 
actors) 

of 

Category 
actors 
experiencing 
benefits 

of 

Category 
actors 
experiencing 
losses 

Amount 
per 
annum 
PO1 

Amount  
per 
annum 
PO2 

Amount 
per 
annum 
PO3 

Toll chargers 

Road 
users 
(toll offenders) 

€150 
million 

€150 
million 

€150 
million 

Source 
cost/benefit 

of 

Better 
enforcement  of 
tolls 
from 
foreign 
registered 

49 

 
 
vehicles58 

Remuneration  of 
EETS providers 

EETS 
providers 

Toll chargers 

€300 
million 

€700 
million 

€700 
million 

6.1.11. Impacts  on  regulatory  burden  reduction  (contribution  to  the 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme) 

The  economic  impacts  of  the  options  are  strictly  linked  to  the  reduction  of  the 
administrative burden, regulatory requirements, and compliance costs. Consequently, the 
cumulative  net  economic  impacts  of  policy  options  correspond  to  the  reduction  of 
regulatory burden. 

All  the  policy  options  allow  for  the  reduction  of  certain  regulatory  requirements  and 
administrative  burden  for  companies  but,  depending  on  the  level  of  imposed 
harmonisation,  the  additional  compliance  costs  for  toll  chargers  can  substantially 
outweigh these benefits. 

The  results  presented  in  Table  17  to  a  large  extent  correspond  to  the  impacts  on 
regulatory  burden.  It  appears  from  this  table  that  policy  option  2  has  a  clear  overall 
positive  impact  on  the  reduction  of  the  regulatory  burden  for  companies,  despite  some 
increase  in  the  compliance  costs  for  toll  chargers.  Policy  options  1  and  3  also  strongly 
contribute to the reduction of administrative burden for road users, the vast majority of 
which are SMEs (cf. section 6.1.7). However, this positive impact is outweighed by the 
negative  impact  on  the  compliance  costs  for  toll  chargers.  Policy  option  3  ranks 
particularly unfavourably in this respect. 

6.2. 

Social and environmental impacts 

By far the main impacts of the measures proposed in any of the considered policy options 
are  economic.  Social  and  environmental  impacts  would  be  small  compared  to  the 
economic ones. Likely impacts under these two categories are listed below. 

6.2.1.  Impacts on jobs 

The job categories most likely to be directly affected by the expansion of EETS under the 
various policy options include: 

  Jobs linked to the electronic toll collection systems, either through toll chargers or toll 

service providers (including EETS providers) 

  Jobs with road haulage companies 

  Jobs with OBU manufacturers and associated R&D community. 

Regarding the first category of jobs listed above, the impacts on two specific roles can be 
estimated quantitatively at a high level, as follows: 

58 This analysis is purely budgetary. From the point of view of the interest of the society and of the rule of 

law, better level of enforcement is obviously a positive impact. 

50 

 
 
                                                 
  Toll booth operator jobs: There has been a general trend for the number of human toll 
booth  operators  to  decrease  year  after  year  in  Europe  since  the  turn  of  the  century. 
This is because the majority of toll operators have started to introduce automated toll 
gate systems and ETC. Overall, many toll systems have reached a point where human 
operators are only present at some specific sites during peak times such as weekends 
or holiday seasons and this trend is expected to continue and is likely to be accelerated 
by the wider deployment of EETS. However, despite the reduced need for toll booth 
operators, anecdotal evidence suggests that job losses from automation have been for 
the most part reabsorbed as former toll operators are re-trained for new positions such 
as customer support or security. Consequently no significant additional impact on the 
number of employees at toll booths can be anticipated under any of the three policy 
options in comparison to the base line. 

  EETS provider jobs: The reduction of market entry barriers, as well as reduced costs 
for  EETS  providers  through  improved  technical  interoperability  between  markets, 
should  lead  to  EETS  providers  entering  new  markets  and  expanding  their  service 
offerings.  It  can  be  expected  that  each  new  entrant  would  have  approximately  two 
additional employees per market entered. Under the model assumptions the maximum 
level of penetration for EETS is for twelve EETS providers servicing 7.5 markets on 
average  each  by  2025.  This  would  result  in  the  creation  of  approximately  180 
additional jobs, which clearly is insignificant at the European level. There would also 
be  a  team  of  specialists  required  to  support  each  EETS  provider  through  the 
accreditation  process  in  each  market.  It  is  estimated  that  a  team  of  eight  people  per 
market  would  be  needed  to  support  the  first  year  of  implementation,  but  these  roles 
would be of a temporary nature. 

Regarding  jobs  with  haulage  companies,  the  main  impact  would  be  an  increase  in  the 
level of job comfort. The reduction in the number of OBUs for truck drivers to manage 
would increase the comfort of truck drivers and reduce their potential stress linked to the 
need to comply with complex different tolling rules in the countries crossed. 

Finally,  regarding  jobs  with  the  OBU  manufacturers,  the  impact  would  depend  on  the 
general economic impact on this sector. As explained in section 6.1.4 the sign (positive 
or negative) of this impact would depend on the relative change in the number of DSRC 
vs.  GNSS  OBUs.  It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  this  change  with  a  high  degree  of 
certainty, and this is also therefore the case for estimates of the impact on employment in 
the sector. 

6.2.2.  Fundamental rights impacts 

Overall, the progress of EETS in all policy options should facilitate cross-border travel 
and  so  support  the  free  movement  of  goods  and  people.  Improved  enforcement  in  all 
policy options, as a result of the exchange of information on the identity of toll offenders, 
would deliver equal treatment of national and foreign-registered road users, particularly 
relating to toll violations. The concrete legislative measures in PO2 and PO3, but also the 
measures  likely  to  be  imposed  by  self-regulation  in  PO1,  could  also  be  expected  to 
deliver  fairer  treatment  of  EETS  providers  compared  to  that  faced  by  incumbent 
operators in the current situation. Those measures are not present in PO3. 

6.2.3.  Impacts on the protection of personal data and right to privacy 

The  innovation  and  potential  expansion  of  EETS  may  have  both  positive  and  negative 
impacts on the protection of personal data and the right to privacy. 

51 

 
Under  PO2  and  PO3  it  is  suggested  that  EETS  providers  would  only  be  required  to 
provide toll chargers with the minimum information necessary to calculate and apply the 
charge. This aspect would not be specified in PO1. In case of violation, the toll charger 
may  request  complementary  information  such  as  the  address  of  the  violator.  In  such  a 
case, the EETS provider would have to provide the requested information. This provision 
would  have  a  positive  impact  on  data  protection  as  it  respects  the  principle  of  data 
minimisation. 

Another  requirement  under  all  policy  options  is  to  establish  mechanisms  for  the 
mandatory  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  on  the  identity  of  vehicle 
owners  who  are  proven  or  suspected  of  committing  fraud  against  the  toll  system.  The 
mechanism should be largely based on the provisions of Directive 2015/413/EU for the 
cross-border  enforcement  of  road  safety  related  offences.  While  there  is  always  an 
additional risk if data is shared with third parties, as long as the EU regulatory regime on 
data  protection  is  complied  with,  no  negative  implications  with  the  rights  to  data 
protection and privacy can be expected.   

6.2.4.  Environmental impacts 

The direct environmental impacts of the three policy options are negligible, compared in 
particular to the economic impacts. The main (positive) environmental impact relates to 
the  lower  number  of  OBUs  manufactured  under  all  policy  options  compared  to  the 
baseline (see section 6.1.4).  

There  could  also  be  some  indirect  environmental  impacts.  For  instance,  an  improved 
EETS  framework  would  contribute  to  reducing  the  investment  and  operation  costs  of 
electronic  tolling  systems  which  might  in  turn  incentivise  the  deployment  of  such 
systems  on  more  roads  and  thus  result  in  a  wider  application  of  the  'user  pays'  and 
'polluter pays' principles.  

Furthermore, better enforcement of tolls in barrier-free systems might push some of the 
motorway concessions to move away from toll collection at toll plazas and to replace the 
latter with free-flow systems (free-flow speed generates less emissions than bringing the 
vehicle to a halt and accelerating it again). The link between the measures included in the 
policy  options  and  these  potential  impacts  is  however  not  direct,  and  the  positive 
environmental impacts are therefore impossible to quantify with any reasonable degree of 
precision. 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

7.1.  Effectiveness 

7.1.1.  Effectiveness in achieving the general objective 

The effectiveness of policy options in reaching the general objective is presented in Table 
19. PO3 appears as the most effective in reaching this objective; PO2 comes second; PO1 
ranks third. 

Table 19: Comparison of the effectiveness of policy options in achieving the general 
objective  

General  objective:  contribute  to  the  correct  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market  by  ensuring  more 

52 

 
access to interoperability in tolling services in line with and proportionate to the road users' needs 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

of 

forcing 

electronic 

full 
By 
all 
standardisation 
aspects  of  existing  and 
future 
toll 
systems,  this  policy  option 
would  achieve  EU-wide 
interoperability  which  not 
only  meets,  but 
even 
exceeds  the  needs  of  the 
majority of road users. 

that 

self-
Given 
is  applied 
regulation 
only  in  the  Member 
States  participating  in 
the  EFP,  the  needs  of 
road  users  established 
in-  or 
to 
countries  lying  outside 
the  EFP  region  could 
not be met. 

travelling 

of 

toll 

level 

levels 

This  policy  option 
the 
playing  field  on  market  for  the 
provision 
services, 
therefore in principle creating the 
conditions  necessary  for  EETS 
providers  to  match  the  needs  of 
the  users  which  are  their  clients 
and  thus  it  would  also  ensure  a 
of 
sufficient 
interoperability.  Given  the  fact 
that  the  decision  on  the  markets 
covered is  left  to  the  commercial 
decisions  of  EETS  providers, 
there might be risk that no EETS 
provider  decides  to  cover  all/the 
majority  of  toll  domains  in  the 
the  aggressive 
EU.  However, 
expansion 
currently 
policy 
practiced  by  two  most  advanced 
(Axxès  and 
EETS  providers 
Telepass) gives a clear indication 
of  the  willingness  of  the  biggest 
players 
interoperable 
tolling  services  on  as  many 
markets  as  possible.  This  was 
actually  confirmed  by  Axxès  in 
targeted 
to 
answer 
its 
it 
consultation, 
expressed 
for 
maintaining  the  requirement  for 
EETS  providers  to  cover  all  toll 
domains  in  the  EU  with  their 
services. 

the 
in  which 
its  preference 

to  offer 

Legend: 

Most 
effective 

No data/not 
effective 

Most 
negative 
effect 

7.1.2.  Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives 

The  effectiveness  of  policy  options  in  reaching  the  specific  objectives  is  presented  in 
Table  20.  PO3  appears  as  the  most  effective  in  reaching  the  policy  objectives;  PO2 
comes second; PO1 ranks third. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20: Comparison of the effectiveness of policy options in achieving the specific 
objectives 

Specific objective  PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

SO1. Remove market entry barriers and foster the development of a competitive market for 
electronic toll collection services 

Reduction 
in 
market  entry costs 
EETS 
for 
providers 

in 
for 
providers 
indicator 
their  market 

Increase 
revenues 
EETS 
(proxy 
of 
penetration) 

of 

Creation 
a 
market  for  EETS 
LDV 

Impacts 
competitiveness 

on 

€7 million (cumulated) 

€10 
(cumulated) 

million 

€14 million (cumulated) 

€300 million/year 

€700 million/year 

€700 million/year 

use 

the 
removal  of 
The 
a 
to 
obligation 
GNSS-OBU  to  serve  the 
LDV market puts in place 
the  conditions  for  EETS 
providers entering it 

Self-regulation  is  likely 
to  deliver  rules  to  make 
the  market  function  in  a 
fairer,  less  discriminatory 
manner.  However, 
the 
quality  and  effectiveness 
of the rules would largely 
depend  on  the  capability 
of  partners  to  EFP  to 
compromises 
reach 
beneficial 
the 
development  of  a  fully 
competitive  market  for 
ETC. 

to 

The removal of the 
obligation  to  use  a 
GNSS-OBU 
to 
the  LDV 
serve 
in 
market 
the 
place 
conditions 
for 
EETS 
providers 
entering it 

puts 

The  policy  option 
contains 
strong 
mandatory  rules  to 
force  competition 
the  market. 
into 
like 
The 
effectiveness 
of 
these  measures  is 
higher  than  in  the 
case 
self-
of 
regulation. 

The 
the 
removal  of 
obligation to use a GNSS-
OBU  to  serve  the  LDV 
market  puts  in  place  the 
conditions 
for  EETS 
providers entering it 

but 

PO3  not  only  contains 
strong mandatory rules to 
force competition into the 
also 
market, 
the  entry  of 
facilitates 
into 
EETS 
providers 
national  markets 
by 
reducing to zero technical 
and  procedural  obstacles 
interoperability.  The 
to 
effectiveness 
is  higher 
than in PO1 and PO2. 

Inclusion 
peripheral MS 

of 

Positive  but  small  impact 
on the extension of EETS 
services 
to  peripheral 
MS. 

Positive  impact  on 
the  extension  of 
EETS  services  to 
peripheral MS. 

impact 
Largest  positive 
on the extension of EETS 
services to peripheral MS. 

Inclusion  of  3rd 
countries 

chance 

Highest 
of 
including 3rd countries, in 
particular 
Switzerland 
and  Belarus,  but  also 
possibly 
the  Western 
Balkans. 

of 

Automatic 
inclusion 
Norway, 
to 
possibility 
integrate  other  3rd 
countries,  but  not 

inclusion  of 

inclusion  of 
Automatic 
potentially 
Norway, 
easier 
the 
Western  Balkans,  but 
interoperability with other 
countries 
(Switzerland, 
Russia,  Belarus)  rendered 

54 

 
as easy as in PO1. 

(much) more difficult.  

Summary 
specific  objective 
1 

Least 
reaching SO1 

effective 

in 

Second 
effective 
reaching SO1 

most 
in 

Most 
reaching SO1 

effective 

in 

SO2. Improve the level of enforcement of tolls from foreign-registered vehicles 

€ 150 million/year 

€ 150 million/year 

€ 150 million/year 

Increase 
in  the 
recovery  of  tolls 
foreign-
from 
registered 
toll 
offenders 

SO3: Remove the excessive obligations on EETS providers 

the 

Remove 
excessive 
obligations 
EETS providers 

on 

Identified 
obligations 
providers  are 
from 
the 
legislation  

excessive 
for  EETS 
removed 
EETS 

Identified 
excessive 
for 
obligations 
EETS 
providers 
are  removed  from 
EETS 
the 
legislation 

excessive 
Identified 
for  EETS 
obligations 
providers  are 
removed 
from the EETS legislation 

Summary  for  all 
specific 
objectives 

Least effective 

Second 
effective 

most 

Most effective 

Legend: 

Most 
effective 

No data/not 
effective 

Most 
negative 
effect 

7.1.3.  Effectiveness in achieving the objective to reduce regulatory burden 

for companies (REFIT objective) 

Table 21 summarises the level of achievement of the REFIT objective, which is to reduce 
the  regulatory  burden  for  companies.  It  shows  that  all  policy  options  contribute  to 
reducing the regulatory burden for road users, ranking from PO1 (smallest contribution) 
to PO3 (largest contribution). The impact on the reduction of regulatory burden for EETS 
providers  follows  the  same  path  (PO3  has  the  largest  positive  impact,  PO1  –  the 
smallest). 

All policy options would contribute to increasing the compliance costs for toll chargers. 
PO3 ranks, by far, worse  in  this respect, while the negative impact of PO1 and PO2  is 
much smaller. 

When  summing  up  the  impacts  on  regulatory  burden,  it  appears  that  only  PO2  has  a 
significant  net  positive  impact.  PO1  has  a  small  negative  impact,  but  PO3  has  a 
significantly negative one. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  21:  Summary  of  cumulative  (2016-2025)  impacts  on  the  level  of  regulatory 
burden for companies* (level of achievement of the REFIT objective) 

Regulatory  burden 
for road users 

Regulatory  burden 
for toll chargers 

Regulatory  burden 
for EETS providers 

Regulatory  burden 
for all companies 

Legend: 

Most 
effective 

PO1  

PO2 

PO3 

- €117 million 

- €370 million 

- € 408 million 

+ €162 million 

+ €126 million 

+ €835 million 

- €7 million 

- €10 million 

- €14 million 

+ €38 million 

- €254 million 

+ €413 million 

No data/not 
effective 

Most 
negative 
effect 

*(-) indicates a burden reduction and (+) increase in the level of burden 

7.2.  Efficiency 

7.2.1.  Cost-benefit analysis 

Table  22  presents  the  main  quantified  costs  and  benefits  of  the  different  policy  actors. 
The main conclusions regarding the efficiency of the policy options are the following: 

  PO2  has  the  best  net  effect  (difference  between  costs  and  benefits).  PO1  comes 
second, with a slightly negative net effect. In PO3 costs strongly exceed the benefits. 

