COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/1/EC on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, carriage of goods, intra-EU transport, road transport, vehicle rental

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 196 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/1/EC on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road {COM(2017) 282 final} {SWD(2017) 197 final} {SWD(2017) 198 final} {SWD(2017) 199 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................................... 5 

2.1.  CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................. 5 

2.1.1 

LEGAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 6 

2.1.2 

EVALUATION OF DIRECTIVE 2006/1/EC ................................................................................. 7 

2.2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? .............................................................. 7 

2.3.  WHAT ARE THE MAIN PROBLEM DRIVERS? ........................................................................... 13 

2.4.  WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE PROBLEM, IN WHAT WAYS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT? WHOSE 
BEHAVIOUR WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION? ............................................. 13 

2.5.  WHAT IS THE EU DIMENSION OF THE PROBLEM? .................................................................. 14 

2.6.  HOW WOULD THE PROBLEM EVOLVE, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL? ....................................... 15 

3.  THE RIGHT OF THE EU TO ACT ...................................................................................................... 16 

3.1 

3.2 

LEGAL BASIS ............................................................................................................................. 16 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY AND ADDED VALUE OF EU ACTION ............................................. 16 

4.  OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 17 

4.1 

4.2 

GENERAL POLICY OBJECTIIVE ................................................................................................... 17 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 17 

5.  OPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 18 

5.1 

BASELINE SCENARIO "NO ACTION AT EU LEVEL" .................................................................... 18 

5.1.1 

BASELINE LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT................................................................................ 18 

5.1.2 

BASELINE MARKET DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 19 

5.2 

5.3 

DISCARDED POLICY OPTIONS .................................................................................................... 21 

POLICY OPTIONS ASSESSED ....................................................................................................... 23 

5.3.1 

OPTION 0: ISSUE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 23 

5.3.2 

OPTION 1: TARGETED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS .............................................................. 23 

5.3.3 

OPTION 2: SAME RULES FOR HIRED VEHICLES AS FOR OWNED VEHICLES ............................ 25 

5.4 

ARE SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES TARGETED BY THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS? ...... 25 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS AND WHO WILL BE AFFECTED? ... 26 

6.1 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 26 

6.1.1 

IMPACT ON THE ROAD TRANSPORT MARKET ......................................................................... 26 

6.1.2 

IMPACT ON THE VEHICLE HIRE SECTOR ................................................................................. 29 

6.1.3 

IMPACT ON AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... 30 

6.1.4 

SME IMPACT ......................................................................................................................... 32 

2 

 
 
6.2 

SOCIAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................... 32 

6.2.1 

EMPLOYMENT ....................................................................................................................... 32 

6.2.2  WORKING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 33 

6.2.3 

ROAD SAFETY ........................................................................................................................ 33 

6.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 33 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?................................................................................................. 35 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................................................... 35 

EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................... 35 

COHERENCE WITH OTHER MAINSTREAM EU POLICIES ............................................................. 36 

PROPORTIONALITY AND SUBSIDIARITY .................................................................................... 37 

CONCLUSION: PREFERRED POLICY OPTION ............................................................................... 38 

8.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ............................................. 40 

ANNEX 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 42 

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 42 

ANNEX 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 45 

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .......................................................................................................... 45 

ANNEX 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 52 

WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW .............................................................................. 52 

ANNEX 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 53 

MODELLING APPROACH AS WELL AS TABLES AND GRAPHS SUPPORTING THE ANALYSIS .............. 53 

ANNEX 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 63 

SME TEST ............................................................................................................................................ 63 

ANNEX 6 ............................................................................................................................................... 64 

THE ROAD INITIATIVES - THE 'BIG PICTURE' ................................................................................... 64 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This impact assessment accompanies a legislative proposal that revises Directive 2006/1/EC 
on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (henceforth "the 
Directive").1 The initiative is part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance 
(REFIT)  programme  that  aims  at  making  EU  laws  simpler  and  less  costly.2  It  thus  aims  at 
clarifying  the  legal  framework  for  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  in  the  EU  and  at  reducing  the 
costs of transport operators using such vehicles in the internal market. 

This initiative is also part of a broader set of measures to overhaul the legislative framework 
governing the road transport market in the EU.3 Together with the other initiatives, it aims at 
making  this  legislative  framework  fit  for  the  2020s  (and  beyond)  by  addressing  current 
concerns of stakeholders, removing shortcomings of the existing legislation and simplifying 
the legal provisions with a view to facilitating their implementation and enforcement. 

The  Directive  is  closely  related  to  the  rules  concerning  access  to  the  profession  of  road 
transport operator4 and those  for access to the international road haulage market5. All three 
legal  acts  together  provide  the  legal  framework  in  which  road  hauliers  in  the  EU  operate. 
Hired  goods  vehicles  allow  meeting  one  of  the  conditions  for  stable  establishment  of  a 
transport  operator  (which  is  one  of  the  requirements  for  access  to  the  profession  of  road 
transport operator) and the holder of a Community licence is entitled to a certified copy of the 
licence also for each hired vehicle at its disposal (hired vehicles hence provide access to the 
international  road  haulage  market)  There  are  also  direct  cross-references  between  the  legal 
acts.6  

As the other two legal acts are subject to a parallel REFIT initiative7, a suitable framework 
for the revision of the Directive is being provided. The implementation and enforcement of 
all  three  legal  acts  is  in  most  cases  subject  to  the  same  operation.  Due  to  the  interlinkages 
between  the  legal  acts,  their  respective  revision  in  one  package  of  measures  ensures 
coherence between the rules. Moreover, the adoption of the road initiatives in 2017 provides 
a  window  of  opportunities  to  address  the  shortcomings  of  the  Directive  that  have  been 
identified  in  the  ex-post  evaluation  and  that  are  described  in  more  detail  in  the  following 
chapter. 

