COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-Post Evaluation of 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 of Commission Decision 2009/750/EC of 6 October 2009 on the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service and its technical elements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Accompanying the document Amended 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, national implementing measure, road transport, technical standard, toll, traffic offence, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 193 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-Post Evaluation of 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 of Commission Decision 2009/750/EC of 6 October 2009 on the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service and its technical elements  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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) 190 final} {SWD(2017) 191 final} {SWD(2017) 192 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Directive  2004/52/EC  mandates  the  deployment  of  a  European  Electronic  Toll  Service 
(EETS)  that  would  enable  road  users  to  subscribe  to  a  single  contract  and  use  a  single  on-
board unit (OBU) to pay electronic road tolls EU-wide. To ensure that the various toll systems 
are  technologically  compatible  and  can  thus  be  linked  up  to  this  single  toll  service,  the 
Directive  specifies  the  three  technologies  that  may  be  used  to  collect  tolls  by  electronic 
means. 

Decision  2009/750/EC  further  defines  the  EETS.  It  defines  the  role  of  third-party  ‘EETS 
providers’, and provides for the rights and obligations of all parties involved: the governments 
of EU countries, toll chargers, EETS providers, and road users. 

It was decided in 2015 to evaluate the impact of these two legal acts. The ex-post evaluation 
summarised here therefore analyses whether: 

 

 
 

the  Directive  and  Decision  have  been  effective  and  efficient  in  attaining  their 
objectives; 
it is still appropriate to have EU-level instruments in this area; 
these legal acts are consistent with other EU policies. 

The evaluation covers the whole EU from 2004 to 2014, and significant developments up to 
the end of 2016. It is supported by an external study conducted for the Commission in 20151 
and regular contacts with interested parties, as well as by Commission policy documents and 
other literature. 

Overall, the two legal acts have fallen short of most of their objectives: 

  The costs of electronic tolling (for toll chargers and road users) have fallen very little. 
  There  is  still  no  EETS,  and  very  little  progress  has  been  made  towards 

interoperability. 

  With a few exceptions, OBUs have not been integrated with other devices. 

There  is  little  interoperability  of  electronic  tolls  beyond  national  level.  Only  a  few  limited 
agreements involving more than one EU country have been signed. The main reasons for the 
relatively low level of interoperability between countries are as follows: 

  Many national markets have an uncompetitive structure, with the authorities giving a 

privileged market position to the tolling system’s single operator. 

  EETS  legislation  imposes  hurdles;  in  particular,  EETS  providers  have  to  be  able  to 

 

offer EU-wide services within 24 months. 
It  is  difficult  and  costly  to  achieve  cross-border  interoperability  because  national 
tolling  schemes  apply  the  three  technologies  allowed  under  EETS  legislation  in 
significantly different ways.  

  EETS legislation lacks effective provisions on enforcing tolls on vehicles registered in 

another EU country. 

Although  the  cost  of  tolling  equipment  has  more  or  less  halved  since  2004,  this  has  not 
translated  into  a  significant  fall  in  the  cost  of  electronic  tolling  for  toll  chargers  and  road 
users. In fact, the overall costs and the burden of having to pay tolls have actually increased, 

1   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. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
as  many  new  schemes  now  exist  in  countries  that  previously  had  no  system  of  electronic 
tolling. 

One of the EETS legislation’s aims was to enable OBUs to be integrated with other devices 
inside  vehicles,  especially  digital  tachographs.  Integration  with  tachographs  has  not  proved 
promising.  However,  several  toll  service  providers  offer  integrated  packages  –  for  toll 
collection and fleet management, for instance — with a single OBU. 

EETS legislation  goes too far;  coverage of all vehicle types and all toll domains in  Europe, 
mandatory for all EETS providers, is considered an excessive requirement. It would be more 
efficient  if  EETS  providers  were  free  to  respond  to  their  clients’  requirements,  instead  of 
having to impose a full but costly service on them. 

Potentially, EETS legislation could have considerable EU-added value, as experience shows 
that  voluntary  cooperation  agreements  between  countries  would  not  result  in  substantial 
EETS  coverage  of  the  single  market.  However,  as  noted  above,  EETS  legislation  is  a  very 
long way from reaching this potential. 

The EETS Directive and Decision are inconsistent with one another. Each imposes different 
requirements on the parties responsible for deploying EETS, both individually and as a group. 
The  Directive  assigns  responsibility  to  national  governments  and  toll  chargers,  whereas  the 
Decision assigns it to EETS providers. 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  analysis,  the  ex-post  evaluation  summarised  here  concludes  that 
EETS legislation has met its original objectives to a very limited extent only. 

3