  The main reason for the strongly negative cost-benefit relationship in PO3 is the cost 
of  system  adaptations  to  toll  chargers,  which  is  5  times  higher  than  in  PO1  or  PO2, 
and twice exceeds the expected benefits (respectively €886 million and €407 million). 
The 'partial' harmonisation approach proposed in PO2, concentrating on most essential 
harmonisation  gaps  identified  in  the  public  consultation  (i.e.  harmonisation  of 
interfaces), therefore constitutes a clearly more efficient approach.  

  Costs attributed to toll chargers can eventually be attributed to road users, because toll 

chargers pass their costs onto road users in the form of higher tolls. 

  Two important trade-offs are observed: 

  From  a  purely  budgetary  perspective,  increased  effectiveness  of  toll 
enforcement means an aggregate transfer of wealth from non-compliant 
users to toll chargers; from the point of view of rule of law, however, 
this must be seen as a positive effect. 

  Remuneration of EETS providers means expenses for toll chargers: this 

money transfer is neutral from the point of view of society. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
It is also useful to consider a longer time horizon when analysing the costs and benefits 
of implementation of various policy options, as with natural depreciation of the existing 
tolling  infrastructure  and  OBUs  the  costs  of  implementing  new  standards  might  not  be 
that high. However, at the moment there is no indication that in the future the costs of the 
policy  options  could  be 
regular 
maintenance/update and it is not expected that it would require replacement at some point 
of time in the future, so the shift to new standards would always bear additional costs to 
toll  chargers.  The  changes  in  the  costs  of  OBUs  are  also  difficult  to  predict  and 
technology  developments  any 
the  market  and 
considering  uncertainties  about 
assumptions that in the long term the cost and benefits would be lower or higher would 
be  speculative.  This  issue,  though,  should  be  further  analysed  when  evaluating  the 
Directive in the future. 

infrastructure 

lower.  The 

requires 

tolling 

Table 22: Costs and benefits of the economic actors 

Actor 
cost/benefit 

– 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Road  users  – 
benefits 

€117 

+ 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 

million 

€370 

+ 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 

million 

€ 

+ 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 

408  million 

Road  users  – 
costs59 

€150  million/year 

- 
(recovered unpaid tolls) 

€150  million/year 

- 
(recovered unpaid tolls) 

€150  million/year 

- 
(recovered unpaid tolls) 

Toll  chargers 
– benefits  

€150  million/year 

+ 
(recovered unpaid tolls) 

€150  million/year 

+ 
(recovered unpaid tolls) 

€150  million/year 

+ 
(recovered unpaid tolls) 

€12 

+ 
million 
(cumulated  2016-2025) 
(savings  on 
'national' 
OBUs) 

€48 

+ 
million 
(cumulated  2016-2025) 
(savings  on 
'national' 
OBUs) 

€51 

+ 
million 
(cumulated  2016-2025) 
(savings  on 
'national' 
OBUs) 

Toll  charger 
– costs 

- €174 million 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 
(adapting systems to 
new requirements) 

- €174 million 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 
(adapting systems to 
new requirements) 

- €886 million 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 
(adapting systems to 
new requirements) 

- €300 million/year 
(remuneration to EETS 
providers) 

- €700 million/year 
(remuneration to EETS 
providers) 

- €700 million/year 
(remuneration to EETS 
providers) 

EETS 
providers 
benefits 

+  €7  million  (cumulated 
2016-2025) 

+€10 million (cumulated 
2016-2025) 

+€14 million (cumulated 
2016-2025) 

– 

59  The  figures  in  this  line  result  from  more  effective  control  of  offenders.  Although  this  means  some 
previously unpunished users now have to pay tolls and fines, this cannot be considered as a negative 
impact  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  interest  of  the  society  and  of  respect  of  the  rule  of  law.  This 
explains why the cells have a green background, corresponding to positive impacts. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
+ 
€300  million/year 
(remuneration  to  EETS 
providers) 

+€700 
million/year 
(remuneration  to  EETS 
providers) 

+€700 
million/year 
(remuneration  to  EETS 
providers) 

-€38  million  (cumulated 
2016-2025) 

+€254 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 

million 

€413 

- 
(cumulated 2016-2025) 

million 

No data/not 
cost 
nor 
benefit 

Most costly 

Total 

Legend: 

Most 
beneficial 

7.2.2.  Comparison of other impacts 

Table  23  provides  a  comparison  of  other  impacts,  not  yet  analysed  under  the  headings 
'Effectiveness'  and  'cost-benefit  analysis'.  The  only  outstanding  impact  is  the  one  on 
SMEs, positive in all policy options, highest in PO3 and lowest in PO1. 

Table 23: Comparison of other impacts 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Economic impacts 

Impact on OBU 
manufacturers 

Impact on 
innovation 

The sign of the impact on OBU manufacturers depends on factors which 
cannot be easily predicted. Hence the impact cannot be determined in the 
framework of this IA 

Some support 
through 
harmonisation and 
transparency 

Increased support 
through harmonisation 
and transparency as 
implemented through 
legislation 

Increased restrictions on 
technology that can be 
developed under 
standards. Some support 
through harmonisation and 
transparency 

Most substantial benefits 
to road haulage SMEs. 

Impact on SMEs 

Significant benefits 
to road haulage 
SMEs. 

Very substantial 
benefits to road 
haulage SMEs. 

Social impacts 

Impact on 
Employment 

Impact on 
employment is 
negligible at the 
scale of the EU 

Impact on 
employment is 
negligible at the scale 
of the EU 

Impact on employment is 
negligible at the scale of 
the EU 

Fundamental 
rights of 
individuals and 
organisation 

Minor 
improvements to 
fundamental rights 

Minor improvements 
to fundamental rights 

Minor improvements to 
fundamental rights 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection of the 
personal data and 
right to privacy 

Minor 
improvements to 
personal data 
protection and right 
to privacy 

Minor improvements 
to personal data 
protection and right to 
privacy 

Minor improvements to 
personal data protection 
and right to privacy 

Legend: 

Most 
positive 
impact 

7.3.  Coherence 

No  data/no 
impact 

Most 
negative 
impact 

The  initiative  is  part  of  the  Energy  Union  Strategy  and  is  therefore  coherent  with  the 
other actions under this package. It is in particular coherent with the upcoming review of 
Directive  1999/62/EC  ("Eurovignette"),  as  the  interoperability  of  electronic  tolls, 
facilitated by all  the envisaged policy options, would facilitate the  wider application of 
the 'user pays' and 'polluter pays' principles: the deployment, operation and compliance to 
distance-based electronic tolling systems will become easier and cheaper. 

Overall,  all  options  would  ensure  more  coherence  with  other  road  initiatives  than  the 
baseline (see Annex 10). There seems to be little difference between the options, but as 
PO1 risks being less effective it might also be less in line with the timing introduced by 
the  initiative  on  road  charging,  which  would  benefit  from  less  burdensome  e-tolling 
system  to  encourage  the  adoption  of  distance  based  charging.  In  addition,  PO3  by 
introducing excessive requirements might be considered as less coherent with the Better 
Regulation agenda. As a consequence, PO2 is considered as most coherent with the other 
policies and the EU policy agenda. 

The policy options were checked for their compliance with the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights, and no conflicts with fundamental rights were identified. The policy options have 
also been defined in coherence with the Better Regulation strategy; different approaches 
to solve the problems have been considered, including non-legislative ones. 

7.4. 

Proportionality 

As mentioned above, the inclusion of policy option 1 in the analysis guarantees that less 
constraining  solutions  than  legislation  are  fully  taken  into  account.  In  the  case  of  PO1 
leaving  much  scope  to  the  market  players  to  self-regulate  ensures  that  this  option  is 
proportionate. The measures in policy option 2 have been defined following a thorough 
pre-screening  of  the  full  list  of  policy  measures  which  were  suggested  by  the 
stakeholders  in  the  course  of  the  public  consultation,  which  took  proportionality  into 
account as one of the main evaluation criteria. Thus the measures of PO2 are considered 
proportionate  to  the  scale  of  the  problem  they  intend  to  address.  In  contrast,  full 
standardisation envisaged under PO3 seems to be an excessive solution under the current 
circumstances, because it is not required by the market. Given its very high costs for the 
toll chargers, PO3 does not seem to match the objective of proportionality. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.5. 

Preferred policy option 

The analysis of the effectiveness of policy options in reaching the objectives shows that 
PO3 is the most effective, closely followed by PO2. PO2 ranks by far highest in terms of 
cost-benefit analysis. It also has positive other impacts overall. 

While  PO3  is  slightly  more  effective  than  PO2,  the  latter  is  the  only  option  with  a 
positive cost-benefit ratio. Policy option 2 is therefore the preferred policy option. 

8.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  monitoring  of  the  level  of  achievement  of  specific  objective  3  is  quite 
straightforward,  as  the  objective  relates  to  the  adoption  of  specific  legislation  by  the 
European legislator. The monitoring will therefore amount to checking if the legislation 
was adopted or not and whether it was properly implemented. 

The  monitoring  of  the  level  of  achievement  of  the  two  other  specific  objectives  is  less 
straightforward.  In  order  to  appropriately  evaluate  certain  impacts,  the  Commission 
would need Member States to report certain data on the functioning of national markets 
and the level of implementation of the legislation. Significant impacts of  the legislation 
are expected to materialise relatively rapidly after its entry into force, i.e. after 5 years or 
even earlier, and by that time Member States should be required to provide their reports. 
The  Commission  should  make  an  evaluation  of  the  impacts  shortly  after,  based  on  the 
information  provided  by  the  Member  States.  It  seems  appropriate,  therefore,  for  the 
Commission to evaluate ex post the effects of the legislation around 2025 (depending on 
the  time  it  takes  for  the  legislation  to  enter  into  force).  Below  is  a  list  of  indicators  to 
verify the level of achievement of the two specific objectives. These indicators should be 
used in the ex post evaluation to check the level of success of the legislation covered by 
the present impact assessment. 

SO1:  Remove  market  entry  barriers  and  foster  the  development  of  a  competitive 
market for electronic toll collection services 

  Operational  objective    1:  Increase  the  number  of  service  providers 

(registered as EETS providers or not) operating in each toll domain 

  Indicator: number of toll service providers (source: EETS registers of the 

Member States) 

  Target:  at  least  3  service  providers  (registered  as  EETS  providers  or  not) 

operating in each toll domain by 2025 

  Operational  objective  2:  Maintain  a  high  number  of  EETS  providers 

present on the market 

  Indicator:  number  of  EETS  providers  (source:  EETS  registers  of  the 

Member States) 

  Target: at least 6 EETS providers registered and operating in the EEA by 

2025  

60 

 
  Operational objective 3: Reduce the average cost of accreditation per toll 

domain  

  Indicator:  Average  costs  of  accreditation  per  toll  domain  (source:  for 
present value: research done in the framework of this impacts assessment; 
for future values: mandatory reports from the Member States) 

  Target: cost reduction by 40% by 2025 

  Operational  objective  4:  Reduce  the  time  needed  for  accreditation  of 

EETS providers  

  Indicator:  Maximum  time  needed  for  accreditation  to  each  toll  domain 

(source: mandatory reports form the Member States) 

  Target: maximum time equal to 6 months in 2025. 

  Operational objective 5: Implement the "reseller model"  

  Indicator:  number  of  EETS  domains  where  the  "agency  model"  is  used 

(source: mandatory reports from the Member States) 

  Target: no toll chargers uses the "agency model" in their relations with the 

EETS providers by 2025 

  Operational objective 6: Apply CEN TS 16986 for back office interfaces 

  Indicator:  Toll  chargers  having  implemented  CEN  TS  16986    (source: 

EETS domain statements of the toll chargers) 

  Target: at least 75% of toll chargers have implemented CEN TS 16986 for 

back office interfaces with EETS providers by 2025 

  Operational  objective  7:  Define  a  standard  format  for  registering  road 

users to a system  

  Indicator:  list  of  differences  among  toll  systems  with  respect  to  the  way 
road  users  are  registered  (source:  EETS  domain  statements  of  the  toll 
chargers) 

  Target: a standard format for registering road users to a system is used by 

all toll chargers by 2025 

  Operational  objective  8:  Achieve  EU-wide  interoperability  of  tolls  for 

those users who demand this   

  Indicator: number of OBUs with which a lorry can use all EETS domains in 

the EU+Norway (on selected TEN-T corridors) 

  Target:  at  least  one  EETS  Provider  offering  EU-wide  coverage  by  2025 

(one OBU) 

61 

 
SO2: Improve the level of enforcement of tolls from foreign-registered vehicles 

  Operational  objective  9:  Establish  a  system  for  exchange  of  information 

on toll offenders  

  Indicator: progress in completion of the system (source: mandatory reports 

of the Member States) 

  Target:  a  functioning  system  of  exchange  of  information  on  toll  offenders 

between all EU Member States and Norway by 2025 

  Operational  objective  10:  Increase  the  rate  of  identification  of  toll 

offenders 

  Indicator:  number  of  detected  offenses  made  by  vehicles  registered  in 
another Member State which lead to an interrogation through the system for 
exchange  of  information  on  toll  offenders  set  by  this  legislation  (source: 
mandatory reports of the Member States) 

  Target: 50% of occurrences of unpaid tolls leading to interrogations through 
the newly established system of exchange of information on toll offenders 
in 2025. 

  Operational objective 11: Improve collection of unpaid tolls 

  Indicator: % of fines and replacement tolls paid (source: mandatory reports 

of the Member States) 

  Target: 50% of fines or replacement tolls sent to offenders paid in 2025. 

62 

 
 
 
9.  ANNEXES 

9.1.  Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the 

impact assessment report and the related initiative  

9.1.1.  References 

Lead DG: DG MOVE (Mobility and Transport) 

Agenda  planning:  2016/MOVE/020 
2016/MOVE/021 (revision of Directive 2009/750/EC) 

(revision  of  Directive  2004/52/EC)  and 

9.1.2.  Organisation and timing 

Inter-service Group 

An inter-service steering group (ISG), chaired by the Secretariat-General, was set up in 
May  2016  with  the  participation  of  the  following  Commission  Directorates-General: 
Legal  Service;  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs; 
Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs; Environment; Climate Action; Communications Networks, 
Content  and  technology;  Joint  Research  Centre;  Regional  and  Urban  Policy;  Taxation 
and Customs Union; Justice and Consumers. 

Internal  Market, 

Invitations  were  also  sent  to  DG  Competition;  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and 
Inclusion; DG Energy; DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations. 

The ISG met three times: 

  On 31 May 2016, to discuss the inception impact assessment, the terms of reference 
for  the  external  study,  the  consultation  strategy  and  the  questionnaire  for  the  open 
public  consultation,  as  well  as  subsequent  reports  of  the  support  study  and  the  draft 
impact assessment. 

  On 7 December 2016, to discuss the intermediate report of the IA support study. 

  On 24 February, to discuss the draft IA staff working document. 

Public consultation activities 

An open public consultation (OPC) was run between 8 July and 2 October (12 weeks). 

A targeted consultation of professional stakeholders was  launched on 5th October 2016 
and was open for responses until 13th November 2016 (six weeks). 

The  external  study  accompanying  the  IA  started  on  9  September  2016.  The  inception 
report  was  approved  on  10  November  2016.  The  interim  report  was  approved  on  24 
January 2017. The draft final report was provided on 17 February 2017. The final report 
was approved on 30 March 2017. 

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  received  the  draft  version  of  the  present  impact 
assessment report on 1 March 2017 and following the Board meeting on 29 March 2017 

63 

 
issued a negative opinion on 31 March. The Board made recommendations. Those were 
addressed in the revised IA report as follows: 

RSB recommendations 

Modification of the IA report 

Principal recommendations 

full 

1.  The  report  does  not  explicitly  set  an 
objective  of 
the 
electronic  tolling  systems  in  the  EU  and  does 
not  explain  how  the  options  contribute  to 
interoperability 

interoperability  of 

The  general  objective  was  revised  to  explain 
that  the  initiative  aims  at  offering  each  road 
user access to the level of interoperable tolling 
services  corresponding  to  his/her  needs  and 
requests,  which  includes  the  option  of  full 
interoperability. 

2.  The  options  do  not  provide  a  set  of 
alternatives  and  fail  to  explain  the  real  trade-
offs  and  choices  to  the  decision-makers.  The 
rationale  and  the  proportionality  of  the  central 
option, which is a package of several measures, 
are not explained 

3.  The  report  does  not  reflect  the  views  of 
stakeholders and in particular Member States 

Other recommendations in the RSB Opinion 

1a. The report should strengthen the links with 
the conclusions of the evaluation study 

1b.  Including  a  clear  interoperability  objective 
the 
would  also  enhance  consistency 
intervention logic […] 

in 

2.  The  technological  and  future-proof  aspects 
of  the  proposed  measures  should  be  clarified. 
This  should  include  an  explanation  of  the 
reasons  behind  the  selection  of  a  limited 
number of accepted technologies 

Furthermore,  text  was  added  under  the  first 
specific  objective  to  explain  that  the  latter  is 
not  only  compatible  with  the  objective  of 
achieving 
interoperability 
layers  of 
(technical,  procedural  and  contractual),  but 
also 
the 
the  goal  of 
establishment of a competitive structure of the 
EETS market. 

fostering 

includes 

three 

Two  new  sections,  5.1  and  5.2,  present  the 
results  of  the  pre-screening  of  the  full  list  of 
policy  measures  which  have  been  discussed 
with  the  stakeholders  in  the  framework  of  the 
public  consultation.  For  each  measure,  the 
pros,  cons  and  the  views  of  stakeholders  are 
weighted  to  decide  whether  the  option  should 
be retained for further analysis or not. 