1   OJ L 33, 4.2.2006, p. 82. 
2  

It  is  mentioned  as  REFIT  initiative  n°  13  in  Annex  2  to  the  Commission  Work  Programme  2017; 
COM(2016) 710 final of 25.10.2016; https://ec.europa.eu/info/file/35145/download_en?token=1iw9fPpk 

3   An overview of these initiatives and the expected synergies between them is provided in Annex 6. 
4   Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 51. 
5   Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72. 
6   See, for instance, Article 1(5)(d)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. 
7   Cf. initiative n° 10 in Annex 2 to the Commission Work Programme 2017. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. CONTEXT 

The creation of the Single Market has allowed the European economy to prosper and to reap 
the  benefits  of  economic  integration.  It  has  greatly  increased  the  productivity  and 
competitiveness  of  the  European  economy.  However,  the  internal  market  is  still  far  from 
being  completed, in  particular  in  services.  This  is  not  a  "theological" issue:  it is  a  practical 
one  -  there  are  still  too  many  obstacles  and  barriers  which  hamper  businesses  and  which 
burden them with  unnecessary bureaucracy. Upgrading and deepening the Single Market is 
therefore one of the core priorities of the Commission.8  

One area in which the Single Market has not yet been completed is the use of hired vehicles. 
Here, Member States can still restrict the use of hired vehicles in certain market segments and 
under  certain  conditions.  A  'hired  vehicle'  means  "any  vehicle  which,  for  remuneration  and 
for a determined period, is put at the disposal of an undertaking which engages in the carriage 
of goods by road for hire and reward or for its own account on the basis of a contract with the 
undertaking which makes the vehicles available."9  

Vehicle hiring can take a number of forms ranging from (predominantly short-term) "renting" 
to (predominantly long-term) "leasing" (in some cases of which the vehicle in question even 
appears  on  the  balance  sheet  of  the  lessee).10  Goods  vehicles  are  typically  rented  to  meet 
temporary  or  seasonal demand peaks or  to replace defective vehicles. The leasing of goods 
vehicles allows operators to better manage their cash flows as they do not have to pay the full 
purchase price upfront when acquiring a  vehicle. Hiring and leasing of goods vehicles thus 
provides more flexibility to operators and allows them to lower their costs and increase their 
productivity. 

Increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of the road transport sector has been a priority 
of the common transport policy of the European Union for some time. Efficient transport is 
vital  in  making  the  European  economy  as  a  whole  more  competitive.11  It  is  therefore 
important to remove any unnecessary restrictions which prevent transport operators carrying 
goods either on own account or for hire and reward from operating efficiently across the EU. 

According to information provided by the leasing industry and official statistics, almost 10% 
of all goods vehicles in the EU are currently rented or leased (some 3.5 million out of a total 
of  36  million  vehicles  in  2014).  The  share  of  rented  or  leased  vehicles  is  somewhat  higher 
among heavy goods vehicles (those with a maximum mass above 3.5 tonnes): here, roughly 1 
million out of 6 million vehicles (i.e. around 16%) are subject to a renting or leasing contract. 
Among light commercial vehicles (goods vehicles with a maximum mass up to 3.5 tonnes), 
the  share  of  rented  or  leased  vehicles  is  only  half  as  high:  2.5  out  of  30  million  light 
commercial vehicles in the EU (i.e. some 8%) are estimated to be rented or leased.12 

8   See also COM(2015) 550 final of 28.10.2015. 
9   See Article 1 lit (b) of Directive 2006/1/EC. 
10   An overview of various types of renting and leasing is provided in Table 2 below. 
11   See, for instance, WHITE PAPER. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive 

and resource efficient transport system. COM(2011) 144 final of 28.3.2011.  

12   See  also  Ex-post  evaluation  of  Directive  2006/1/EC  on  the  use  of  vehicles  hired  without  drivers  for  the 

carriage of goods. Final report, SWD(2017)xxx. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
The  leasing  industry  estimates  that  the  share  of  rented  or  leased  vehicles  among  newly 
registered  heavy  goods  vehicles  is  at  least  40%.  At  the  beginning  of  their  lifetime,  many 
goods  vehicles  are  subject  to  some  rental  or  leasing  scheme  -  some  of  which  have  been 
defined  precisely  to  promote  the  introduction  of  new  vehicles  and  new  technologies  in  the 
market. After some years, most of them switch into ownership. Restricting the use of hired 
vehicles hence also hinders the market uptake of new vehicles and new technologies. 

2.1.1  LEGAL BACKGROUND 

The legislative framework governing the use of hired goods vehicles in the EU is provided by 
Directive 2006/1/EC, which is a codification of Council Directive 84/647/EEC13 as amended 
by  Council  Directive  90/398/EEC14.  Its  provisions  have  hence  not  been  changed  for  more 
than 25 years. 

The  Directive  applies  to  all  goods  vehicles,  be  they  light  commercial  vehicles  (LCVs; 
maximum  mass up to 3.5 tonnes) or  heavy goods vehicles (HGVs;  >3.5 tonnes), motorised 
(rigid  truck,  road  tractor)  or  non-motorised  (trailer  or  semi-trailer)  and  to  combinations  of 
these (Article 1, lit (a)). It does not apply to passenger vehicles (e.g. buses and coaches).  

It  also  applies  to  all  forms  of  hiring,  from  (predominantly  short-term)  renting  to 
(predominantly  long-term)  leasing,  as  long  as  the  vehicle  is  put  at  the  disposal  of  the 
undertaking hiring it.15 

The  Directive  provides  a  minimum  level  of  liberalisation  as  regards  the  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles for both national and international transport operations. It requires Member States to 
ensure  that  their  undertakings  may  use,  for  the  carriage  of  goods  by  road,  hired  vehicles 
under  the  same  conditions  as  vehicles  owned  by  them  as  long  as  the  hired  vehicles  are 
registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws in their countries. 

This general rule is however subject to some specific conditions which have to be met should 
the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  be  allowed  in  international  transport  operations.  Member 
States cannot forbid the use within their territory, for the purpose of traffic between Member 
States, of vehicles hired by undertakings established on the territory of another Member State 
provided the following four conditions are met: 

1)  the  vehicle  is  registered  or  put  into  circulation  in  compliance  with  the  laws  of  the 

Member State where the undertaking hiring it is established; 

2)  the  contract  relates  solely  to  the  hiring  of  a  vehicle  without  a  driver  and  is  not 
accompanied  by  a  service  contract  concluded  with  the  same  undertaking  covering 
driving or accompanying personnel; 

3)  the hired vehicle is at the sole disposal of the undertaking using it during the period of 

the hire contract; and 

4)  the hired vehicle is driven by personnel of the undertaking using it. 

Proof of compliance  with  these  four  conditions is  to  be provided  by means of a  number of 
documents which have to be on board the vehicle. 

13   OJ L 335, 22.12.1984, p. 72. 
14   OJ L 202, 31.7.1990, p. 46. 
15   See COM(83) 266 final of 18.5.1983, p. 4, available at http://aei.pitt.edu/32381/1/COM_(83)_266_final.pdf  

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  Directive  also  allows  Member  States  to  exempt  own-account  transport  operations  (i.e. 
manufacturers,  trading  companies  etc.  carrying  their  own  goods)  with  vehicles  with  a  total 
permissible laden weight of more than 6 tonnes from the scope of the Directive (Article 3(2) 
of the Directive), i.e. Member States can forbid it, if they wish to do so.  

Member  States  are  free  to  lay  down  less  restrictive  conditions  for  the  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles (Article 4), which underlines the character of the Directive as providing a minimum 
level of liberalisation: Member States cannot forbid the use of hired goods vehicles when the 
conditions set out in the Directive are fulfilled. They may restrict it otherwise, but they don't 
have to. 

2.1.2  EVALUATION OF DIRECTIVE 2006/1/EC 

In 2015, the Commission carried out an ex-post evaluation of Directive 2006/1/EC.16 It was 
supported  by  an  external  contractor that  produced  a  study  to  this  effect.17  The  Commission 
Staff Working Document on the ex-post evaluation18 clearly establishes shortcomings of the 
Directive  both  in  achieving  its  own  objectives  and  in  its  coherence  with  today's  policy 
priorities. These shortcomings are related to the discretion which the Directive gives Member 
States in restricting the use of hired vehicles. 

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

The following problems with the current Directive have been identified in the course of the 
evaluation and in earlier attempts to amend the Directive: 

1. Own account operators in certain Member States cannot use hired goods vehicles and 
take advantage of the benefits associated with their use 

Article 3(2) of the Directive allows Member States to restrict the use of hired goods vehicles 
with  a  maximum  mass  above  6  tonnes  for  own  account  transport  activities.  According  to 
information available to the Commission, four EU Member States currently make use of this 
possibility:  Greece,  Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal.  As  a  consequence,  own  account  operators  in 
these four countries cannot benefit from the increased flexibility and the higher productivity 
associated with the use of hired goods vehicles.  

The  four  Member  States  together  account  for  11.5%  of  total  road  haulage  activity  on  own 
account in the EU. However, at 23%, their combined share in total road haulage activity for 
hire and reward in the EU is twice as high. As restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles 
for  own  account  transport  activities  negatively  influence  the  development  of  the  vehicle 
renting  and  leasing  sector,  they  also  have  a  negative  impact  on  professional  road  haulage 
operators  who  may  not  benefit  from  the  advantages  of  a  fully  developed  and  competitive 
vehicle renting and leasing sector (see also problem 2 below). 

Own-account operators in countries with restrictions regarding the use of hired heavy goods 
vehicles have two options: either they buy a vehicle to transport their own goods or they ask a 
professional haulage operator to carry the goods for hire and reward. Stimulating the demand 

16   Agenda planning 2015/MOVE/111. 
17   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-evaluation-

of-directive-2006-1-ec-final-report.pdf  

18   SWD(2017)xxx 

7 

 
 
                                                            
for professional road haulage operators has traditionally been one of the justifications for the 
restrictions  on  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  for  own  account  operators.19  However,  instead  of 
outsourcing the transport activity to professional road haulage operators, many own account 
operators without access to hired goods vehicles use their own vehicles instead. 

Vehicles owned by own account operators tend to be underutilised. This appears to apply in 
particular  to  own  account  operators  in  Member  States  that  restrict  the  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles: the share of empty runs during own account operations in Greece, Italy, Spain and 
Portugal  is  significantly  above  the  corresponding  share  in  Member  States  without  such 
restrictions.20 

As  hired  vehicles  are  generally  newer,  safer  and  less  polluting  than  the  average  fleet21, 
restricting  their  use  for  own  account  transport  operations  -  which  in  Greece  account  for  no 
less than 55% of total vehicle mileage in road freight transport - also has negative impacts on 
road safety, air quality and the fight against climate change. It is not surprising in this context 
that  Member  States  with  restrictions  on  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  for  own  account 
transport  operations  are  among  those  with  the  highest  share  of  old  and  very  old  vehicles 
being used in road transport.22 

As the four Member States may already now remove all their restrictions related to the use of 
hired  goods  vehicles  by  own  account  operators  and  hence  create  all  the  opportunities 
mentioned  above,  the  question  why  they  don't  do  so  and  how  they  justify  the  restrictions 
needs  to  be  addressed.  Next  to  the  argument  that  it  would  stimulate  the  professional  road 
haulage  sector  (see  above),  another  aspect  that  has  been  brought  to  the  Commission's 
attention  is  that  the  restrictions  would  prevent  an  increase  in  unfair  competition  by  own 
account  operators.  It  is  argued  that  by  being  able  to  hire  vehicles,  their  access  to  vehicles 
would  be  facilitated.  Competition  would  be  unfair  because  own  account  operators  do  not 
have  to  respect  the  same  rules  as  professional  operators  for  hire  and  reward.  The  Italian 
authorities indicated that this was already an issue in their country and they would not want to 
increase it. 

It is however questionable whether these arguments are valid. The Commission has not heard 
from any authority of a Member State which allows the use of hired vehicles for own account 
operations  that  it  would  want  to  restrict  it  again  because  of  too  much  unfair  competition. 
There  seems  therefore  to  be  no  proven  link  between  liberalisation  and  increased  unfair 
competition.  In  fact,  when  own  account  operators  are  "forced"  to  buy  their  own  vehicle 
(because  they  can't  hire  one)  and  that  vehicle  is  then  underutilised,  they  would  have  an 
incentive to engage in unfair competition with professional road hauliers, if only to increase 
the  utilisation  of  the  vehicle and  thus  make  the  purchase  worthwhile.  As  mentioned  above, 
many  own  account  operators  choose  the  option  of  buying  their  own  vehicle  instead  of 
outsourcing the transport activity. It is therefore unclear how the restrictions could stimulate 
the professional road haulage sector. 

19   Cf. Council document 10207/89, p.3. 
20   See Ex-post evaluation of Directive 2006/1/EC; SWD(2017) xxx. 
21   Hired commercial vehicles are on average 4-6 years younger than the overall fleet. See Ex-post evaluation 

of Directive 2006/1/EC; SWD(2017) xxx. 

22   Eurostat data for 2015 suggest that the share of vehicles older than 10 years in total mileage (vehicle-km) is 
highest  in  Greece  (63%),  Cyprus  (39%),  Bulgaria  (38%),  Poland  (34%),  the  Czech  Republic  (30%), 
Portugal (30%) and Spain (26%); EU average: 17%. For Italy, no full vehicle-km data are available. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
2. Vehicle hiring markets in Member States with restrictions remain underdeveloped 

The  evaluation  of  the  Directive  has  revealed  that  the  hired  vehicle  market  is  relatively 
underdeveloped  in  the  four  Member  States  which  impose  restrictions  on  the  use  of  hired 
vehicles  for  own  account  operations.  An  indicator  for  relative  underdevelopment  is  a 
comparison of the share of each Member State in EU GDP with the respective share in total 
turnover in the economic sector "renting and leasing of trucks" (NACE rev. 2 code: N 77.12). 
It shows clearly that in Italy, Greece and Portugal, the share in total EU turnover in the sector 
"renting and leasing of trucks" is significantly smaller than the respective share in EU GDP.  