Furthermore,  in  line  with  the  request  of  the 
RSB,  PO3  was  changed  from  a  purely 
harmonisation  option 
that  also 
includes market measures. 

into  one 

The views of the stakeholders, with a particular 
focus  on 
the  Member  States,  are  now 
thoroughly presented in sections 5.1 and 5.2. 

A  new  Table  1  clearly  explains  how  each  of 
the main conclusions of the ex post evaluation 
the 
has 
problems in the Impact Assessment 

the  definition  of 

translated 

into 

refer 

The  general  objective  has  been  amended  to 
the 
specifically 
compatibility of the first specific objective with 
the goal of interoperability has been clarified in 
section 4.2.  

interoperability; 

to 

to  be  used 

technologies  allowed 

The reasons for maintaining a restricted choice 
of 
in 
electronic  tolling  requiring  the  installation  of 
on-board  equipment  have  been  clarified  in  the 
end  of  section  5.1.5  (which  explains  the 
reasons  for  not  allowing  the  use  of  passive 
RFID  tags  in  the  EU)  and  in  section  6.1.5 

64 

 
Further recommendations from the Impact Assessment Quality Checklist 

"Innovation impacts" 

The  general  objective  should  be  linked  to  the 
Treaty 

The  costs  for  Member  States  [of  cross-border 
exchange  of  information  on  toll  offenders]  are 
not assessed in the report 

The  operational  objectives  and  monitoring 
arrangements  in  the  report  miss  an  indicator 
allowing 
field  of 
interoperability] 

the  progress 

[the 

in 

The  general  objective  now  makes  reference  to 
the objective of ensuring the good functioning 
of the Internal Market. 

An  assessment  of  these  costs  is  now  provided 
in section 6.1.2.3. 

The requested operational objective was added 
as operational objective 8. 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  received  the  revised  version  of  the  impact  assessment 
report  on  7  April  2017  and  issued  in  written  procedure  a  positive  opinion  with 
reservations  on  24  April.  The  Board  made  further  recommendations.  Those  were 
addressed in the revised IA report as follows: 

RSB recommendations 

Modification of the IA report 

The  report  does  not  identify  the  core 
measures  which  are  essential  for  the 
envisaged 
their 
interdependence 

results,  and  assess 

It is still not clear how the proposed set of 
measures  will  contribute  to  achieving  the 
envisaged  level  of  interoperability  in  the 
EU  and  what  the  risks  attached  to  the 
preferred option are 

The 
report  does  not  explain  why 
intermediate  solutions  between  the  most 
efficient  and  the  most  cost  effective  have 
not been considered 

indicating 

for  each 

In  table  9,  detailed  explanation  has  been 
retained 
added, 
measure  if  it  is  essential  or  not  and  with 
which  measures  it  is  complementary/for 
an 
it 
which  measures 
alternative 

constitutes 

A  new  table  19  has  been  added  which 
discusses  the  effectiveness  in  achieving 
the  general  objective  and  the  risks  that 
PO2 would actually not achieve it 

Text  has  been  added  in  section  5.1.4  to 
explain  why  solutions  between  the  "24 
months-full  EU  coverage"  and  "total 
freedom for EETS providers to choose  the 
markets  on which  they operate"  have  not 
been analysed. 

Text  has  been  added  in  section  5.4  to 
explain  why  no 
intermediate  solutions 
and 
between 
"harmonisation  of  interfaces  only"  have 
been analysed 

"total  harmonisation" 

65 

 
 
 
 
Evidence used and external expertise 

The  starting  point  to  the  drafting  of  the  problem  definition  part  of  this  Staff  Working 
Document  was  the  ex post  evaluation  of  the  existing  EETS  legislation  (annexed to  this 
report).60 

The  majority  of  information  used  has  been  provided  by  the  stakeholders  in  the 
framework  of  the  numerous  organised  stakeholder  consultation  activities,  which  are 
reported 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/consultations/2016-
eets_en. This was completed by information provided ad hoc by the stakeholders, either 
in position papers forwarded to the Commission, or at the occasion of meetings. 

under 

upon 

An  important  source  of  information  was  the  EETS  Facilitation  Platform  and  its 
predecessor REETS.61 

Finally, the report relies a lot on external expertise. This includes the IA accompanying 
study performed by Ricardo,62 the studies on the 'State of the Art of Electronic Tolling'63 
and 'Expert Review of the EETS Legislative Acts'.64 

Overall, the sources used for the drafting of the report are numerous, largely exhaustive 
and representative of the different stakeholder groups. 

60  Ex  post  evaluation of  the  Directive  2004/52/EC of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  of  29 
April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community and Commission 
Decision  2009/750/EC  of  6  October  2009  on  the  definition  of  the  European  Electronic  Toll  Service 
and its technical elements, Final Report, Commission Staff Working Document, not yet published. 

61 www.reets.eu.  
62 Not yet published. 
63 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road_charging/doc/study-electronic-road-tolling.pdf. 
64 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/doc/2015-09-ex-post-evaluation-eets-4icom.pdf. 

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
9.2.  Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Synopsis report  

Revision of Directive 2004/52/EC and Decision 2009/750/EC) (legislative framework 
on the European Electronic Toll Service 

Directive 2004/52/EC lays down the conditions for the interoperability of electronic road 
toll  systems  in  the  European  Union.  The  Directive  requires  that  all  new  electronic  toll 
systems brought into service shall use one or more of the following technologies: satellite 
positioning  (GNSS);  mobile  communications  (GSM-GPRS);  microwave  technology 
(DSRC). 

The  Directive  also  sets  up  a  European  Electronic  Toll  Service  (EETS),  by  which  road 
users  only  subscribe  to  a  single  contract  with  an  EETS  provider  in  order  to  pay  the 
charges  related  to  any  charging  scheme  requiring  on-board  equipment.  The  detailed 
definition  required  by  Directive  2004/52/EC  regarding  technical,  procedural  and  legal 
issues, has been finalised by the European Commission in Decision 2009/750/EC. 

The ex post evaluation assesses the effects of the legislation on the European Electronic 
Toll  Service  (EETS)  and  its  implementation  over  the  period  of  2004-2014.  The  Impact 
Assessment compares different policy options for addressing the problems identified by 
the ex post evaluation. 

Consultation activities 

In  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  a  back-to-back  ex-post  evaluation  and  impact 
assessment, the Commission performed five main consultation activities. The purpose of 
these activities was:  

  Providing  to  the  wide  public  and  stakeholders  an  opportunity  to  express  their 
opinion on the main issues related to electronic tolling and the way it is regulated 
at  the  EU  level,  as  well  as  to  express  their  position  on  the  possible/desirable 
changes to the regulatory framework. 

  Gathering  specialised  input  (data  and  information,  expert  views)  on  specific 
aspects  of  the  legislation  (e.g.  pros  and  cons  of  certain  technologies,  standards, 
legal questions, etc.) from tolling stakeholders, with the aim of filling the data and 
information gaps in view of the preparation of the ex-post evaluation, the impact 
assessment and the legislative proposal. 

While  specialized  consultation  targeted  infrastructure  providers  (i.e.  governments, 
concessionaires), users (hauliers, professional drivers, citizens, etc.), equipment providers 
(car  manufacturers,  on-board  unit  manufacturers,  etc.),  tolling  service  providers, 
standardisation  experts  in  the  field  of  electronic tolling  and certification  specialists, the 
citizens  and  undertaking  were  provided  with  opportunity  to  express  their  views  in  the 
course of the open public consultation (OPC) .  

The stakeholders' views do not represent the official position of the Commission and its 
services  and  thus  do  not  bind  the  Commission.  The  input  gathered  corresponds  to  the 
objective  of  the  consultation  in  both  assessing  the  performance  of  the  regulatory 
framework to date and also providing insights about possible challenges. 

67 

 
 
1) 

An open public consultation (OPC) in the form of an on-line questionnaire 

The open  public  consultation was open between 8 July  and 2 October (12  weeks). The 
questionnaire  contained  questions  mainly  relevant  for  the  general  public,  giving  the 
citizen a chance to express their views on electronic tolling without going into technical 
details.  It  gave  however  respondents  who  wished  to  provide  a  more  comprehensive 
opinion the opportunity to expand on their views in several open questions, as well as to 
upload position papers and other documents as part of their contributions. 

For the Commission, the aim of this consultation activity was to test broad policy choices 
(both in the current legislation and considered in the framework of the legislative review) 
with  the  general  public.  This  aim  was  reached.  The  relatively  low  response  rate  (73 
answers) could be due to a very technical nature of the initiative for regular citizens on 
one  hand  and  reflect  the  interest  of  stakeholders  professionally  engaged  in  EETS  in 
answering  more  specialized  consultation  activities  on  the  other  hand.  The  table  below 
indicates the profile of respondents. 

Stakeholder category 

Number of 
responses 
29 

% of 
responses 
40% 

On  behalf  of  an  industry  association  or  a  non-
governmental organisation (NGO) 
On behalf of a company 
As a citizen 
On behalf of a public authority65 
Other66 
Grand Total 
Views  presented  in  the  consultation  were  to  a  large  degree  concurrent;  however,  there 
was a number of outliers. 

29% 
15% 
12% 
4% 
100% 

21 
11 
9 
3 
73 

2) 

A call for written contributions publicly addressed to all stakeholders 

Stakeholders were given the opportunity to send spontaneously their contributions to the 
ex-post  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  exercises.  The  invitation  to  do  so  was 
published on the consultation web page, as well as announced at conferences, events, etc. 
As  mentioned  above,  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  were  also  explicitly 
invited to send written contributions in the form of free text documents. 

In the call for position papers, contributors were explicitly invited to express their views 
on  the  problem(s)  to  be  tackled,  the  issue  of  subsidiarity  and  the  EU  dimension  of  the 
problem, the policy options and their impacts. Contributors were also invited to evaluate 
the effectiveness, efficiency relevance and coherence of the existing legislation, as well 
as  the  added  value  of  EU  legislation  so  far,  taking  as  the  starting  point  the  published 
evaluation roadmap. 

The quality of the contributions was very unequal, ranging from very general statements 
with  little  use  to  opinions  on  specific  point  of  the  legislation.  The  latter  gave  the 
Commission  a  first  indication  on  the  position  of  some  of  the  main  stakeholders 
(including in particular the 4 public authorities – cf. table below). 

65  Public  authorities  from  the  following  countries  participated  in  the  open  public  consultation:  Czech 
Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, United Kingdom. 
66  One  "company  and  citizen",  one  employee  of  a  ministry  which  did  not  choose  "on  behalf  of  public 

authority" and the European Employers' Association. 
68 

 
                                                 
No  deadline  for  submitting  written  contributions  was  given.  A  total  of  22  relevant 
contributions were received so far. The table below indicates the profile of respondents. 

Stakeholder Category 

Number of responses 

Tolling/motorway operators 

Transport undertakings 

Public authorities67 

9 

9 

4 

3) 
A restricted consultation of professional stakeholders on issues related to the 
ex-post evaluation in the form of several tailored questionnaires with open questions 
addressed at different professional groups 

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  as  part  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  for  the  EETS 
Directive 2004/52/EC and Decision 2009/750/EC was  launched on 26th June 2015 and 
was open for responses until 1st September 2015 (10 weeks). The main objective of this 
consultation  activity  was  to  gather  information  and  data  to  fill  the  Commission's 
knowledge gaps in the preparation of the ex post evaluation. 

The  questionnaires  were  sent  to  the  following  groups  of  stakeholders  (a  separate 
questionnaire to each group of stakeholders): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Member States and toll chargers 

Toll service providers 

Commercial road users 

Private road users/automobile clubs 

A  total  of  22  responses  to  four  separate  questionnaires  aimed  at  different  EETS 
stakeholder groups were received from the European Commission, as shown in the table 
below. It must be mentioned that consultees were invited to spread the questionnaire with 
other known interested parties – this explains that in some cases the number of answers 
exceeds the number of originally consulted parties). Due to the relatively low number of 
important  stakeholders  and  good  organisation  of  the  sector,  it  seems  reasonable  to 
assume that a very representative body of stakeholders was reached in the frame of this 
exercise.  

Stakeholder category 

Number of 
stakeholders 
approached 

Number of responses 
(% response rate) 

% of 
responses 

Member States and toll 
chargers 

Toll Service providers 

Heavy-duty 

vehicle 

36 

2 

2 

15 (42%) 

68.2% 

4 (200%) 

2 (100%) 

18.2% 

9.1% 

67 Finland, France, Germany, Ireland. 

69 

 
                                                 
electronic toll users 

Light-duty 
electronic toll users 

vehicle 

Grand Total 

2 

42 

1 (50%) 

4.5% 

22 

100% 

Besides  the  questionnaire,  addressees  were  also  provided  with  copies  of  the  evaluation 
roadmap, and some of them decided to react to the preliminary assessment presented in 
the document. 

The quality of the contributions was unequal, but roughly half of the answers provided 
hard data and ample information which fed into the evaluation Staff Working Document 
of  the  Commission.  The  other  half  contained  mainly  opinions  and  positions,  which 
helped  the Commission  to  understand the stakeholders' position about  the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the currently applicable legislation. 

A restricted consultation of professional stakeholders on issues related to the 

4) 
upcoming proposal on the revision of the EETS legislative framework.  

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  for  the  Impact  Assessment  on  the  revision  of  the 
EETS  legislative  framework  was  launched  on  5th  October  2016  and  was  open  for 
responses  until  13th  November  2016  (six  weeks).  Respondents  were  also  given  the 
opportunity to provide any further comments at the end of the questionnaire. To ensure 
the  widest  possible  coverage,  a  call  for  expression  of  interest  was  published  on  the 
Commission's  consultation  website  for  stakeholders  wanting  to  be  consulted  in  the 
framework of this  exercise (in addition to  the distribution  of the questionnaire with the 
established list of contacts of the Commission). 

The main objective of this consultation activity was to gather information and data to fill 
the Commission's knowledge gaps in the preparation of the problem definition part of the 
Impact Assessment, but also to test with the stakeholder community the possible policy 
option and measures which could become part of the Commission's proposal. 

A total of 35 responses to the questionnaire were received. The number of responses was 
therefore considerably higher than in the framework of the similar consultation for the ex 
post evaluation, and the average quality of the contributions was also higher. A number 
of  excellent  contributions  were  received  containing  deep  analysis  of  the  problems, 
statistics and other figures, and recommendations for concrete policy solutions, and they 
contributed to considerably strengthen the evidence base for the impact assessment and 
for the drafting of an initial list of potential policy measures. 

The table below indicates the profile of respondents. 

Stakeholder category 

Public authority/administration  

Toll Service Provider 

Industry Association 

70 

Number of 
responses 

% of responses 

8 

6 

5 

23% 

17% 

14% 

 
Toll Charger  

Represent more than one stakeholder category 

Toll system operator 

Consultancy  

Road users 

Grand Total 

5 

4 

4 

2 

1 

14% 

11.5% 

11.5% 

6% 

3% 

35 

100% 

5) 

Reactions to the evaluation roadmap and the inception impact assessment 

Stakeholders  were  given  the  opportunity  to  react  to  the  published  evaluation  roadmap 
and the inception impact assessment. No contributions were however provided. 

Conclusive remarks 

While  the  absolute  numbers  of  responses  to  each  of  the  consultation  activities  are 
relatively low, they must be seen in the particular context of the electronic tolling market: 
a  relatively  small  and  specialised  market  with  a  limited  number  of  well  organised 
stakeholders.  Many  stakeholders  did  not  decided  to  answer  individually,  but  rather 
contributed to the drafting of co-ordinated positions of industry representative bodies.  

Obviously there were differences in the positions expressed in individual contributions, 
but  a  general  consensus  emerged  as  to  the  assessment  of  the  current  situation  and  the 
changes  to  be  made  to  the  legislation.  This  is  particularly  visible  in  the  answers  to  the 
open public consultation, where a clear majority opted for the same or similar answers to 
each  question.  This  consensus  is  less  clearly  visible  –  at  first  sight  –  in  the  other 
consultation activities, but this is mostly because they implied free text answers. Detailed 
analysis  of  the  latter  confirmed  however  the  trend  of  answers  converging  to  common 
positions  of  all  stakeholder  groups.  This  convergence  is  certainly  the  result  of  a  high 
degree of organisation of the industry around the REETS consortium68 in which the main 
categories  of  stakeholders  (Member  States,  toll  chargers,  EETS  providers)  have  been 
working  together  for  the  last  4  years  to  develop  commonly  agreed  answers  to  the 
identified problems. 