Figure 1 - Share in EU GDP and in total EU turnover in the economic sector "renting 
and leasing of trucks" in 2014 

Note: No data (on the share in EU turnover of sector N 77.12) available for CZ, EE, IE, ES, LU, MT and NL. 

Source: Eurostat structural business statistics. 

As  Figure  1  above  shows,  the  absence  of  restrictions  on  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  for  own 
account operations in itself appears not to be a sufficient condition for a strong development 
of the sector "renting and leasing of trucks" (as other factors appear to hold back the sector in 
countries  such  as  Romania,  Slovakia  or  Slovenia  where  there  are  no such  restrictions).  But 
the  absence of  restrictions  appears  to  be  a  necessary  condition  for  a  strong  development  of 
the sector as no country with restrictions shows a strong performing truck-renting sector. 

Feedback received from leasing companies suggests that they do not consider entering these 
markets  because  of  the  restrictions.  As  a  consequence,  fewer  companies  are  active  in  the 
vehicle  leasing  business  in  these  Member  States  which  in  turn  reduces  competition  in  the 
sector.  This  leads  to  less  choice  and  higher  prices  for  those  who  are  allowed  to  use  hired 
goods  vehicles.  As  a  result,  the  competitiveness  of  transport  operators  who  provide  road 
haulage  services  for  hire  and  reward  risks  being  compromised  -  quite  the  opposite  of  the 
intention to stimulate the road haulage sector by restricting the use of hired goods vehicles for 

9 

0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%DEUKFRITSEPLBEATDKFIELPTROHUSKHRBGSILTLVCYShare in EU GDP and in EU turnover in "renting and leasing of trucks"  in 2014share in total EU GDPshare in total EU turnover of sectorN 77.12 "renting and leasing of trucks" 
 
 
own account operators. It should be noted in this context that the four countries in question 
together account for almost a quarter (23%) of total road haulage activity for hire and reward 
in the EU and a similar share (24%) in employment in the road haulage sector. 

3. Patchwork of restrictions and uncertainty concerning the use of hired goods vehicles 
in different Member States 

The Commission identified already in 1989 that allowing Member States to restrict the use of 
hired  goods  vehicles  in  certain  market  segments  and  under  certain  conditions  resulted  in 
"unequal application of the Directive" in the 12 Member States of the European Community. 
To  reduce  this  unequal  application  of  the  Directive,  it  proposed  to  delete  some  provisions 
which allowed Member States to impose restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles. 

Experience gathered from stakeholders also suggests that the differing rules related to the use 
of hired goods vehicles in the Member States of the EU is confusing for operators and may 
lead  to  fines  in  other  Member  States  where  the  rules  differ  from  the  ones  known  by  an 
operator  from  his  Member  State  of  establishment.  The  cross-border  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles is guaranteed by the Directive if the vehicle has been hired in the Member State of 
establishment of the undertaking hiring it. However, if the vehicle has been hired in another 
Member State, then Member States may forbid their use for international transport operations 
on  their  territory.  Spain  has  been  reported  in  the  past  to  have  forbidden  the  use  of  hired 
vehicles  if  they  had  not  been  hired  in  the  country  where  the  undertaking  using  them  was 
established. For instance, if an operator from Luxembourg had hired a vehicle in nearby Metz 
(France) and driven to Spain, he would have been fined for using it on Spanish territory.23 

Table  1  -  Summary  of  restrictions  concerning  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  registered  in 
another Member State 
Restriction 

List of Member States 

Number of 
Member States 

Use of vehicles hired in another Member State by national operators 

No restrictions 

Maximum period after which 
registration is required 

National registration of (motor) vehicle 
required (usually within 20 days) 

8 

7 

13 

BG, ES, FR, CY, NL, SI, SK, UK 

AT, PL (1 month), LV, RO (3 months), BE, 
CZ (6 months), SE (12 months) 

DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, HR, IT, LT, LU, HU, 
MT, PT, FI 

Use of vehicles hired in another Member State by operators established in that 
Member State 

Allowed 

28 

(allowed in all MS as provided for in Article 
2(1) of the Directive) 

Use of vehicles hired in a third Member State by operators from another 
Member State 

Allowed (assuming Community licence 
in place) 

18 

BG, DE, EE, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, HU, 
MT, NL, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK 

No information 
Source: Ex-post evaluation of Directive 2006/1/EC - Final report. 

10 

BE, CZ, DK, IE, ES, LV, LU, PL, PT, SK 

23   The current situation in Spain is somewhat unclear: According to information received by the Commission, 
the legal framework appears not to have been changed, while "the infringement" has disappeared from the 
enforcement manual and appears no longer to be enforced. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
The main issue brought up in the public consultation was the patchwork of rules that apply to 
the use of hired goods vehicles in the EU. Two thirds of all respondents (11 out of 17) found 
the unclear implementation of the existing rules concerning the use of hired goods vehicles an 
important  problem.  Three  quarters  (19  out  of  25)  thought  that  the  presence  of  different 
restrictions  across  EU  Member  States  related  to  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  above  6 
tonnes  by  own  account  operators  would  create  a  complicated  legal  framework  that  caused 
uncertainty for firms and transport operators. No fewer than 84% of all respondents (21 out of 
25) thought that the complicated legal framework related to the use of a goods vehicle that 
has been hired in another Member State was causing uncertainty for firms. 

In some Member States, the rules which apply to the use - on their territory - of vehicles hired 
by a national  operator abroad differ from those that  apply  to the use  of vehicles hired by a 
foreign operator outside his country of establishment. In the former case, the rules depend on 
the  period  that  an  operator  may  use  a  vehicle  registered  abroad  before  it  has  to  be  re-
registered in his country of establishment. In the latter case, most Member States appear to 
require the certified copy of a valid Community licence (which is anyway required to be able 
to provide international road haulage services in the EU24).  

4.  Undertakings  active  in  the  vehicle  rental  /  leasing  business  and  transport  operators 
cannot  make  the  most  efficient  use  of  their  fleet  (e.g.  by  moving  vehicles  around  to 
respond to temporary demand peaks) 

Existing  restrictions  concerning  the use  of  vehicles registered  in  another  Member  State can 
also  be  an  obstacle  to  the  flexibility  of  operations  and  the  capacity  to  cope  with  seasonal 
fluctuations, both for vehicle hiring firms and for hauliers.  

For vehicle hiring firms, the main issue is that they cannot use their vehicles registered in one 
Member  State  to  meet  supply  gaps  and  seasonal  demand  in  other  Member  States. 
Establishment  in  another  country  just  to  meet  seasonal  demand  peaks  is  not  always  an 
economically viable option. Yet, even if they were established in several Member States, they 
would  have  to  keep  additional  spare  capacity  in  each  Member  State  in  order  to  be  able  to 
meet  seasonal  variations.  This  point  has  been  made  by  the  leasing  industry  on  several 
occasions, in the public consultation and during the stakeholder interviews.  

An alternative to keeping additional spare capacity would be de-registering the vehicles in the 
Member  State  where  they  happen  to  be  registered  and  re-registering  them  in  the  Member 
State where they are needed. However, this would entail a significant administrative burden 
and costs estimated at around EUR 400 per vehicle.25 Particularly in the context of short-term 
rental  for  a  few  days  or  months,  the  de-registration  and  re-registration  of  vehicles  is  most 
probably not a viable option.  

From  the  point  of  view  of  transport  operators,  the  presence  of  such  restrictions  means  that 
they face limitations  in their options of hiring vehicles from other  Member  States that  may 
better meet their needs or that would cost less to hire abroad than in the Member State where 
they  are  established.  The  representatives  of  haulage  operators  that  responded  to  the  open 
public  consultation  considered  that  the  restrictions  represented  important  limitations  to  the 
flexibility of transport operations and the competitiveness of the sector. 

24   See Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72. 
25   Cf. SWD (2012) 81 final of 4.4.2012, p. 20. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
Right  now,  not  much  cross-border  hiring  activity  has  been  reported  by  the  stakeholders, 
although it would be allowed in some countries up to a certain period of time (e.g. in Belgium 
for  up  to  6  months).  Only  11%  (14  out  of  130)  of  the  respondents  to  the  SME  panel 
questionnaire indicated that they had experience in hiring a goods vehicle abroad. One of the 
reasons given for this low level of cross-border hiring is the legal uncertainty created by the 
patchwork of rules in the EU (see point 3 above). In case there were clear rules on the use of 
vehicles in the internal market which have been hired in another Member State, all 50% of 
the  respondents  who  had  a  clear  view  indicated  they  would  consider  starting  or  increasing 
their use of such vehicles (the other half of respondents said they didn't know).  

In the absence of any clear data, it is very difficult to describe the magnitude of the problem. 
Demand for cross-border hiring is assumed to be short-term only - it would hence not affect 
(predominantly  long-term)  financial  leasing,  but  only  (predominantly  short-term)  vehicle 
renting  and  operational  leasing.  Assuming  that  1%  of  all  hired  vehicles  subject  to  vehicle 
renting  and operational  leasing  contracts  would be  hired in  another  Member  State once  the 
use  of such vehicles in  the internal market was guaranteed by EU legislation (at least  for a 
certain  period  of  time),  this  would  affect  some  18,000  vehicles  today  and  around  32,000 
vehicles  in  2030  (assuming  an  average  annual  growth  rate  of  3.8%,  see  below).  If  these 
vehicles were no longer required to undergo the de-registration and re-registration procedure 
costing EUR 400 per vehicle, it would save the operators some EUR 12.8 million in 2030.  

As  with  problem  1  identified  above,  the  question  comes  up  why  not  all  Member  States  do 
already today allow the use of vehicles which have been hired in another Member State. The 
current Directive would allow any less restrictive rules. However, many Member States fear 
that  by  allowing  the  use  of  a  vehicle  hired  (and  registered)  in  another  Member  State,  they 
would  incentivise  tax  optimisation  through  large-scale  out-flagging  of  the  fleet  of  their 
operators to Member States with lower vehicle taxes. The vehicles would hence be registered 
in  a  lower-tax  Member  State  and  hired  back  by  operators  based  in  the  higher-tax  Member 
State. The fear of losing tax revenues has already been brought up in the discussions in the 
Council of a proposal that intended to liberalise the cross-border hiring market in 1995.26 

In  2012,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  simplifying  the  transfer  of 
motor  vehicles  registered  in  another  Member  State  within  the  Single  Market.27  It  foresees 
among  others  that  the  use  of  a  vehicle  registered  in  another  Member  State  shall  not  be 
restricted  for  up  to  6  months  before  it  has  to  be  registered  in  the  Member  State  where  the 
holder  of  the  registration  certificate  has  moved  his  normal  residence.  The  adoption  of  the 
regulation by the co-legislators is currently on hold.28 

If it was adopted as such by the co-legislators, the use of a vehicle hired in another Member 
State should also be possible for up to 6 months. This would however likely only apply to the 
Member State where the undertaking hiring the vehicle is established. It would not guarantee 
the  use  of  the  hired  vehicle  in  a  third  Member  State.  For  that  reason,  an  amendment  of 
Directive 2006/1/EC may in such an event be even more necessary to provide legal clarity for 
operators aiming to use the hired vehicle across the EU.  

26   COM(95) 2 final of 13.2.1995. 
27   COM(2012) 164 final of 4.4.2012. 
28   The  European  Parliament  adopted  its  first-reading  position  in  July  2013;  the  Council  has  however  not 
adopted a position on it yet - more than 5 years after transmission of the file to the co-legislators. See here:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2012_82. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
2.3. WHAT ARE THE MAIN PROBLEM DRIVERS? 

As  indicated  in  the  problem  tree  (see  Figure  4-1  in  Annex  4),  there  are  three  underlying 
problem drivers:  

Problem driver 1: The use of hired vehicles with a maximum mass above 6 tonnes can be 
restricted for own account operations 

Problem driver 2: The use of goods vehicles that have been hired outside the Member State 
where the undertaking hiring it is established can be restricted. 

Problem  driver  3:  The  rules  related  to  the  use  of  vehicles  hired  in  another  Member  State 
differ from one Member State to another. 

Problem driver 1 directly affects problem n° 1 described above as own account operators in 
Member  States  with  restrictions  cannot  use  hired  goods  vehicles  with  a  maximum  mass 
above 6 tonnes and are thus prevented from benefitting from the advantages associated with 
the use of hired goods vehicles. It also affects problem n° 2 above as restrictions on the use of 
hired  goods  vehicles  for  own  account  operators  reduce  the  potential  market  for  the  vehicle 
hiring/leasing sector. The market reduction thus imposed can be quite significant (up to 55% 
in Greece). Problem driver 1 also directly affects problem n° 3 above, as it allows Member 
States to impose their own restrictions, independent of other Member States. 