Remaining  information  gaps  after  the  public  consultation  were  filled  with  the  help  of 
consultancies  hired  by  the  Commission  to  assist  it  in  the  preparation  of  the  ex  post 
evaluation and of the Impact Assessment. The consultants performed further interviews 
of  the  most  important  stakeholders  to  extract  additional  data,  evidence  and  opinions. 
These interviews will be reported upon in the final report of the consultant due for mid-
March 2017, which will be published on the Commission's website. The Commission has 
also  held  a  large  number  of  individual  meetings  with  stakeholders,  including  some  of 
those  who  did  not  decide  to  contribute  to  the  public  consultation  in  writing.  These 
meetings typically covered many issues, and it is difficult to extract and report upon just 
the  parts  of  them  related  to  EETS.  Finally,  to  cover  the  very  specific  aspects  of 
standardisation  of 
the 
Commission  held  a  full  day  seminar  involving  representatives  of  3  notified  bodies,  the 
European  Committee  for  Standardisation  and  two  equipment  manufacturers  in  the 

interoperability  constituents 

toll  collection, 

in  electronic 

68 www.reets.eu  

71 

 
                                                 
framework of a meeting of the Notified Bodies Co-ordination Group (NoBos-CG) on 29 
September  2015.  This  meeting  was  organised  in  the  framework  of  one  of  the  regular 
meetings  of  the  NoBos-CG.  Minutes  from  this  meeting  are  not  publicly  available.  The 
consultants  reached  out  to  some  of  the  participants  to  this  meeting  to  further  discuss 
some of the topics touched upon during the seminar. 

Results of consultation activities 

1) Open public consultation 

Passenger cars 

The  majority  of  respondents  (62%)  agreed  that  the  EU  should  continue  regulating 
interoperability  between  electronic  tolls  applied  to  passenger  cars.  Three  times  the 
amount were in favour of this compared to those who believed this matter should be left 
to  Member States. The question received a relatively mixed response when categorised 
into representing interests. Responses representing ‘other’ interests showed the strongest 
agreement  with  the  need  for  EU  regulation  (100%),  whilst  other  significant  interest 
groups (several of which represent road users, e.g. the road freight transport and private 
road user categories) were approximately 50-80% in favour, illustrating the desire of road 
users  in  particular  to  have  strong  rules  in  place  to  enforce  European  interoperability  of 
electronic tolling for cars. Toll chargers/service providers were most strongly in favour of 
leaving the matter to Member States (43%), 

60%  of  respondents  were  in  agreement  that  the  EETS  scope  should  be  extended  to 
automatic  number  plate  recognition  (ANPR)  systems,  which  are  widely  used  for  the 
enforcement of free flow tolling systems for passenger cars such as electronic vignettes 
(e.g. Hungary) or urban congestion charging (e.g. London, Stockholm). 

When  disaggregated  into  representing  interest,  differences were  most  apparent  between 
road  users  (road  freight  transport  operators,  users,  etc.)  and  toll  chargers/service 
providers,  with  c.  60-80%  of  respondents  agreeing  that  the  scope  of  EETS  should  be 
extended to include ANPR technologies, compared to just 16-48% respectively. 

Cross border enforcement 

A  large  majority  (77%)  of  respondents  were  in  favour  of  the  EU  establishing  a 
mandatory mechanism for the exchange of data on toll offenders to facilitate recovery of 
unpaid  tolls  (and  only  12%  were  against).  When  categorised  into  representing  interest, 
strong  consensus  was  also  observed,  with  only  road  freight  transport  respondents 
exhibiting any significant desire to remain with the status quo (27%). 

Enhancing market conditions of EETS providers 

51%  of  respondents  felt  that  the  European  Union  should  leave  the  EETS  providers  to 
decide which toll domains they want to cover by their services, while 24% only believed 
the EU should maintain the obligation for EETS providers to cover all toll domains in the 
EU.  A  broader  set  of  views  was  observed  when  representing  interests  are  taken  into 
account. Unsurprisingly, given the significant complexity, costs and risk of covering all 
EU domains within 24 months of launch, a very large proportion (c.80%) of respondents 
representing  toll  chargers  or  service  providers  were  in  favour  of  allowing  EETS 
providers  to  decide  which  domains  they  should  cover.  However,  only  c.  30-35%  of 
respondents from the other interest groups agreed that the regulation should be relaxed; 

72 

 
between  50-67%  of  public  authority  and  ‘other’  representing  respondents  suggested  an 
‘other  solution’  as  described  above,  while  between  c.  45-55%  of  respondents 
representing  private  use  and  many/other  transport  modes  suggest  that  the  current 
obligation should be maintained. 

Over  three  quarters  of  stakeholders  thought  the  Commission  should  harmonise 
accrediting procedures of EETS providers to different toll domains, with only 21% being 
against  it.  When  disaggregated  by  representing  interest,  opinions  were  more  mixed. 
Almost  all  road user respondents (i.e. between 87-100%) agreed with harmonisation of 
accreditation  activities,  whereas  toll  infrastructure  operators  /  stakeholders  had  more 
mixed views, in  particular  public authorities, with  67%  of respondents not  in favour of 
harmonisation. 

Ensuring fairness and non-discrimination 

There  was  also  strong  support  for  making  sure  that  EETS  providers  are  offered  fair 
conditions  when  entering  national  markets.  More  specifically,  63%  felt  that  EU 
legislation  should  provide  for  the  separation  of  accounts  between  toll  charger  and  toll 
service provider activities (to avoid negative consequences of vertical integration), with 
only 15% opposing the measure. When disaggregated by representing interest, no major 
variations were apparent between interest group. 

62%  of  the  respondents  were  even  in  favour  of  giving  the  Commission  the  right  to 
scrutinise  national  tender  plans  before  they  are  published,  to  prevent  the  creation  of 
legally  protected  monopolies.  The  opinion  between  different  groups  of  representing 
interests  was  mixed.  Respondents  representing  road  users  (i.e.  transport,  private 
car/motorbike  use  and  many/other  transport  mode(s))  were  in  strong  favour  of  the 
Commission  being  able  to  be  involved  in  new  electronic  tolling  systems  (between  73-
80%),  whereas  respondents  representing  toll  infrastructure  operators/service  providers 
(i.e. public authorities and infrastructure operators and solution providers) were strongly 
against this being adopted (between 40-83%). 

50%  of  respondents  also  supported  the  creation  of  strong  and  independent  national 
entities to supervise the correct functioning of the tolling markets (market regulators). A 
wider  range  of  views  is  apparent  when  considering  the  interests  that  the  respondents 
represent.  For  example,  73%  of  respondents  representing  road  freight  transport  agreed 
that powers of conciliation bodies should be increased to enable enforcement of mediated 
outcomes,  in  comparison  to  55%  of  infrastructure  operators/solution  providers  and  30-
35% of public authorities and private users. 

2) Spontaneous written contributions  

Given that the spontaneous contributions did not follow any specific structure, the sub-
sections included below relate to the most important discussion points raised. 

The need for EETS is centred on the benefits of interoperability. It was argued that those 
benefits could be larger for heavy goods vehicles in regions with highest concentration of 
cross-border traffic, rather than for light vehicles and in peripheral regions. In any case, 
while  Member  States  are  capable  of  creating  cross-border  agreements,  an  EU-wide 
agreement is too complex for Member States without an EU-level legislative framework.  

Regarding LDVs, a motorway operator suggested however that the EU should introduce 
legislation  to  achieve  interoperability  for  passenger  cars.  An  employers’  association 

73 

 
argued that it was essential to establish a common and harmonised EETS system which 
should  also  be  expanded  to  cars.  These  views  were  however  not  given  by  any  other 
respondents. 

The  positive  impacts  presented  in  the  contributions  received  centre  on  interoperability, 
and  the  resulting  shift  to  free  flow  tolling  solutions  which  have  social,  economic  and 
environmental advantages. 

The contributions raised a number of existing challenges that must be overcome before 
EETS  can  be  realised.  Most  of  these  focused  on  the  barriers  facing  EETS  providers  in 
entering  the  market  and  meeting  the  requirements  set  in  the  Directive,  and  called  for 
more  legislation  to  open  market  and  correction  of  the  current  regulatory  obstacles 
including  the  excessive  requirements  for  EETS  providers.  The  importance  of  stable 
regulations  across  multiple  markets  for  the  success  of  EETS  was  underlined  by  many 
respondents (in particular (potential) EETS providers), just like the fact that expansion of 
EETS is currently blocked by too high costs and uncertainty on the market, both linked to 
the heterogeneous and complex processes of accreditation EETS providers to individual 
toll domains. 

Regarding technologies, there was overwhelming opposition to extending too hastily the 
list of technologies allowed, as this could hamper the objective of interoperability. Yet, 
the  importance  of  keeping  an  eye  on  the  potential  of  other  technologies,  and  possibly 
extending  some  provisions  of  the  directive  to  technologies  currently  permitted  by  the 
EETS  Directive,  but  not  covered  by  its  provisions,  was  also  underlined  by  several 
respondents. 

3)  Restricted  consultation  of  professional  stakeholders  on  issues  related  to  the  ex-
post evaluation 

Due to the very different questions targeted at each stakeholder group and the free-text 
nature of the responses, the analysis below is split by stakeholder group. 

a) Member States and Toll Chargers 

According to the responses received, the overall message is that EETS has the potential 
to provide many benefits including reduced costs for all stakeholders involved (financial, 
time  and  administrative).  However,  barriers  to  implementation  remain,  making 
widespread deployment of EETS unrealistic in the short-medium term. Reasons for this 
are varied and include:  

  Ensuring  interoperability  with  all  existing  toll  schemes  requires  significant 
investment  and  effort  to  manage  the  technical  and  commercial  requirements  for 
pan-EU interoperability.  
Increased  technical  complexity  and  costs  to  interface  with  multiple  parties  and 
back-office systems. 

 

  Difficulties in establishing robust toll collection and recovery processes to avoid 

toll evasion. 

Most  stakeholder  responses  received  agreed  that  many  benefits  arise  from  outsourcing 
relations with the clients to specialised companies; however the motorway operators also 
discussed some disadvantages. A summary of the main discussion is presented below.  

According  to  national  administrations  and  motorway  operators  EETS  providers 
maintain  relations  with  the  road  user,  and  toll  chargers  do  not  have  to  deal  with 

74 

 
 
customers relations, which can save costs and hassle for them. The administrative burden 
and costs for collecting tolls are lowered. They can economise on manpower (including 
reducing  headcount,  staff  training  and  other  related  overheads)  and  investments  in 
dedicated  back  office  equipment  without  jeopardising  high  quality  standards.  They  can 
concentrate on their core business e.g. building/maintenance of infrastructure and traffic 
management, whilst the management of individual customers is kept at arm’s length. For 
open  road  tolling  systems,  EETS  can  drive  up  compliance  and  collection  levels, 
particularly for foreign traffic. Road users can also benefit as they are able to choose their 
contractual  partner  and  the  relationship  can  be  processed  in  the  client’s  national 
language.  They  also  only  require  one  business  relationship  for  any  number  of  toll 
systems. Due to increased competition, service providers have the potential to extend the 
range  of  services  they  offer  which  may  be  favourable  for  the  users,  including  the 
possibility of being charged a more reasonable price.  However, this depends on whether 
the  service  provider  is  able  to  make  the  administration  more  effective,  thus  reducing 
administrative costs and leading to lower costs for the customers. 

When  introducing  a  new  charging  scheme,  existing  OBUs  and  customer  base  of  the 
EETS  providers  can  be  used  by  toll  chargers,  thereby  reducing  the  amount  of  initial 
investment. More generally, EETS could lead to systematically adopted electronic tolling 
infrastructure (which is cheaper to invest and operate than traditional tolling plazas). 

Respondents offered a more diverse range of opinions with regards to enforcement, and 
some  responses  can  be  categorised  into  benefits  and  disadvantages.  Benefits  of  EETS 
with respect to enforcement include reduced (cross border) enforcement effort, reduced 
risks  of  fraud/foreign  defaulters  and  reduced  need  for  enforcement  and  improved 
communication  between  Member  States  to  identify  offenders  and  recover  fines. 
Disadvantages  of  EETS  with 
include  more 
comprehensive  and  complicated  enforcement,  as  competition  between  EETS  providers 
and relatively open standards could lead to multiple system design. 

to  enforcement  notably 

respect 

Some  national  administrations  suggested  that  costs  and  compatibility  issues  would 
arise  from  the  use  of  different  interfaces,  and  operating  and  monitoring  with  multiple 
EETS  partners  would  lead  to  more  technical,  operational  and  legal  burdens  –  and 
therefore higher costs. 

Most  national  administration  respondents  focussed  on  the  benefits  of  greater 
acceptance of tolling by road users due to EETS. They believed that EETS could lead to 
a  shift  in  public  awareness  and  perception,  helping  tolling  to  be  correctly  viewed  as  a 
mainstream payment for a service. 

b) Toll service providers 

The overall message was that while there is a market for interoperable tolling services for 
HDVs, it was difficult to assess its size, but that there was only limited demand for such 
services for LVs. Fees paid to fuel card issuers were generally considered to be very low, 
but it was noted that fuel cards should not be seen to be a distinct means of payment. Toll 
service providers perform many different services to their customers, and to toll chargers, 
but  transport  companies  will  not  be  willing  to  pay  more  for  EETS.  While  a  lack  of 
harmonisation  was  considered  to  constitute  an  obstacle  to  providing  interoperable 
services,  it  was  argued  that  this  should  be  addressed  through  the  harmonisation  of  the 
application of existing standards, rather than through the development of new standards. 

75 

 
 
Regarding demand for services, toll chargers indicated there is a significant demand for 
interoperable  toll  collection  service  from  heavy  goods  vehicles.  There  is  no  clear 
distinction  between  central  and  peripheral  States,  or  between  EU  and  neighbouring 
countries,  as  traffic  flows  (and  therefore  demand)  do  not  always  follow  such  artificial 
divisions.  The  overall  message  is  that  EETS  coverage  should  be  based  on  customer 
demand rather than by any imposed geographical boundaries. 

Toll  system  providers  agree  that  the  lack  of  harmonisation  can  constitute  an  important 
obstacle. However, technical harmonisation is not just a case of developing and applying 
standards;  it  is  also  about  the  way  in  which  the  standards  are  applied,  interpreted  and 
managed in detail. Rather than developing new standards, it would be better to harmonise 
the way in which they are used, with a particular focus on satellite technology. 

From  the  perspective  of  toll  service  providers,  allowing  additional  technologies  in  the 
short-term would create additional obstacles, but  should not  necessarily be ruled out  in 
the  longer-term.  Currently,  with  the  three  technologies  allowed  today,  this  is  still  no 
viable  technical  solution  that  can  be  used  on  all  networks  and  that  is  EETS-compliant. 
Allowing more technologies would require additional rules, bringing more constraints on 
IT interfaces and requiring new OBUs, and so would not speed up the implementation of 
EETS.  

However, all of the technologies allowed by the Directive could now be considered to be 
mature technologies. If a new technology provides added value compared to the currently 
allowed technologies in terms of costs and technical performance, its introduction should 
be allowed after a transition period. 

c) Road users 

The association IRU representing hauliers pointed to the fact that foreign hauliers would 
represent  up  to  36%  of  the  total  road  user  charge  revenues  in  the  EU,  exceed  50%  in 
France,  and  increase  from  25%  to  40%  in  Germany.  This  indicates  that  the  potential 
market size for interoperable HDV tolling services is set to increase, and they consider 
between  a  third  and  a  half  of  the  EU  road  haulage  market  to  be  potential  EETS  users. 
With  almost  all  EU  trucks  being  equipped  with  at  least  three  or  four  on-board  units 
(OBUs) and some with more than a dozen, considerable administrative burdens and costs 
exist for operators. 

For  EETS  to  be  successful,  EETS  providers  should  continue  to  be  required  to  provide 
one single financial guarantee covering the whole EU, however toll chargers must open 
up  existing  contracts  and  not  limit  contracts  to  national  markets,  and  technical 
harmonisation  of  national  e-tolling  systems  must  be  guaranteed.  Provided  that  EU 
interoperability  can  be  achieved,  IRU  expects  it  would  be  welcomed  as  a  minimum  by 
EFTA countries where the EU has agreements covering the road freight transport market 
and with all neighbouring countries operating e-toll systems. 

Another hauliers' association UETR states that theoretically there is a business case for 
EETS, but this has not been clearly developed in the Directive or Decision. They propose 
that a national charging system could be based on a single EU-wide OBU that is installed 
to all trucks during manufacturing, and the Galileo satellite system could be used for this, 
registering tolled kilometres in each Member State. Data processing could then be left to 
the single service providers. They feel that policy makers need to take into consideration 
cost and user friendliness of the chosen system when determining the technology chosen 
for  tolls,  and  therefore  one  single  device  to  register  and  pay  tolls  in  different  Member 

76 

 
 
States  is  the  way  forward  -    economies  of  scale  can  be  realised  and  hardware  costs 
reduced. 

The key  message  from the light  vehicle users (only one respondent  – ADAC)  was that 
there is no need for EETS for light duty vehicle users. As long as the tolling systems in 
place  are  in  accordance  with  EU  law  and  do  not  discriminate  any  Member  States, 
different systems between toll domains aren’t seen as a barrier. The “hassle and costs of 
compliance with the requirement to pay road tolls” cited in the European Commission’s 
‘evaluation  and  fitness  check  roadmap’  are  considered  overstated,  and  the  view  that 
“users would be more ready to  accept to  pay  for using roads if the payment means are 
interoperable at EU level” cannot be supported. 

4)  Restricted  consultation  of  professional  stakeholders  on  issues  related  to  the 
upcoming proposal on the revision of the EETS legislative framework. 

Out of all respondents asked, a strong majority (77%) felt that the requirement for EETS 
providers  to  cover  all  domains  within  24  months  is  a  problem,  while  12%  stated  it 
didn’t  particularly  affect  them  and  11%  didn’t  answer.  Unsurprisingly,  the  only 
respondents  that  felt  the  problem  of  full  EU  coverage  within  24  months  did  not  affect 
them represented toll infrastructure operators/chargers and industry associations. Almost 
half  (45%)  agreed  with  the  solution  to  completely  remove  the  requirement  to  cover  all 
EETS  domains  within  24  months.  21%  felt  that  replacing  the  requirement  with  one  to 
cover  certain  regional  EETS  domains  whilst  allowing  the  coverage  to  be  completed 
through  partnerships  with  other  EETS  providers  would  be  the  best,  whereas  the  least 
preferred solution was to replace the requirement to provide the service in the country of 
registration and all neighbouring countries, where only 5% of respondents agreed. 

Regarding  the  issue  of  unfair  contract  conditions  for  EETS  providers,  the  following 
examples were provided: 

 

 

 

 

 

In Italy, where the national service provider gained an unfair advantage due to the 
technical standards used, as the norm used was too vague to be the sole source of 
knowledge. It took a long time to gain access to the full documentation.  
In  Austria,  the  remuneration  for  service  providers  is  almost  similar  to  those  for 
card  issuers,  whose  ‘only’  role  is  to  commercialise  the  OBU  of  the  national 
service provider. The costs of interoperability (including adaptation of OBU and 
interfaces) are therefore not taken into account. 
In Belgium, the remuneration as a service provider is only slightly higher than the 
issuers  who  are 
one  given  by 
commercialising  their  OBU.  Once  again,  the  benefits  of  having  various  service 
providers is undervalued. 
In  Poland  on the A4, an OBU is  offered by a  toll  service provider, whereas the 
acceptance of additional OBUs has been refused, as the system was not yet ready 
to accept other OBUs. 
Is it not yet defined if and what kind of remuneration will be paid in Germany and 
Belgium. 

the  national  service  provider 

to  card 

The  most  preferred  solution  (26%  of  total  responses)  for  solving  the  problem  of  unfair 
EETS  markets  was to  have  a strict separation  of accounts between the toll charger and 
toll  service  provider.  This  was  followed  by  the  option  defining  in  the  legislation  the 
services  for  which  EETS  providers  should  be  remunerated  by  the  toll  charger  (16%  of 
total responses). The solution that was least supported was strict separation between the 
shareholders of toll chargers and service providers. 

77 

 
A number of examples were provided that increased the set up and/or operational cost of 
schemes, including: 

  That  the  level  of  remuneration  for  GNSS-based  e-tolling  systems  is  not  higher 
than  that  for  DSRC  technology,  so  it  does  not  reflect  the  higher  level  of 
responsibilities and risks that are placed on service providers by GNSS-based e-
tolling systems. 

  The substantial bank guarantees that have to be issued by the service provider to 

each concessionaire, e.g. in France. 

  OBU certification and back-office platform development are costly. 
  The ‘agent model’ limits the opportunity for the EETS provider to offer their own 
services in conjunction with EETS, e.g. fuel and drivers’ expenses made by credit 
card,  VAT  services,  etc.  This  model  also  sometimes  requires  the  toll  service 
providers to obtain a financial institution licence in order to operate. 

  Accreditation  procedures  that  are  specific  to  toll  domains  and  are  often 

unpredictable, can increase costs.     

  The complexity of VAT rules in some countries. 
  Lack of adherence to standards, e.g. on roadside equipment. 
 

In Italy, which uses UNI1 DSRC technology, its many small concessionaries are 
not ready for processing the certification of OBUs from various service providers. 

The most preferred solutions (% of total response) for solving the problem of high costs 
related to electronic tolling and EETS were both extending the standardisation effort by 
developing  more  profiled  standards  and  thus  harmonising  tolling  schemes  to  a  greater 
degree  and  harmonising  the  procedure  of  'accreditation'  of  the  EETS  provider  to  a  toll 
domain.  The  least  supported  solution  was  putting  upon  toll  chargers  additional 
obligations  in  their  relations  with  EETS  providers,  such  as  the  obligation  to  provide 
electronic maps in GNSS -based schemes, or to support the handling of EETS providers 
through a harmonised application profile. 

There  was  strong  agreement  with  regards  to  negative  costs  arising  due  to  a  lack  of 
interoperability,  in  and  particular  emphasis  was  put  on  the  fact  that  the  absence  of 
interoperability  has,  from  the  point  of  view  of  transport  companies,  increased  costs  in 
terms of multiplication of OBUs, invoices, service fees and fines.  

Regarding the problem of cross-border enforcement of tolls, the following statistics and 
information were provided: 

 

 

 

 

In Poland, 38% of identified infringements in relation to toll collection concerned 
foreign-registered vehicles. 

In Portugal, in 2015 25% of toll evasion was by foreign-registered vehicles, with 
78% of these coming from Spain and 62% of these being heavy duty vehicles. 

In Italy, it was considered that in general toll avoidance was intentional, but no 
data on the level of avoidance was provided.   

In France, the proportion of toll evasion by non-domestic vehicles is 40%, which 
increases to 60% for some toll domains that are particularly vulnerable to cross-
border  traffic.  The  proportion  of  foreign-registered  vehicles  has  increased 
recently,  as  a  result  of  legislation  that  has  reduced  the  number  of  toll  evasion 
cases by domestic vehicles by nearly 80%. 

78 

 
 

 

 

In  Sweden, it is  considered that the vast majority of  foreign-registered vehicles 
pay the tolls. 

In  Austria  in  2015,  there  were  108,000  tolling  offences  by  foreign-registered 
vehicles  under  the  HDV  toll,  which  was  89%  of  the  total  number  of  tolling 
offences that year. For the light-duty vignette, 117,000 cases – 63% of the total – 
were attributed to foreign vehicles. 

In  Slovenia,  it  has  been  observed  for  the  vignette  tolling  that  there  are  more 
violations  amongst  foreign-registered  vehicles  than  amongst  locally-registered 
vehicles,  whereas  there  is  no  noticeable  difference  in  toll  evasion  between 
foreign-registered and local HDVs. It is considered that the main reason for not 
paying is an attempt to avoid payment, as a result of expectations of an inability 
to enforce toll recovery across borders. 

Respondents generally agreed that the exchange of information between Member States 
on the identity of toll offenders should be mandated by EU law irrespective of the type of 
toll  or  vehicle, rather than being left to  bilateral agreements. It was also suggested that 
the EU should also negotiate suitable arrangements with neighbouring countries. Various 
respondents agreed that the approach taken by the cross border data exchange relating to 
road safety offences was a good model, or at least a good starting point, for developing a 
system for the enforcement of toll evasion. 

46%  (11  respondents)  felt  that  differing  national  laws  relating  to  the  protection  of 
personal  data  impedes  the  cross-border  enforcements  of  toll  payments.  16%  of 
respondents  did  not  think  this  was  the  case,  17%  could  not  answer  due  to  lack  of 
knowledge, and 21% did not directly answer. 28% (five respondents) agreed that current 
differing  national  data  protection  regimes  give  rise  to  difficulties  in  EETS  providers’ 
system  designs,  whereas  28%  also  believed  this  not  to  be  the  case.  An  additional  22% 
(four  respondents)  could  not  answer  and  another  22%  did  not  directly  answer  but 
provided additional comments. 

Regarding  new  technologies,  ANPR  systems  were  mentioned  by  a  number  of 
respondents  as  having  the  potential  to  be  used  as  a  toll  collection  technology  or  as  an 
additional technology to enforce toll collection. Some argued that EU legislation was not 
necessary at this stage as such systems did not raise interoperability issues in the way that 
electronic  toll  collection  does,  while  others  argued  that  EU  legislation  should  cover 
ANPR in the longer-term. RFID was also seen as a potentially promising technology that 
EU legislation could cover in the longer-term. One respondent said that RFID sticker tag 
technology  would  be  appropriate  for  tolling  light  duty  vehicles,  while  embedded 
electronic technology, such as DSRC, linked to an account that can be managed through 
a smart phone, might also be considered for such vehicles. The same respondent believed 
that  “high-end  technology”,  such  as  GNSS  based  OBUs,  have  the  potential  to  provide 
multiple  benefits  for  heavy  duty  vehicle.  It  was  also  suggested  that  fleet  management 
systems  could  be  used  for  tolling,  while  video  technology  capabilities  were  also 
improving  fast.    Additionally,  a  number  of  respondents  stated  that  the  question  of  a 
dedicated bandwidth for DSRC toll systems needed to be clarified. 

Regarding the differences between heavy duty and light duty vehicles, a strong majority 
(64%)  felt  that  instead  of  removing  light  vehicles  from  the  EETS  scope  altogether, 
having  a  number  of  specific  rules  for  different  vehicle  types  was  the  better  option  to 
solve  the  issues  between  different  vehicles  and  requirements.  The  different  treatments 

79 

 
proposed  for  LDVs  included  there  being  no  requirements  for  a  GNSS  OBU  for  these 
vehicles, and instead allowing ANPR-based systems and RFID. The rules, processes and 
even  timelines  that  would  apply  to  light  duty  vehicles  could  also  be  different  to  those 
applying to HDVs. 

Use of consultation results 

The results of the restricted consultation of professional stakeholders on issues related to 
the  ex-post  evaluation  were  heavily  used  as  a  source  of  information  and  statistics  for 
drafting the ex post evaluation of the EETS legislation. They were widely referred to in 
the evaluation staff working document. 

In a similar manner, the results of the restricted consultation of professional stakeholders 
on  issues  related  to  the  upcoming  proposal  on  the  revision  of  the  EETS  legislative 
framework  was  used  to  feed  the  impact  assessment.  Many  of  the  policy  measures 
included  for  analysis  as  part  of  policy  options  in  the  impact  assessment  directly  reflect 
the  suggestions  made  by  stakeholders  in  this  consultation  activity  and  in  the  position 
papers sent spontaneously to the Commission. Actually, the policy options were drafted 
only  once  the  results  of  the  restricted  stakeholder  consultation  were  available.  The 
contributions to the stakeholder consultation (both open public consultation and the two 
restricted  consultations)  as  well  as  the  spontaneous  positions  of  the  stakeholders  were 
shared with the consultants who worked on the IA support study.  

Finally,  the  results  of  the  open  public  consultation  overwhelmingly  confirmed  the 
Commission's  initial  views  and  approach  to  the  ex  post  analysis  and  to  the  Impact 
Assessment. 

80 

 
 
 
9.3.  Annex 3: Who is affected by the initiative and how 

Type 
stakeholder 

of 

Practical implications 

Toll chargers 

Investment 

The impact  of the preferred policy option on toll chargers will be 
relatively  soft,  in  the  sense  that  very  few  changes  to  the  current 
systems,  requiring  additional  investments,  will  be  asked  for.  The 
main investments will be: 

  The setup of a test environment for new OBUs (anyway, many 

toll chargers already have it in place) 

  Opening  of  interfaces  to  EETS  providers  light  vehicles  by 
systems  which  are  currently  outside  the  scope  of  the  EETS 
legislation (it is  not  expected  to  represent  a  high  cost,  and will 
anyway  be  balanced  by  the  benefits  stemming  from  a  more 
efficient  management  of  customer  relations  and  payments 
services). 

Administrative re-organisation 

Toll chargers which currently apply the "agency model" will need 
to  re-organise  their  invoicing  policy  in  order  to  comply  with  the 
requirement to apply the "reseller model". 

Transparency 

Toll  chargers  will  need  to  become  more  transparent  in  their 
procedures,  in  particular  in  the  accreditation  process  and  in  the 
rebates policy. 

Co-operation 

In  order  to  achieve  the  required  level  of  harmonisation,  toll 
chargers will need to enhance the level of exchange of experience 
and best practices with their partners and competitors. 

Member 
administrations 

States' 

Member  States  often  play  the  role  of  toll  chargers,  in  which  case 
the impacts listed in the previous row also apply. A couple of other 
implications apply to the Member States independently of their role 
as toll chargers, namely: 

Impose and enforce the separation of accounts between toll charger 
and  toll  service  provider  activities:  this  will  be  the  most 
challenging implication of the preferred policy option for Member 
States' administrations. 

Investment 

Member States will need to finance the adaptation of EUCARIS to 
the  exchange  of  data  for  enforcing  tolls;  the  cost  is  however  not 

81 

 
expected to be significant (a couple of thousand euro at most). 

Co-ordination 

The administrations will have to ensure or foster the co-ordination 
of the accreditation procedures to all toll domains on their territory. 
However, in several markets the stakeholders already organise this 
co-ordination themselves. 

Reporting and consultation 

Member States' administrations will need to report on the outcome 
of  tests  with  new  technologies;  they  will  also  have  to  consult  the 
Commission and EETS providers on the criteria for differentiating 
tolls  in  new  tolling  systems  (an  obligation  to  consult  the 
Commission  on  new  HGV  tolling  schemes  already  exists,  so  the 
impact of this new provision will not be excessively heavy for the 
administrations). 

EETS providers 

The  main  implication  for  EETS  providers  will  be  the  need  to 
increase  the  transparency  as  to  their  activities  by  publishing  and 
updating their service expansion strategies. 

Road users  

No specific implications in terms of new obligations or costs. 

Notified Bodies 

Notified  Bodies  will  need  to  increase  their  level  of  activity  in  the 
NB Co-ordination Group to manage the transition period when an 
existing standard is revised. 

82 

 
 
 
 
9.4.  Annex 4: Analytical models used in preparing the Impact Assessment 

9.4.1.  Introduction 

A  model  was  developed  by  Ricardo  and  its  subcontractors  TRT  and  4icom  in  the 
framework of the IA accompanying study. The purpose of the model was to quantify the 
cost and time losses for road users of the lack of interoperability of electronic tolls, and 
the evolution of this cost in time. The model was used to establish the baseline scenario 
and the impacts of the analysed policy option. The main model is Excel-based and was 
developed  ad  hoc  for  the  contract,  but  it  is  fed  with  input  from  TRT's  TRUST 
model. Figure 3 contains a short description of the TRUST model. 

Figure 3: Short description of the TRUST model 

TRUST  (TRansport  eUropean  Simulation  Tool)  is  a  European  scale  transport 
network model developed by TRT and simulating road, rail and maritime transport. It 
covers  the  whole  Europe  and  its  neighbouring  countries  and  it  allows  for  the 
assignment  of  origin-destination  matrices  at  the  NUTS3  level  of  detail  (about  1600 
zones)  for  passenger  and  freight  demand,  based  on  Eurostat  data,  national  statistics 
and ETIS database. TRUST is calibrated to reproduce tonnes-km and passengers-km 
by  country  consistent  to  the  statistics  reported  in  the  Eurostat  Transport  in  Figures 
pocketbook. 
on 
http://www.trt.it/en/tools/trust/. 

information 

available 

TRUST 

Further 

on 

is 

Modelling results have been provided in monetary terms, separately for EU hauliers and 
foreign hauliers (for the latter, less detailed assessment is provided), with disaggregation 
by a number of cost categories, including direct costs (rental / deposit costs, service fees, 
installation costs and driver training costs), indirect costs (administration costs, fines as a 
result  of  lack  of  interoperability)  and  time  losses  (during  installation  /  removal  and 
registration time / time spent at vending machines).  

Inputs  to  the  Excel-based  model  have  been  provided  for  each  of  the  cost  categories 
mentioned above and with respect to two types of OBUs: OBUs of EETS-provider (i.e., 
EETS  OBU  henceforth),  and  OBUs  directly  available  from  toll  chargers  (i.e.,  national 
OBU  henceforth).  The  unit  cost  for  each  type  of  OBU  has  been  estimated  as  a  single 
average  EU-wide  figure  using  weighted  averages  based  on  the  expected  numbers  of 
EETS OBUs, and national OBUs. 