Problem driver 2 directly affects problem n° 4 above as Member States are not obliged to 
allow on their territory the use of goods vehicles which either domestic operators have hired 
in another Member State or which foreign operators have hired outside their own country. As 
the  use  of  goods  vehicles  hired  (and  therefore  registered)  in  another  Member  State  can  be 
forbidden,  both  vehicle  hiring/leasing  companies  and  transport  operators  cannot  move  their 
vehicles to where they are most needed. Instead they may have to keep spare vehicles in each 
Member State to cope with additional temporary demand. These vehicles risk not being used 
as efficiently as possible which lowers the productivity of the undertakings concerned. 

Problem  driver  3,  directly  related  to  problem  n°  3  above,  is  not  uncommon  whenever 
Member States are able to adopt their own rules. To the extent that the rules related to the use 
of goods vehicles that have been hired in another Member State (or for professional transport 
operators:  goods  vehicles  hired  in  a  Member  State  other  than  the  one  that  has  issued  the 
Community  licence)  differ  from  one  Member  State  to  another,  operators  are  faced  with  a 
patchwork of rules which creates uncertainty and generates additional compliance costs. 

2.4. WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE PROBLEM, IN WHAT WAYS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT? 
WHOSE BEHAVIOUR WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION? 

The current  restrictions on the use  of hired vehicles have  a direct or  indirect impact on the 
following stakeholders:  

Own account  operators (i.e.  companies coming  from a range of economic sectors that 
carry  their  own  goods  around)  in  the  4  Member  States  with  restrictions  that  have 
no/limited access to a functioning and competitive market of hired goods vehicles and the 
relevant  services  and  which,  as  a  result,  do  not  have  the  flexibility  provided  by  hired 
goods  vehicles  and  hence  may  face  higher  operating  costs  and  a  reduced  capacity  to 
renew their fleet.  

13 

 
 
Road haulage operators for hire and reward are restricted in terms of their capacity to 
use  vehicles  registered  in  another  Member  State.  Furthermore,  to  the  extent  that 
restrictions imposed on the hiring of goods vehicles for own account operations limit the 
overall  development  of  the  hired  vehicles  market,  transport  operators  are  also  affected. 
Since  the  majority  of  road  haulage  enterprises  are  SMEs,  limited  access  to  the  hired 
vehicles  market  may  limit  their  capacity  to  respond  to  demand  fluctuations,  to  improve 
their cash flow and to spread the additional cost of newer technologies over time.  

Furthermore,  hire  and  reward  operators  involved  in  international  transport 
operations  that  make  use  of  hired  vehicles  may  also  be  affected  by  the  presence  of 
different  restrictions  across  the  EU  concerning  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  registered  in 
another Member State. They face a legal patchwork which can create uncertainty and can 
lead to penalties in some Member States.  

Vehicle hiring firms across the EU are restricted in accessing specific national markets. 
They  cannot  access  and  satisfy  existing  or  dormant  demand  and  cannot  make  the  most 
efficient  use  of  their  vehicle  fleet  to  meet  seasonal  variations.  They  also  face  a 
complicated legal framework with different restrictions in each Member State that require 
resources  to  ensure  compliance.  Around  6,500  enterprises  are  active  in  the  renting  and 
leasing  of  trucks  in  the  EU,  the  majority  of  which  are  SMEs  with  only  a  few  large 
multinational  enterprises.  Some  33,000  enterprises  are  active  in  renting  and  leasing  of 
cars and light motor vehicles, part of which (those involved in the leasing of vans) may 
also be affected. 

National  authorities  are  not  particularly  affected  by  the  legislation  in  its  current  form 
since the monitoring and enforcement costs are generally limited across the EU. Loss of 
tax revenues from hired vehicles (acquisition and circulation taxes) was not identified as 
an  important  issue  in  the  ex-post  evaluation,  but  possible  changes  leading  to  increasing 
use of vehicles registered in another Member State may have implications on the level of 
national tax revenues.  

Indirectly,  firms  making  use  of  transport  services  may  also  be  affected  to  the  extent 
that they cannot benefit from reduced costs of transport operations. However, the ex-post 
evaluation did not identify this as an important group affected by the existing restrictions.  

Finally, society in general is potentially affected by worse air quality due to an on average 
older vehicle fleet being used in Member States with restrictions (the fleet of hired goods 
vehicles tends to be newer, greener and cleaner than the overall fleet).  This is likely to be 
marginal in terms of impact on air quality, but is worth acknowledging nonetheless.   

2.5. WHAT IS THE EU DIMENSION OF THE PROBLEM? 

The problems mentioned above are mainly due to the possibility of Member States to adopt 
their  own  rules  and  restrictions  with  regard  to  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  in  specific 
market segments or, for international operations, in case some conditions are not met. 

In  this  context  it  is  important  to  recall  that  the  provision  of  road  transport  services  is  to  a 
significant  extent  a  transnational  business;  one  third  of  all  international  road  haulage 
activities in the EU are international transport activities. 

In  the  absence  of  harmonised  rules  at  EU  level,  operators  active  in  international  road 
transport activities are faced with a patchwork of rules which hampers their ability to operate 

14 

 
 
efficiently  throughout  the  EU  and  makes  their  life  more  difficult  than  it  needs  to  be. 
Providing a harmonised legal framework across the EU would contribute to solving the issues 
identified above. 

2.6. HOW WOULD THE PROBLEM EVOLVE, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL? 

The Directive has  not  been  changed for  more than 25 years. Before it was  last  amended  in 
1990,  5  of  the  12  Member  States  of  the  then  European  Community  applied  minimum  hire 
periods and 6 of them exempted own account  operations from the scope of the Directive.29 
The 1990 amendment (Directive 90/398/EEC) abolished the possibility to impose minimum 
hire periods and limited the exemption of own account transport to the use of vehicles above 
6 tonnes. Of the six Member States which restricted the use of hired goods vehicles for own 
account  purposes  in  1989,  only  two  (Denmark  and  Germany)  have  meanwhile  completely 
abolished  these  restrictions.  The  other  four  (Greece,  Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal)  are  still 
applying their restrictions to vehicles above 6 tonnes.  

In  the  absence  of  an  EU  initiative,  the  rules  governing  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  in  the 
Member  States  of  the  EU  will  likely  not  change  any  time  soon.  Transport  operators  and 
vehicle  renting  and  leasing  firms  would  continue  to  face  diverging  restrictions  across 
Member States. Operators in the four Member States which still restrict the use of vehicles 
above 6 tonnes for own account operators would continue to be restricted in their economic 
freedom and would continue to be faced with a relatively underdeveloped vehicle renting and 
leasing market. Authorities from Italy and Portugal have made clear that they see no need to 
change the rules. 