9.4.2.  Modelling – assessment for HGVs 

The  volume  of  HGVs  traffic  between  pairs  of  countries  is  based  on  the  outputs  from 
TRT’s  TRUST  transport  model,  in  combination  with  official  figures  derived  from  the 
Eurostat database. Data obtained were assembled in the form of a matrix covering the EU 
Member States and close neighbours (i.e., EEA, Switzerland, Western Balkans, Belarus, 
Russia  and  Turkey).  The  matrix  represents  the  volumes  of  international  road  freight 
transport (i.e. tonnes) exchanged on a country-country basis69. 

69   The matrix is a 40 by 40 table reflecting all possible Origin-Destination combinations amongst pairs of 

countries. 

83 

 
 
 
                                                 
A ten step methodology (see Figure 4) has been developed to establish the actual number 
of  HGVs  travelling  by  route  and  nationality  on  the  basis  of  crude  data  on  volumes  on 
international road freight transport by HGV nationality and declaring country. 

Figure 4: Overall process for defining the number of HGVs travelling by route and 
nationality – and thereby the number of OBUs needed for the trip. 

Once the number of HGVs travelling by route and nationality is available, it is multiplied 
by  the  number  of  OBUs  needed  on  each  path  and  by  the  average  cost  of  the  type  of 
technology  needed,  taking  into  account  the  assumptions  on  the  share  of  EETS-  and 
national  OBUs,  to  obtain  the  total  cost  of  OBUs  in  each  policy  option.  The  number  of 
OBUs needed on each route is established on the basis of publicly available information 
from  toll  chargers,  information  on  available  interoperable  OBUs,  assumptions  on 
alternative routes possible to link two points and a number of other assumption presented 
in detail in the IA accompanying study.70  

The methodology is further described in the IA accompanying study.71 

9.4.3.  Modelling – assessment for buses 

As  in  the  case  of  the  HGVs,  the  starting  point  for  buses  is  the  output  of  the  TRUST 
transport  model,  which  provides  the  volumes  of  international  passengers  on  a  country-
country  basis.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  data  available  refers  only  to  regular  bus 
services72  and  that  non-scheduled  international  services  (e.g.  tourist  services)  have  not 
been included in this analysis. 

70 Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision of EETS Legislation (Directive 

2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

71 Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision of EETS Legislation (Directive 

2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

72   The  output  of  the  TRUST  transport  model  relies  on  the  extrapolation  of  the  ETISplus  project  (see 
ETISplus  D6  Database  Manual,  Passenger  database  construction,  Annex  Report  D6).  The  ETISplus 
project produced a European matrix of national and international buses transport activity. Limitations 
were  highlighted  regarding  data  collection  as  there  is  no  obligation  for  provision  of  official  statistics 
and there is no common definition of long distance services between countries. The matrix built covers 
regular  bus  services  only.  Other  dedicated  services  (e.g.,  event-related  and  limited  seasonal  services) 
are excluded from data collection. The geographical coverage of the matrix obtained coincides with that 
used for HGVs. 

84 

 
 
 
                                                 
To  obtain  the  theoretical  number  of  buses  (i.e.  𝑇ℎ𝑉𝑖𝑗),  the  number  of  passengers  was 
divided  by  an  average  load  factor  assumed  equal  to  25 𝑝𝑎𝑥/𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒.  Furthermore,  the 
parameters 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑗 were estimated in order to calculate the actual number of buses 
travelling between pairs of countries (i.e. 𝑉𝑖𝑗). 

𝑉𝑖𝑗 =

𝑇ℎ𝑉𝑖𝑗

⁄

𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑗

The  estimation  of  the  yearly  number  of  trips  relied  on  the  matrix  of  the  average  travel 
time  on  a  country-country  basis,  as  produced  by  the  TRUST  transport  model. 
Specifically, two extreme situations have been assumed. On the one hand, if the average 
travel  time  is  less  than  one  day,  the  estimated  yearly  number  of  journeys  is  assumed 
equal  to  140  considering  the  approximate  number  of  operating  working  days;  on  the 
other  hand,  if  the  travel  is  longer  than  three  days,  the  estimated  yearly  number  of 
journeys is equal to 60. Values in between have been assumed through interpolation. 

Unlike for HGVs, there is no need to adjust with respect to the parameter 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑅𝑒𝑡𝐿𝑘𝑖𝑗 
due to the symmetric nature of the matrix of the volume of international passengers, i.e. 
the fact that outbound and return trips have similar load factors. 

The  number  of  OBUs  required  for  travelling  between  each  pair  of  countries  has  been 
estimated following the same method carried out for HGVs. 

Finally,  as  in  the  case  of  the  HGVs,  the  quantification  of  the  impact  of  the  lack  of 
interoperability  of  electronic  tolls  for  road  users  is  calculated  by  multiplying  the 
estimated number of actual buses travelling between a pair of countries, by the number of 
OBUs needed on that path and by the average cost of the type of technology needed. 

9.4.4.  Modelling – assessment for cars 

As  in  the  case  of  the  HDVs,  the  starting  point  for  cars  is  the  output  of  the  TRUST 
transport model, which provides the number of trips per day on a country-country basis. 
The data available is split between two categories of users, namely commuters and non-
commuters.  

To obtain the number of vehicles, the number of users was divided by the corresponding 
load factors. To this end, the average load factor for commuters was assumed (based on 
assumptions used in the TRUST model) to be equal to 1.5 passengers per vehicle and the 
average  load  factor  for  non-commuters  was  assumed  to  be  equal  to  1.9  passengers  per 
vehicle. Based on this, a matrix of theoretical vehicle numbers between country pairs was 
obtained on a country-country basis. 

The two categories of users assumed reflect two possible situations worth considering for 
the  impact  assessment.  On  the  one  hand,  the  commuter  category  represents  users 
travelling more frequently over a short distance, e.g. for business or work purposes and 
between two places close to a border; on the other hand, non-commuters may represent 
the occasional users travelling for leisure or tourism and over a long distance. Based on 
the above, the number of theoretical vehicles was re-estimated to reflect the real need to 
equip a car with an interoperable OBU.  

In the case of commuters, it is more likely that the users will travel on a frequent or daily 
basis  and  as  such  they  are  assumed  to  travel  at  approximately  this  frequency,  i.e.  350 
times per year. For non-commuters, three assumptions were made to refine the frequency 

85 

 
 
of  journeys.  Namely,  non-commuters  have  been  categorised  as  being  either:  (i)  non-
commuters travelling between bordering countries once a week, due to the short distance 
amongst  the  countries;  (ii)  non-commuters  travelling  between  non-bordering  countries 
within a distance of less than 1,500 km and assumed to be travelling once per month; and 
(iii)  non-commuters  travelling  between  other  countries  and  assumed  to  travel  once  per 
year.  

As a result, the actual number of cars was calculated by dividing the theoretical number 
of  cars  per  origin-destination  pair,  by  the  parameter  yeartripsij;  according  to  the 
assumptions  described  above,  the  annual  numbers  of  trips  for  each  of  the  respective 
categories  described  above  are  350  for  commuters  and  i)  52;  ii)  12;  and  iii)  1  for non-
commuters, respectively. 

The  number  of  cars  obtained  above  is  the  potential  of  actual  vehicles  travelling  cross-
border for both commuters and non-commuters. The number of vehicles that need to be 
equipped  with  an  OBU  has  been  obtained  by  estimating  the  incidence  of  vehicles  that 
would adopt an OBU compatible with an interoperable electronic toll collection system, 
for both the commuter and non-commuter categories. Specifically, a penetration rate of 
OBUs amongst international travelers lower than 100% (i.e., the best case scenario) was 
assumed:  a  rate  of  80%  of  penetration  of  OBUs  for  commuters  and  44%    for  non-
commuters was assumed, as a smaller fraction of them are likely to use an interoperable 
OBUs  for  their  infrequent  journeys.  The  penetration  rates  assumed  refer  only  to  cars 
travelling on international journeys. 

Finally, the analysis of passenger car road users has been extended in two ways: firstly to 
estimate the cost of lack of integration of EETS systems with urban congestion charging 
systems,  which  are  not  open  to  EETS  providers;  secondly,  to  assess  the  lack  of 
integration  of  EETS  systems  with  toll  domains  where  vignette  charging  systems  are  in 
place. In  both  cases, car road users have  to independently manage both the registration 
procedures and the payment procedures.  Time losses have  been  estimated to  assess the 
lack  of  interoperability  amongst  the  systems  for  international  car  journeys  through 
domains where congestion charging or vignette charging are in place in 2016. Note that 
this  analysis  is  not  designed  to  be  extended  to  future  years  in  the  baseline  and  purely 
provides a reference figure for the cost of lack of interoperability today. 

9.4.5.  Key  assumptions  used  for  the  modelling  of  the  baseline  and  of  the 

impacts of the different policy options 

9.4.5.1.Assumptions on the cost of HDV OBUs 

The assumptions are based on detailed input provided by road users in the framework of 
interviews and in written contributions sent to the Commission and to the consultants. All 
cost  elements  (direct  costs,  time  losses,  administrative  costs)  were  converted  in  money 
equivalents and averaged (across toll domains and across the info provided by different 
road  users)  to  obtain  single  values  for  EETS-  and  national  OBUs.  Due  to  the  lack  of 
reliable assumptions on future evolution of the prices, these unitary costs are assumed to 
remain stable throughout the analysed period (till 2025). 

Further assumptions were made on the costs of OBUs (lifecycle of the devices, average 
daily pay of a truck driver, average monthly tolls paid, etc.) based on available statistics 

86 

 
and  studies.  These  assumptions  are  presented  in  more  details  in  the  IA  accompanying 
study.73 

9.4.5.2.Assumptions on the costs of LDV OBUs 

Information on costs available from toll chargers' websites has been averaged to obtain a 
single value across the EU. 

9.4.5.3.Assumptions  on  the  evolution  of  interoperability  and  rate  of 

penetration of EETS OBUs in the baseline and in the policy options 

In the baseline, it was assumed that markets which have so far blocked the entrance of 
EETS providers will remain closed in the future, and there is a steady, though relatively 
slow progress in the rate of penetration of EETS OBUs on these markets. The reason for 
this  slow  progress  in  the  use  of  EETS  OBUs  is  that  with  several  crucial  markets 
(including  Germany)  remaining  closed  to  EETS,  the  attractiveness  of  EETS  OBUs  is 
lowered. 

In PO1, it is assumed that interoperability progresses in the toll domains covered by the 
EETS  Facilitation  Platform  (EFP,  ex-REETS),  reflecting  the  impact  of  self-regulation. 
The curves on the uptake of EETS OBUs are flattened  for those Member States where 
strong  incumbent,  vertically  integrated  operators  are  dominating  the  market  today 
(Poland,  Germany,  Slovakia,  Belgium,  Italy).  The  flattening  is  stronger  for  Poland, 
Germany  and  Slovakia,  where,  in  addition  to  the  presence  of  vertically  integrated 
operators,  problems  with  accreditation  of  EETS  providers  are  observed  today.  This 
flattening  reflects  the  limits  in  the  effectiveness  of  self-regulation.  A  small  level  of 
penetration  of  the  EETS  OBUs  is  also  assumed  for  Switzerland,  reflecting  the  strong 
involvement of the country in the works of the EFP and repeated commitment to allow 
foreign registered vehicles (but not Swiss ones) to use EETS OBUs. 

In PO2, steady progress in market opening and penetration of EETS OBUs is assumed on 
all  markets,  excluding  Switzerland  (reflecting  the  fact  that  Switzerland  refuses  to 
transpose the EETS legislation, so the impact of the legislative review will be null on the 
situation in the country). The level of penetration of EETS OBUs varies depending on the 
level of attractiveness of each market for EETS providers (which reflects the intensity of 
their marketing activities) and the intensity of international transport in overall transport 
activity). 

In PO3, the level of penetration of the OBUs is assumed to be similar to that of PO2, but 
the  distinction  between  EETS-  and  national  OBUs  disappears  at  the  2025  horizon 
(because  all  interoperability  constituents,  including  OBUs,  are  entirely  standardised  by 
that date). 

A  more  detailed  description  of  all  the  assumptions  made  is  presented  in  the  IA 
accompanying study.74 

73 Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision of EETS Legislation (Directive 

2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

74 Ricardo et al., Support study for the Impact Assessment for the Revision of EETS Legislation (Directive 

2004/52/EC & Decision 2009/750/EC), not yet published. 

87 

 
                                                 
9.4.6.  Reliability and appropriateness of the model 

Interoperability of electronic tolls is a relatively narrow area of transport policy. For this 
reason, general transport models would be of little use and inappropriate to analyse the 
impacts of changes to this policy. A simply model such as the one developed for this IA 
has  the  advantage  of  remaining  "close  to  reality",  with  clear  links  from  assumptions  to 
the results. 

Of  course,  a  number  of  assumptions  have  been  made  to  feed  the  Excel  model,  each  of 
which can be source of errors in the final evaluation; the assumptions are however based 
on broad consultation of economic actors, complemented with solid expertise in the field 
of tolling present in the study team75 and individually reviewed by the Commission – all 
of these should guarantee a significant level of reliability. 

One of the most crucial assumptions for the model is the number of vehicles travelling on 
each  route  between  different  Member  States.  The  crude  data  behind  this  assumption 
come from a well-known and high-considered network transport model – TRUST – and 
solid  statistical  sources,  including  Eurostat.  The  results  of  the  calculations  in  TRUST 
have been checked against available statistics, and a good level of match with the reality 
was  observed:  for  instance,  the  number  of  trucks  involved  in  cross-border  transport  - 
924,297 – is consistent with the generally accepted estimation of one million trucks, but 
also  with  the  data  on  the  number  of  OBUs  issued  to  foreign  drivers  provided  e.g.  by 
Austria 
consultation 
results 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/eets-revision-2016-summary.pdf).  

Belgium 

public 

(see 

and 

the 

of 

Overall, due to the simplicity of the model, the outputs must be seen as approximate. But 
thanks  to  this  simplicity,  it  can  be  said  with  a  high  level  of  certainly  that  these 
approximate results  correctly  show the trends in the baseline and in  the policy options. 
They  can  therefore  be  used  as  reliable  evidence  to  compare  the  baseline  and  options 
between themselves. 

75  4icom,  one  of  the  main  subcontractors  of  Ricardo  in  this  project,  has  hands  on  experience  with 
counselling  toll  chargers,  system  operators  and  service  providers  in  a  number  of  European  ETC 
markets. 

88 

 
 
                                                 
9.5.  Annex 5: Glossary 

AETIS:  Association  of  electronic  toll  and  interoperable  service  (association  of 
(prospective) EETS providers) 

ANPR:  Automatic  number  plate  recognition;  ANPR-based  systems  use  infrared 
cameras to read the number plates of passing vehicles. 

ASECAP:  European  Association  of  tolled  motorways,  bridges  and  tunnels 
concessionaires 

ASFA: Association of French Motorway Companies 

CEN: Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Standardisation Committee): 

CESARE: Common Electronic Fee Collection System for an ASECAP Road Tolling 
European  Service  -  project  set  up  by  ASECAP  with  the  intention  of  specifying, 
designing, developing, promoting and implementing a common interoperable Electronic 
Fee Collection System (EFC) on European toll roads. 

DSRC:  Dedicated  short  range  communication  -  two-way  short-  to-  medium-range 
wireless  communications  capability  that  permits  very  high  data  transmission  critical  in 
communications-based active safety applications. DSRC is used in electronic tolling for 
remote  communication  between  the  on-board  units  (OBU)  and  the  roadside  equipment 
and/or mobile enforcement devices (e.g. readers installed inside enforcement vehicles) 

EasyGo: interoperability agreement between Norway, Sweden and Denmark. 

EasyGo+: interoperability agreement between Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. 

EETS:  European  Electronic  Toll  Service  –  the  possibility  for  road  users  to  pay  all 
electronic road tolls in the EU with one single OBU, one contract and one invoice. The 
EETS is mandated by Directive 2004/52/EC and defined in Decision 2009/750/EC. 

EETS provider: legal entity which grants access to the EETS to road users. The EETS 
provider equips road users with an OBU interoperable with ETC systems across the EU 
and collects tolls from users in the name of the toll chargers. 

ETC  scheme:  Electronic  Toll  Collection  scheme  –  a  system  for  collecting  tolls  by 
electronic means, either involving the installation of on-board devices inside the vehicles 
(OBU) or not. In the latter case, the system typically involves the automatic reading of 
the number plates of the passing vehicles (ANPR) 

E-call:  EU  initiative  to  bring  rapid  assistance  to  motorists  involved  in  a  collision 
anywhere  in  the  European  Union.  In  case  of  a  crash,  an  e-Call-equipped  car 
automatically  calls  the  nearest  emergency  centre.  E-call  is  mandatory  equipment  in  all 
HGV and will become mandatory in cars as of April 2018. 

ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute 

Fuel card/Fuel card issuer: A fuel card or fleet card is used as a payment card most 
commonly  for  gasoline,  diesel,  and  other  fuels  at  gas  stations.  Fleet  cards  can  also  be 
used to pay for vehicle maintenance and expenses at the discretion of the fleet owner or 
manager; for instance, fuel cards are commonly used to pay tolls. The functioning of the 

89 

 
fuel car is similar to that of a credit card, the difference being that fuel cards can only be 
used to purchase a pre-determined list of articles/services in a predetermined network of 
sales points. 

GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite System: satellite system that is used to pinpoint the 
geographic location of a user's receiver anywhere in the world. 

GPRS:  General  packet  radio  service:  packet  oriented  mobile  data  service  on  the  2G 
and  3G  cellular  communication  system's  global  system  for  mobile  communications 
(GSM).  By  extension,  the  term  GPRS  will  be  used  –  unless  specified  otherwise  –  to 
design its successors under 3G, 4G and 5G. 

GSM  (Global  System  for  Mobile  Communications):  standard  developed  by  the 
European  Telecommunications  Standards  Institute  (ETSI)  to  describe  the  protocols  for 
second-generation  (2G) digital cellular  networks  used  by  mobile  phones.  By  extension, 
the terms GSM will be used – unless specified otherwise – to design its successors (3G, 
4G and 5G) 

HDV:  Heavy  Duty  Vehicles;  the  term  covers  two  categories  of  vehicles:  heavy  goods 
vehicles (HGV), i.e. freight vehicles with a total permissible laden weight exceeding 3.5t, 
and  buses/coaches,  i.e.  vehicles  designed  and  used  for  the  transport  of  more  than  nine 
passengers including the driver. 

HGV: Heavy Goods Vehicle, i.e. freight vehicles with a total permissible laden weight 
exceeding 3.5t. 

Interoperability: the capacity of different equipment and systems to work together. 

Interoperability  constituents:  physical  (e.g.  OBU,  roadside  equipment)  and  non-
physical  (e.g.  back  office)  elements  which  have  an  importance  for  achieving 
interoperability in the field of electronic toll collection. 

IRU: International Road Union 

KPI: Key Performance Indicator 

LDV:  Light  duty  vehicle,  i.e.  passenger  cars,  vans  and  other  light  motorised  vehicles 
(e.g. motorcycles). 

OBU:  on-board  unit  –  a  device  installed  on-board  the  vehicle,  communicating  with 
roadside infrastructure or with a back office to communicate data necessary to calculate 
the toll due. 

RFID:  Radio  Frequency  Identification  –  wireless  use  of  electromagnetic  fields  to 
transfer data, for the purposes of automatically identifying and tracking tags attached to 
objects. Passive RFID tags collect energy from the interrogating radio waves and act as 
a passive transponder. 

REETS:  Regional  European  Electronic  Toll  Service  –  project  co-financed  by  the 
European  Commission  aiming  at  deploying  EETS  compliant  services  in  a  cross-border 
regional  project.  The  Project  shall  cover  the  electronically  toll  network  of  7  Member 
States (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain) and Switzerland. 

90 

 
Single  service  provider:  the  national  provider  of  toll  services  in  the  absence  of  EETS 
providers, designated by the toll charger. The single service provider is often integrated 
with the provider of technical solutions for the operation of the tolling system contracted 
by the toll charger. 

Tachograph: device fitted to a vehicle that automatically records its speed and distance, 
together  with  the  driver's  activity  selected  from  a  choice  of  modes.  With  certain 
exceptions,  all  lorries  >3.5t  and  buses  carrying  >9  people  in  the  EU  must  be  equipped 
with a tachograph. 

Thick OBU: A 'thick' GNSS OBU is an on-board unit which establishes the position of 
the vehicle, compares it with digital maps stored in its memory, on this basis calculates 
the toll due and sends only this information to the back office.  

Thin  OBU:  A  'thin'  OBU  is  an  on-board  unit  which  establishes  the  position  of  the 
vehicle and send the information to the back office. The calculation of the toll due takes 
place there. 

Toll charger/operator: the one who imposes the toll upon the road users. Typically the 
owner or operator of the road; two main categories of toll chargers exist: the State (or a 
State  agency)  on  publically  managed  roads,  and  the  concessionaire  on  conceded 
roads/motorways. 

Toll  domain/EETS  domain:  an  electronic  toll  collection  (ETC)  scheme  covering  a 
specified road network. 

Toll  service  provider:  Provider  of  electronic  toll  service  who  is  not  registered  as  an 
EETS  provider.  Typically  the  services  of  such  a  toll  service  provider  are  limited 
geographically (sometimes even covering one country only). 

91 

 
 
 
 
9.6.  Annex 6: List of provisions relative to the obligations of EETS providers 
active on the market for light vehicles vs. those active on the market for 
heavy vehicles 

EETS Directive, Article 2.2: 

The  European  electronic  toll  service  shall  be  brought  into  service  pursuant  to  Article 
3(1).  Operators  shall  make  available  to  interested  users  on-board  equipment  which  is 
suitable for use with all electronic toll systems in service in the Member States using 
the technologies referred to in paragraph 1 and which is suitable for use in all types of 
vehicle, in accordance with the timetable set out in Article 3(4). This equipment shall at 
least be interoperable and capable of communicating with all the systems operating in 
the  Member  States  using  one  or  more  of  the  technologies  listed  in  paragraph  1.  The 
detailed arrangements in this respect shall be determined by the Committee referred to in 
Article 5(1), including arrangements for the availability of on-board equipment to meet 
the demand of interested users. 

EETS Decision, Recital 2: 

A single contract with one EETS Provider should allow EETS Users to pay their tolls in 
all  EETS  domains  of  the  European  road  network,  in  accordance  with  Article  3(1)  of 
Directive 2004/52/EC by means, among others, of a single on-board equipment (OBE), 
which can be used on all EETS domains. 

EETS Decision, Article 13.2: 

In addition to tolling, the EETS on-board equipment should enable implementation of 
future  other  location-based  services.  The  use  of  EETS  on-board  equipment  for  the 
purpose of other services shall not interfere with toll operations on any toll domain. 

EETS Decision, Annex II point 3: 

As a minimum, standardised roadside interfaces between OBE and Toll Chargers’ fixed 
or mobile equipment shall enable: 

(a)  DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communication) charging transactions; 

(b)  Real-time compliance checking transactions; 

(c)  Localisation augmentation (where applicable). 

EETS Providers must implement all these three interfaces in their OBE. Toll Chargers 
may implement any or all of these interfaces in their fixed or mobile roadside equipment 
according to their requirements. 

92 

 
 
 
9.7.  Annex  7:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  users  for  using  road  toll 

infrastructure 

9.7.1.  HGVs 

Table  24:  Policy  option  1:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  HGV  users  for  using 
road toll infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 1 total 
Net cashflow 
EU 
Non-EU 

EEA 
Western Balkans 
Other countries 

of which EETS OBUs 
of which National OBUs 
Discounted cashflow 

196.0 
196.0 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

183.3 
178.3 
8.0 
6.9 
1.1 
0.5 
0.1 
0.5 
-2.8 
10.7 
6.8 

179.4 
151.4 
28.0 
25.8 
2.2 
0.8 
0.3 
1.0 
-0.4 
28.4 
19.7 

Total 
2016-2025 

1,866.7 
1,747.0 
120.0 
108.3 
11.4 
4.5 
1.2 
5.6 
-13.8 
133.5 
92.5 

Table  25:  Policy  option  2:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  HGV  users  for  using 
road toll infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 2 total 
Net cashflow 
EU 
Non-EU 

EEA 
Western Balkans 
Other countries 

of which EETS OBUs 
of which National OBUs 
Discounted cashflow 

196.0 
196.0 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

186.3 
145.4 
40.9 
38.1 
2.8 
1.0 
0.3 
1.5 
-12.3 
53.2 
35.0 

179.4 
114.0 
65.3 
61.4 
4.0 
1.5 
0.4 
2.1 
-16.4 
81.7 
45.9 

Total 
2016-2025 

1,866.7 
1,486.7 
380.0 
355.5 
24.5 
8.9 
2.7 
12.9 
-104.4 
484.4 
300.9 

93 

 
 
 
Table  26:  Policy  option  3:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  HGV  users  for  using 
road toll infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 3 total 
Net cashflow 
EU 
Non-EU 

EEA 
Western Balkans 
Other countries 

of which EETS OBUs 
of which National OBUs 
Discounted cashflow 

9.7.2.  Buses 

196.0 
196.0 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

186.4 
145.4 
40.9 
38.1 
2.8 
1.0 
0.3 
1.5 
-12.3 
53.2 
35.0 

179.4 
93.2 
86.2 
81.7 
4.5 
1.6 
0.5 
2.4 
-8.6 
94.8 
60.5 

Total 
2016-2025 

1,866.7 
1,424.2 
442.5 
416.5 
26.0 
9.3 
2.9 
13.8 
-81.2 
523.7 
347.3 

Table  27:  Policy  option  1:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  buses  for  using  road 
tolling infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Total 
2016-2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 1 total 
Net cashflow 
EU 
Non-EU 

EEA 
Western Balkans 
Other countries 

of which EETS OBUs 
of which National OBUs 
Discounted cashflow 

2.1 
2.1 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2.0 
1.8 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
-0.0 
0.2 
0.1 

1.9 
1.5 
0.4 
0.3 
0.1 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.4 
0.3 

20.1 
18.3 
1.8 
1.2 
0.6 
0.2 
0.3 
0.1 
-0.0 
1.8 
1.4 

94 

 
 
 
Table  28:  Policy  option  2:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  buses  for  using  road 
tolling infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Total 
2016-2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 2 total 
Net cashflow 
EU 
Non-EU 

EEA 
Western Balkans 
Other countries 

of which EETS OBUs 
of which National OBUs 
Discounted cashflow 

2.1 
2.1 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2.0 
1.5 
0.5 
0.4 
0.1 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
-0.1 
0.6 
0.4 

1.9 
1.1 
0.8 
0.6 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
-0.2 
0.9 
0.6 

20.1 
15.4 
4.7 
3.4 
1.3 
0.4 
0.7 
0.2 
-1.0 
5.7 
3.7 

Table  29:  Policy  option  3:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  to  buses  for  using  road 
tolling infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Total 
2016-2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 3 total 
Net cashflow 
EU 
Non-EU 

EEA 
Western Balkans 
Other countries 

of which EETS OBUs 
of which National OBUs 
Discounted cashflow 

2.1 
2.1 

-    
-    
-    
-    
-    
-    
- 
- 
-    

2.0 
1.5 
0.5 
0.4 
0.1 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
-0.1 
0.6 
0.4 

1.9 
0.9 
1.0 
0.8 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
-0.1 
1.0 
0.7 

20.1 
14.8 
5.3 
3.9 
1.4 
0.5 
0.7 
0.2 
-0.8 
6.1 
4.2 

95 

 
 
 
9.7.3.  Light duty vehicles 

Table  30:  Policy  option  1:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  for  LDV  for  using  road 
tolling infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Total 
2016-2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 1 total 
Net cashflow 
Total commuters 

EU 
Non-EU 

Total Non-commuters 

EU 
Non-EU 

Discounted cashflow 

75.0 
75.0 

-      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      

70.0 
66.8 
2.9 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
2.7 
1.9 
0.8 
2.5 

68.7 
63.2 
5.6 
0.3 
0.2 
0.1 
5.3 
3.7 
1.6 
3.9 

707.7 
677.9 
29.8 
1.7 
1.2 
0.5 
28.1 
19.8 
8.4 
23.5 

Table  31:  Policy  option  2:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  for  LDV  for  using  road 
tolling infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Total 
2016-2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 2 total 
Net cashflow 
Total commuters 

EU 
Non-EU 

Total Non-commuters 

EU 
Non-EU 

Discounted cashflow 

75.0 
75.0 

 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
-      

69.8 
61.5 
8.3 
0.4 
0.3 
0.1 
7.9 
6.0 
1.8 
7.1 

68.7 
53.3 
15.4 
0.7 
0.6 
0.2 
14.7 
11.7 
3.0 
10.8 

707.7 
624.2 
83.5 
4.0 
3.1 
0.9 
79.5 
62.3 
17.2 
65.8 

Table  32:  Policy  option  3:  Flow  of  costs  (€  million/year)  for  LDV  for  using  road 
tolling infrastructure 

Costs by category 

2016 

2020 

2025 

Total 
2016-2025 

Baseline total 
Policy option 3 total 

75.0 
75.0 

96 

69.8 
61.5 

68.7 
57.7 

707.7 
637.1 

 
 
 
Net cashflow 
Total commuters 

EU 
Non-EU 

Total Non-commuters 

EU 
Non-EU 

Discounted cashflow 

 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      
 -      

8.3 
0.4 
0.3 
0.1 
7.9 
6.0 
1.8 
7.1 

11.1 
-0.6 
-0.8 
0.2 
11.7 
8.4 
3.3 
7.8 

70.6 
-0.1 
-1.1 
1.0 
70.6 
52.4 
18.3 
56.2 

97 

 
 
 
 
9.8.  Annex  8:  Evaluation  of  investment  costs  for  toll  chargers  in  Policy 

option 3 

Cost Element 

ETC Lanes 

Free-Flow Tolling Stations 

Qty. 

Unit Cost (EUR) 

Total Cost (EUR) 

25,000 

1,100 

30,000 

100,000 

750,000,000 

110,000,000 

Free-Flow 
Stations 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

Poland 

Slovenia 

400 

300 

300 

100 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

40,050,000 

30,000,000 

30,000,000 

10,000,000 

Enforcement 

460 

300,000 

138,000,000 

Germany 

300 

Belgium 

Slovak Republic 

Hungary 

40 

70 

50 

300,000 

300,000 

300,000 

300,000 

90,000,000 

12,000,000 

21,000,000 

15,000,000 

Back-Office Systems 

40 

2,500,000 

100,000,000 

TOTAL 

1,098,000,000 

98 

 
 
 
 
9.9.  Annex 9: Composition of certification costs for EETS providers 

Figure 5: Composition of certification costs for EETS providers 

99 

 
 
 
 
9.10.  Annex 10: The road initiatives – the 'big picture' 

9.10.1. Introduction 

The  Road  Initiatives,  which  are  all  REFIT  Initiatives,  are  fully  inscribed  in  the  overall 
priorities  of  the  Juncker  Commission  notably  under  the  'A  deeper  and  fairer  Internal 
Market' and the 'Climate and Energy Union'. 

The  Communications  from  the  Commission  on  'Upgrading  the  Single  Market:  more 
opportunities  for  people  and  business'  and  on  'A  Framework  Strategy  for  a  Resilient 
Energy  Union  with  a  Forward-Looking  Climate  Change  Policy'  explicitly  refer  to  the 
Road Initiatives. 

The table below presents the link between the Juncker priorities, the Impact Assessments 
prepared for the Road Initiatives and the related legislative acts. 

Priorities 
A  deeper  and 
fairer  Internal 
Market 

IAs 

Hired vehicles 
Access to the haulage market and to the 
Profession  
time, 
aspects:  Driving/rest 
Social 
working time and  enforcement measures 
(tachograph),  Posting  of  workers  and 
enforcement measures 

Climate 
Energy Union 

and 

Access  to  the  market  of  buses  and 
coaches 
Eurovignette 
European  Electronic  Toll  Service 
(EETS) 

Legislation 

Directive 2006/1 
Regulation  1071/2009  & 
1072/2009  
Regulation  561/2006  and 
Regulation 165/2014  
Directive  96/71,  Directive 
Directive 
2014/67, 
2002/15 
and  Directive 
2006/22  
Regulation 1073/2009 

Directive 1999/62 
Directive 2004/52 
Commission 
2009/750 

decision 

Moreover,  the  transport  strategy  of  the  Commission  as  laid  down  in  the  White  Paper 
"Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  -  Towards  a  competitive  and  resource 
efficient  transport  system"  adopted  on  28  March  2011,  included  references  to  the  road 
initiatives76. 

9.10.2. The EU road transport market 

Road transport is the most prominent mode of transport. In 2014, almost three quarters 
(72%) of all inland freight transport activities in the EU were by road. On the passenger 
side, the relative importance of road as mode of transport is even greater: on land, road 
accounts  for  more  than  90%  of  all  passenger-kilometres:  83%  for  passenger  cars  and 
almost 9% for buses and coaches. 

Almost half of the 10.6 million people employed in the transport and storage sector in the 
EU are active in carrying goods or passengers by road. Road freight transport services for 
hire  and  reward  employs  around  3  million  people,  while  the  road  passenger  transport 

76 More specifically in the Annex under points 6, 11 and 39 

100 

 
 
                                                 
sector  (buses,  coaches  and  taxis)  adds  another  2  million  employed  persons  (a  third  of 
which are taxi drivers). This corresponds to more than 2.2% of total employment in the 
economy  and  does  not  include  own  account  transport  which  in  road  freight  transport 
alone provides employment for 500,000 to 1 million additional people. 

There are about 600,000 companies in the EU whose main business is the provision of 
road  freight  transport  services  for  hire  and  reward.  Every  year,  they  generate  a  total 
turnover  of  roughly  €300  billion,  around  a  third  of  which  is  value  added  by  the  sector 
(the  rest  being  spent  on  goods  and  services  from  other  sectors  of  the  economy).  The 
provision  of  road  freight  transport  services  for  hire  and  reward  is  hence  an  important 
economic sector in its own right, generating almost 1% of GDP. 