In relation to the use of goods vehicles that have been hired in another Member State, there is 
again no indication that Member States will introduce changes to existing provisions in the 
absence  of  EU  action.  Possible  changes  may  happen  as  a  result  of  the  proposal  for  a 
"Regulation  simplifying  the  transfer  of  motor  vehicles  registered  in  another  Member  State 
within  the  Single  Market"30  which  foresees  that  "a  Member  State  may  only  require  the 
registration on its territory of a vehicle registered in another Member State if the holder of the 
registration certificate has his normal residence on its territory" and grants a 6-month grace 
period for doing so. It may provide for a similar grace period for the use of a vehicle hired 
abroad, at least in the Member State where the undertaking hiring it is established. However, 
the  proposal  faces  strong  opposition  from  some  Member  States  in  the  Council  and  is 
currently on hold (see also point 4 of section 2.2 above).  

29   See COM(89) 430 final of 13.9.1989, p. 2. 
30   COM(2012) 164 final of 4.4.2012. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.  THE RIGHT OF THE EU TO ACT  

3.1 LEGAL BASIS 

The legal basis for this initiative is Title VI (Transport) of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the  EU  (TFEU),  in  particular  Article  91  TFEU.  It  states,  inter  alia,  that  the  European 
Parliament and the Council shall lay down common rules applicable to international transport 
to  or  from  the  territory  of  a  Member  State,  or  passing  across  the  territory  of  one  or  more 
Member  States,  as  well  as  the  conditions  under  which  non-resident  carriers  may  operate 
transport  services  within  a  Member  State.  In  accordance  with  Article  100  TFEU,  the 
provisions of Title VI apply among others to road transport. 

3.2 ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY AND ADDED VALUE OF EU ACTION

31 

Road transport is increasingly international. The share of international road freight transport 
activity  in  total  road  freight  transport  activity  in  what  is  now  the  EU-28  has  gone  up  from 
around  28%  in  2000  to  almost  36%  in  2014.32  The  EU  can  provide  a  harmonised  legal 
framework  in  the  increasingly  integrated  internal  road  transport  market.  Without  EU 
intervention, Member States  would not  provide the level  playing field  that is  needed in  the 
internal market. The existing patchwork of national rules can only be overcome through EU 
action. A harmonised legal framework will reduce compliance and enforcement costs across 
the EU. As the Directive currently allows Member States to restrict the use of hired vehicles 
under certain conditions, reducing the scope of Member States to impose restrictions on the 
use of hired vehicles requires amending the Directive which can only be done at EU level. 

Although own account operations are mainly national (in terms of tonne-km, only about one 
eighth  of  all  own  account  activities  in  the  EU  are  international)33,  opening  up  the  own 
account market for the use of hired goods vehicles could have effects across economic sectors 
and across borders as more vehicle leasing companies, some from abroad, will be attracted to 
the  new  market,  and  as  national  transport  operators  for  hire  and  reward  will  benefit  from 
more  choice  and  greater  competition  in  the  vehicle  leasing  market.  In  an  integrated  road 
transport market, changes to the framework conditions under which road hauliers operate in 
one market are bound to have an impact on road hauliers in other markets. The creation of a 
level  playing  field  in  the  EU  requires  a  harmonisation  of  the  framework  conditions  across 
Member States. This can only be done at EU level. 

31   The analysis of subsidiarity and the proportionality of different policy options is discussed in more detail in 

section 7.4. 

32   See EU transport in figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2016, Tables 2.2.4b and 2.2.4c; online available under 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2016_en  

33   Source: Eurostat transport statistics.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.  OBJECTIVES  

4.1 GENERAL POLICY OBJECTIIVE 

The  general  objective  (GO)  of  the  revision  of  the  Directive  is  to  support  the  further 
integration  of  -  and  the  creation  of  a  level  playing  field  in  -  the  EU  road  transport 
market  in  line  with  the  political  priority  of  the  Commission  for  the  period  2014-2019  to 
create a fairer and deeper internal market with a strengthened industrial base. This should 
increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the road haulage sector which ultimately will 
translate into a more competitive European economy, more jobs and higher economic growth. 

4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

Specific  objective  1  (SO1):  Ensure  equal  access  to  the  market  for  hired  vehicles  for 
transport operators across the EU 

This specific objective directly addresses problems number 1 and 2 identified in section 1.2. 
Access  to  the  market  for  hired  vehicles  currently  depends  on  the  Member  State  where  the 
transport undertaking is established. For instance, if it wants to carry its own goods in Greece, 
Italy, Spain and Portugal, the undertaking cannot hire a goods vehicle for that purpose. If it is 
established  in  a  small  Member  State,  it  may  not  be  able  to  use  vehicles  hired  in  a 
neighbouring bigger Member State with a much larger market for hired vehicles. 

Specific objective 2 (SO2): Ensure harmonised regulatory framework across the EU 

As long as Member States are free to restrict the use of hired vehicles, and be it only under 
certain  conditions,  the  legislative  framework  differs  from  one  country  to  another  and  thus 
creates  a  patchwork  of  rules.  This  objective  hence  directly  addresses  Problem  No  3.  A 
harmonised  regulatory  framework  puts  all  players  in  the  same  position  and  reduces 
uncertainty among market actors thus also addressing Problem No. 4. 

Specific  objective  3  (SO  3):  Enable  transport  operators  to  perform  their  transport 
activities in the most efficient way possible 

The use of hired vehicles as opposed to the use of vehicles owned by operators can contribute 
to a better allocation of resources as operators do not have to spend their capital on vehicles 
which may then be underused and as hired vehicles tend to have a higher utilisation rate than 
vehicles  owned  by  operators.  In  addition  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  can  lower  costs  of 
operators as hired vehicles are on average younger and better maintained, hence more reliable 
and  more  fuel  efficient.  Hiring  vehicles  -  if  needed  across  borders  -  allows  operators  to 
flexibly  adapt  their  fleet  to  short-term  needs  of  the  market  such  as  temporary  or  seasonal 
demand peaks. This SO aims at addressing all four problems identified in section 1.2. 