In road passenger transport, there are about 50,000 (mostly) bus and coach operators (of 
which  12,000  provide  urban  and  suburban  services,  (some  including  tram  and 
underground)) and around 290,000 taxi companies in the EU. Together, they generate a 
turnover of €110 billion. Without taxis, total turnover of the sector is around €90 billion 
per year, of which some €50 billion is value added. 

9.10.3. Why is there a need for action? 

Road  transport  is  for  a  large  part  international  (around  34%77)  and  this  share  is 
increasing,  which  explains  the  need  for  a  common  EU  legal  framework  to  ensure 
efficient,  fair  and  sustainable  road  transport.  The  framework  covers  the  following 
aspects:   

  Internal  market  rules  governing  access  for  operators  to  the  markets  of  freight  and 

passengers 

  Social rules on driving/rest time and working time to ensure road safety and respect of 

working conditions and fair competition 

  Rules  implementing  the  user  and  polluter  pays  principles  in  the  context  of  road 

charging  

  Digital  technologies  to  enable  interoperable  tolling  services  in  the  EU  and  to 

enforcement EU rules (e.g. the tachograph) 

It is clear that current rules are no longer fit for purpose. Member States are increasingly 
adopting  own  national  rules  to  fight  "social  dumping"  while  acknowledging  that  their 
actions have adverse effects on the internal market. Moreover, public consultations have 
shown  a  strong  support  for  EU  action  to  solve  current  issues  in  road  transport.  For 
example: 

  Severe competition in the road transport sector has led many operators to establish in 
low-wage  countries  without  necessarily  having  any  business  activity  in  these 
countries. There is a lack a clear criteria and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that 
such  establishment  practises  are  genuine,  and  that  there  is  a  level  playing  for 
operators. 

77 Statistical Pocketbook 2016, EU Transport in figures 

101 

 
                                                 
  Measures on Posting of Workers implemented in 4 Member States (DE, FR, AT and 
IT)  are  all  different  and  obviously  from  other  Member  States  which  have  not 
implemented any measure to implement the minimum wage to road transport on their 
territory. Stakeholders ask for a common set of (simplified) enforcement rules.  

  CO2 emissions  from road transport represent  a large share of total emission and the 
share is set to rise in the absence of common action (at EU 28 level), which is needed 
to  contribute  substantially  to  the  commitment  under  the  Paris  Agreement  and  to  the 
2030 goals.  

  Due  to  the increasingly more  and  more  hyper-mobile  nature  of  the  sector,  there  is  a 
need for common and enforceable rules for workers.  All workers should benefit from 
the same level of protection in all Member States to avoid social dumping and unfair 
competition between hauliers. This is currently not the case. 

9.10.4. What are the main problems? 

The  Internal  market  for  road  transport  is  not  complete.  It  is  our  assessment  that  the 
current situation does not allow to exploit the full potential of transport services 

  e.g.  current  rules  on  bus/coach  services  or  the  rules  on  hired  vehicles  are  still  very 
restrictive. Some Member States have decided to unilaterally open their market, which 
has led to a fragmentation of the EU internal market.  

Many rules are unclear, therefore leading to different level of implementation by Member 
States and problems of enforcement: 

  e.g. on cabotage where all stakeholders agree that current rules are unenforceable  

There  are  allegations  of  'social  dumping'  and  unfair  competition  in  the  road  transport 
sector.  This has led to a division between East and West in Europe.  As a consequence, 
several Member States have decided to take national measures, which might jeopardize 
the unity of the EU market for road transport:  

  E.g.  minimum  wage  rules  in  DE,  FR,  IT  and  AT  coupled  with  disproportionate 
administrative  requirements  ;    prohibition  of  drivers  taking  the  weekly  rest  in  the 
cabin of vehicles in FR and BE  

Environmentally, we have made good progress on reducing pollutants from Heavy Good 
Vehicles but our legal framework currently does not address the issue of climate change 
(CO2).  At  the  same  time,  the  infrastructure  quality  is  degrading  in  the  EU  despite  that 
fact that user charges and tolls are levied on most TEN-T and motorways. 

Electronic  tolling  systems  in  the  EU  are,  despite  the  primary  objective  of  the  EU 
legislation  of  "one  contract/one  on-board  unit/one  invoice"  for  the  users,  far  being 
interoperable.    More  generally,  the  benefits  of  digitalisation  are  still  under-exploited  in 
road  transport,  in  particular  to  improve  control  of  EU  legislation  (e.g.  many  Member 
States do not currently the use of electronic waybills).  

9.10.5. Options and main impacts 

To  achieve  these  objectives,  all  IAs  will  consider  a  range  of  different  options,  which 
ultimately should improve the efficiency, fairness and sustainability of road transport. 

102 

 
The IA on Hired Vehicles will assess options aiming at removing outdated restrictions on 
the use of hired goods vehicles and thus at opening up new possibilities for operators and 
leasing/hiring companies alike. More flexibility for the hiring of vehicles should lead to 
more efficient operations, higher productivity and less negative environmental impacts as 
fleet renewal will be promoted. 

The IA on Access to the haulage market and to the Profession will study various options 
to  ensure  effective  and  consistent  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  the  existing  rules  in 
Member States and to ensure coherent interpretation and application of the rules. Three 
broad groups of potential measures will be assessed, namely measures liable to improve 
enforcement,  measures  ensuring  simplification  and  clarification  of  current  rules  and 
measures reinforcing the cooperation between Member States. 

The  IA  on  Access  to  the  market  of  buses  and  coaches  will  assess  options  aiming  at 
improving  the  performance  of  coach  and  bus  services  vis-a-vis  other  transport  modes, 
especially  private  car  and  further  developing  the  internal  market  for  coach  and  bus 
services. This should lead to a reduction of the adverse environmental and climate effects 
connected  with  mobility.  Various  policy  options  will  be  considered  for  creating  more 
uniform business conditions and also a level playing field for access to terminals.  

The  IA  on  Social  aspects  of  road  transport  will  study  options  aiming  at  ensuring  the 
effectiveness of the original system put in place and therefore contributing to the original 
policy objectives, i.e.: (1) to ensure a level playing field for drivers and operators, (2) to 
improve and harmonise working conditions and (3) to improve the road safety level. An 
additional  objective,  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the 
provisions on posting of workers, is to ensure the right balance between the freedom to 
provide cross-border transport services and the protection of the rights of highly mobile 
road  transport  workers.    In  this  perspective,  three  broad  groups  of  measures  will  be 
analysed:  1.  Simplification,  update  and  clarification  of  existing  rules,  2.  More  efficient 
enforcement  and  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  3.  Improved  working 
conditions of drivers and fair competition between operators. 

the  Eurovignette  will  assess  options 

The  IA  on 
to  promote  financially  and 
environmentally  sustainable  and  socially  equitable  (road)  transport  through  wider 
application  of  the  'user  pays'  and  'polluter  pays'  principles.  A  number  of  different 
measures  and  their  variants  aiming  at  correcting  price  signals  in  freight  and  passenger 
transport will be considered in order to address the issues identified. The policy options 
range from minimum adjustments to the Directive required for improving its coherence 
and addressing all policy objectives, through the promotion of low carbon (fuel efficient) 
vehicles and the phasing out of time-based charging schemes (vignettes) for trucks to the 
optimisation of tolls for all vehicles. 

The  IA  on  EETS  (European  Electronic  Tolling  Service)  will  study  options  aiming  at 
reducing the cost and the burden linked to the collection of the electronic tolls in the EU 
– for the users and for the society at large. It will equally seek to improve the framework 
conditions  for  the  faster  and  more  widely  provision  of  an  interoperable  European 
Electronic  Toll  Service.  Different  policy  options  will  be  considered,  including  a  non-
legislative  approach  (facilitating  exchange  of  best  practice,  co-financing  EETS-related 
projects) and a legislative review. 

These  policy  options  and  their  impacts  will  be  presented  and  assessed  in  detail  in  the 
respective IAs. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
9.10.6. Expected synergies of the package 

The  different  initiatives  constitute  a  coherent  set  of  measures  which  will  jointly 
contribute to an efficient, environmentally and socially sustainable road transport sector.  
It  is  expected  that  the  impacts  will  be  more  than  the  addition  of  the  impacts  of  each 
initiative,  meaning  that  the  initiatives  are  complementary.  Some  examples  of  such 
synergies are provided below. 

  Current  restrictions  on  cabotage  are  unclear  and  therefore  lead  to  illegal  cabotage.  
These  illegal  activities  are  closely  linked  with  the  fact  that  transport  operators 
established  in  low-wage  countries  exert  unfair  competition  via  'social  dumping'  and 
not respecting the rights of workers, who often are staying in their trucks abroad for 
longer  periods.  This  illustrates  the  clear  link  connection  between  compliance  of 
internal market rules and social/fair competition aspects of road transport, which are 
all addressed by the road initiatives and which cannot be dealt with separately.   

  When  assessing  the  laws  applying  a  national  minimum  wage  to  road  transport, 
Member States explained the Commission that one of the reasons for adopting these 
national measures is to fight the phenomenon of fake establishments and “letter box” 
companies  in  low-wage  countries.    Tackling  the  issue  of  posting  of  workers  in  road 
transport  goes  therefore  hand  in  hand  with  the  issue  establishment  of  road  hauliers 
transport  operators,  which  again  illustrates  the  link  connection  between  internal 
market and social aspects of road transport. 

  Promoting  interoperability  of  electronic  tolls  systems  will  lead  to  lowering  the 
implementation costs of such systems by Member States.  We can expect that this will 
incentivise Member States to put in place distance-based tolls, which better reflect the 
user  and  polluter  pays  principles  use  of  infrastructure.    This  shows  the  close  link 
between the Eurovignette and EETS initiatives. 

  Seeking  to  improve  the  performance  of  coach  and  bus  services  vis-a-vis  other 
transport  modes  will  inevitably  lead  discussion  on  a level  playing  between  road and 
rail  services.  Current  EU  legislation  provides  that  rail  users  shall  pay  for  the  use  of 
infrastructure,  while  it  is  not  currently  the  case  for  buses  and  coaches  which  are 
outside the scope of the Eurovignette directive. The inclusion of buses and coaches in 
the  Eurovignette  initiative  to  ensure  that  they  pay  a  fair  price  for  using  the  road 
infrastructure  is therefore essential and will ensure endure overall coherence. 

  The initiatives on hired vehicles is in particular related to the initiatives on the access 
to  the  market  and  to  the  profession,  all  having  the  aim  of  establishing  clear  and 
common rules for a well-functioning and efficient Internal Market for road haulage : 
some  of  them  by  ensuring  a  good  functioning  of  the  market  of  transport  services, 
others by ensuring the best use of the fleet of vehicles. 

104 

 
 
 
 
9.11.  Annex 11: Impacts on SMEs 

This annex contains the results of the SME Test as defined in Toolbox 19 to the Better 
Regulation Guidelines.78 

9.11.1. Consultation that captures the SME angle 

The main SME category affected by the initiative being road haulage  companies, many 
consultation questions were designed to inquire in first place about the impact of EETS, 
and  of  the  possible  revision  of  the  EETS  legal  framework,  on  the  costs  and  burden  of 
road hauliers.  

In  the  framework  of  preparation  of  the  IA  support  study,  the  consultants  interviewed 
several hauliers. Organisations representing road transport companies at EU level (IRU, 
UETR) were involved in all public consultation activities and recommended to share the 
questionnaires with their interested members. 

Given  the  relatively  small  size  of  the  market,  it  was  not  judged  appropriate  or 
proportionate to organise any specific consultation actions targeting SMEs such as round 
table  discussions,  focus  group  meetings,  SME  Panels,  etc.  In  addition,  the  highly 
technical  character  of  the  legislation  would  make  it  difficult  for  SMEs  not  directly 
involved in the electronic toll collection market to usefully comment on specific aspects 
of the problem and on the envisaged measures. 

Given the fact that certain EETS providers and toll service providers can be considered 
as  SMEs,  the  Commission  accepted  all  requests  for  meetings  from  them.  Individual 
meetings  were  held  at 
their  request  with  companies  such  as  Axxès,  WAG, 
Tolltickets.com, etc. 

9.11.2. Identification of affected businesses 

The EETS Decision specifies the main categories of actors participating in and affected 
by the EETS: Member States, toll chargers, road users and EETS providers. To this list 
should be added two additional categories, namely the operators of ETC systems ('hybrid 
operators',  both  managing  the  central  system  and  collecting  individual  tolls)  and  non-
EETS-registered toll service providers. 

Member  States  are  not  enterprises,  and  should  therefore  not  be  considered  in  this 
analysis. 

Apart  from  exceptional  situations,  toll  chargers  are  either  public  administrations  (and 
hence not enterprises) or large companies which cannot be considered as SMEs. 

Operators  of  ETC  systems  are  typically  ad  hoc  joint  ventures  of  big  international 
companies  (e.g.  Satellic  being  a  joint  venture  between  T-Systems  and  STRABAG)  or 
subsidiaries of large companies (e.g. Kapsch).  

EETS providers and toll service providers are typically relatively small organisations, 
some of which could be considered as SMEs, despite having a huge turnover (due to their 
very  specific  role  of  collecting  tolls  on  behalf  of  the  toll  charger).  For  this  reason,  the 
Commission paid particular attention to giving these smaller companies an opportunity to 

78 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_19_en.htm.  

105 

 
                                                 
express their views and positions (see section 9.11.1). It must be said however that most 
of the EETS- and toll service providers are in fact subsidiaries of larger (sometimes very 
large)  organisations.  A  few  examples:  Axxès  is  a  subsidiary  of  the  Vinci  group,  while 
Autostrade per l'Italia is the owner of Telepass. Shell and Total belong to oil companies. 
Only a few companies, such as the EETS provider Eurowag, can potentially pretend to 
the calling of SMEs. 

Hence, apart from specific exceptions, the only real SMEs in the picture are commercial 
road users – road hauliers as well as bus and coach operators. Indeed, 97% of them 
are, according to Eurostat data, SMEs. 

9.11.3. Measurement of the impact on SMEs 

It appears from the impact assessment that, under all policy options, foreseen additional 
costs and regulatory burden are borne by the toll chargers (hence large companies), while 
all costs reductions and reduction of regulatory burden benefit road users (hence SMEs). 

More  specifically,  the  net  positive  economic  cumulative  impacts  on  hauliers  (to  a 
predominant extent SMEs) amount to 92.5 € million in PO1, 300.9 € million in PO2 
and 347.3 € million in PO3.  

The nature of the impacts is largely the same for small and big haulage companies. The 
smallest hauliers are however likely to benefit most from the standardisation of forms for 
registering road users to a toll domain, which is reported today as an important source of 
administrative  burden.  Hence,  PO2  is  likely  to  slightly  increase  the  competitiveness  of 
small and micro enterprises compared to larger companies. 

9.11.4. Assessment of alternative options and mitigating measures 

None of the policy options increases the costs and regulatory burden for SMEs. Hence, 
no alternative options or mitigating measures are necessary to be considered. 

106 

 
 
 
9.12.  Annex 12: Electronic toll collection market in the EU 

Figure 6 and Figure 7 present network-wide road charging systems currently in place in 
the EU. Only some of these systems are within the scope of the EETS legislation. Table 
33  lists  the  currently  operational  network  wide  systems  as  well  as  some  of  the  most 
important tolling schemes applying on a single piece of infrastructure (bridge or tunnel). 

Table 33: Electronic toll collection systems in the EU+Norway, by type of scheme 

Type of scheme 

Free-flow GNSS 

Free-flow DSRC 

DSRC with barriers 

Country 

Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia 

Poland*,  Portugal*,  Czech  Republic, 
Austria, UK (Dartford Crossing) 

France,  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal*,  Poland*, 
Croatia,  Greece, 
Ireland,  Norway, 
Denmark (Øresund and Storebælt) 

*In Poland and in Portugal the collection of the toll is free flow on parts of the network, 
DSRC with barriers on other, and manual-only (Poland) still on others. 

According to data from ASECAP79 (which does not include figures for a large part of the 
Polish  and  Portuguese  tolled  network  and  Belgium;  it  includes  figures  for  Russia  and 
Morocco),  a  total  of  €28  billion  are  collected  annually  in  tolls  in  the  EU.  The  total 
number of ETC subscribers reaches 30.5 million. 

There are currently 8 registered EETS providers in the EU. Seven are active and one  – 
AGES – abandoned EETS activities. They are listed in Table 34 below. 

Table 34: List of EETS providers by country of registration 

Member State of registration 

EETS provider 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

Eurowag 

Brobizz 

Axxès, Total, Eurotoll 

AGES, T-Systems 

Telepass 

79 http://asecap.com/members-statistics.html.  

107 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 6: Map of road user charging schemes applicable to HGVs in the EU. 

108 

 
 
Figure 7: Map of road user charging schemes applicable to cars in the EU. 

109