Specific  objective  4  (SO4):  Reduce  the  negative  externalities  of  road  transport  from 
heavy goods vehicles 

Road  transport  generates  a  number  of  negative  effects  both  on  society  (e.g.  accidents, 
fatalities)  and  the  environment  (e.g.  air  pollution,  GHG  emissions)  which  the  EU  wants  to 
reduce:  it  has  adopted  numerous  legislative  acts  to  make  road  vehicles  cleaner  and  safer.34 
Promoting  the  use  of  the  cleanest  and  safest  vehicles  can  contribute  to  achieving  this 
objective.  It  also  supports  the  objectives  of  the  Energy  Union,  in  particular  the  European 
strategy for low-emission mobility.35  

34   See COM(2010) 389 final of 20.7.2010. 
35   COM(2016) 501 final of 20.7.2016. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
5.  OPTIONS  

This  section  addresses  the  possible  options  for  meeting  the  objectives  defined  in  section  3 
above  and  tackling  the  problems  identified  in  section  1.  Based  on  a  study  carried  out  by 
external  consultants  as  well  as  on  the  stakeholder  consultation,  the  Commission  first 
identified  a list of policy  measures which have the potential to  address  the problem drivers 
described above. In the course of the impact assessment process, the Commission refined this 
analysis and has looked into different forms of intervention by considering which issues have 
a potential of being solved either through soft law measures or through hard law measures. 
As a consequence, a couple of options were discarded (see section 5.2). 

5.1 BASELINE SCENARIO "NO ACTION AT EU LEVEL" 

This option does not entail any action at EU level. This option would hence imply no costs or 
other  impacts  to  be  assessed.  However,  it  would  not  address  the  problems  identified  above 
unless  they  would  disappear  by  themselves.  This  is  not  expected  to  happen  for  the  reasons 
given. Nevertheless, to understand the impact of the other policy options, which are assessed 
against the baseline, it is important to look at what the situation would be like if nothing was 
done. 

5.1.1  BASELINE LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT 

By definition, the baseline assumes that Directive 2006/1/EC will remain unchanged. Other 
legislative  acts  which  may  have  an  impact  on  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  such  as  the  three 
Regulations forming the 2009 road package36 may be changed but the provisions related to 
hired  vehicles  or  making  explicit  reference  to  Directive  2006/1/EC  are  expected  not  to  be 
touched. Among others, these provisions make sure that hired vehicles are treated in the same 
way as vehicles owned by operators when it comes to complying with one of the conditions 
for stable and effective establishment as a transport operator37 and regarding the issuance of 
certified copies of the Community licence in both road freight and road passenger transport.38  

The baseline  also assumes  that  the Proposal for  a Regulation on simplifying the transfer  of 
motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market39 is withdrawn 
and  the  current  fragmented  legislation  at  national  level  persists.  The  proposed  Regulation 
aims at removing the obligation of re-registration of vehicles for a period of up to 6 months 
when the holder of the registration certificate moves his normal residence to another Member 
State. It could have implications in a situation where an operator hires a vehicle for up to 6 
months in another Member State. Given the lack of progress in the Council,40 it is unlikely 
that the proposal will ever be adopted. 

In the (unlikely) event that the Regulation was adopted by the co-legislators, Member States 
would have to allow the use of vehicles registered abroad for up to 6 months. This would then 
contradict with the provisions of the Directive which allows Member States to restrict the use 
of vehicles that have not been hired in the Member State where the undertaking hiring it is 
established. In other words, it would make an amendment of the Directive even more urgent. 

36   Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EC) No 1073/2009; OJ L 300, 14.11.2009. 
37   Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009. 
38   Article  4  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1072/2009  (freight  transport)  and  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 

1073/2009 (passenger transport). 
39   COM(2012) 164 final of 4.4.2012. 
40   More than 5 years after the proposal has been submitted to the two co-legislators, the Council still has not 

adopted a position on it; see also here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2012_82 

18 

 
 
                                                            
5.1.2  BASELINE MARKET DEVELOPMENT  

This  section  looks  at  the  expected  evolution  of  the  market  for  hired  vehicles  until  2030 
without changes to the Directive. When developing the baseline, it is important that all types 
of vehicles potentially affected by changes to the Directive are covered. The Directive applies 
to  "motor  vehicle[s],  trailer[s],  semi-trailer[s],  or  combination[s]  of  vehicles  intended 
exclusively for the carriage of goods". As the Directive does not specify a weight limit, all 
goods vehicles are covered, be they light (light commercial vehicles, vans, with a maximum 
mass  up  to  3.5  tonnes)  or  heavy  (heavy  goods  vehicles  with  a  maximum  mass  above  3.5 
tonnes),  motorised  (rigid  trucks  and  road  tractors)  or  non-motorised  (trailers  and  semi-
trailers).  Trailers  and  semi-trailers  can  already  be  freely  hired  and  used  all  across  the  EU 
without  restrictions  (facilitated  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1072/2009),  so  there  is  no  need  to 
include them in the baseline. 

There is a variety of vehicle renting and leasing forms (see Table 2 below). While they are all 
covered by the Directive, not all of them are relevant for the baseline as some are not affected 
by  the  proposed  changes  to  the  Directive.  As  financial  leasing  is  exempted  from  the 
restrictions on own account transport in all four Member States with such restrictions41 and as 
it  is  long-term  (>1  year),  it  will  not  be  affected  by  Options  1a  (which  abolishes  the 
restrictions for own-account operations), 1b (which allows the use by an operator from one 
Member of a vehicle hired in another Member State for 3-4 months) and 1c (which combines 
both 1a and 1b). It is not relevant for Option 2 either. By contrast, vehicles subject to renting 
and operating leasing are clearly relevant for the development of the baseline.  

Table  2:  Typology  of  typical  leasing  and  rental  contract  types  and  whether  they  are 
affected by the proposed changed to the Directive 
Type of truck 
lease/rental 

Vehicle 
insurance 

Purchase 
option? 

Contract 
term 

Vehicle on 
lessee's 
balance 
sheet? 

Vehicle 
registra-
tion 

Pre-
mature 
termi-
nation? 

Affected by 
proposed 
changes in 
Directive? 

Financial 
leasing 

Financial 
leasing with 
services 

Rental with 
BuyBack 
without services 

Rental with 
services 

Full service 
operating 
leasing 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Pool rental (all 
inclusive*, no 
split) 
Note: * excluding driver and fuel. 

1 day -   
36 months 

Source: Ricardo (2017). 

41   Ricardo (2017). 

No 

No 

Option 

Yes 

Option 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Option 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Option 

Yes 

Option 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Standard 

No 

Yes 

Transport 
operator 

Transport 
operator 

Transport 
operator 

Transport 
operator 

Transport 
operator 

Supplier / 
rental 
company 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The base year estimate for the number of hired commercial vehicles in renting and operating 
leasing has been derived using vehicle stock data from Eurostat and national statistical offices 
(available  for  all  Member  States),  data  on  the  stock  of  leased  vehicles  from  a  selection  of 
Member States provided by Leaseurope42 and an extrapolation to the Member States where 
no information on the leased vehicle stock was available. This extrapolation was based on the 
share of leased vehicles in the total vehicle stock. As this share is higher in mature markets 
than  in  developing  markets,  the  28  EU  Member  States  were  divided  in  11  mature  markets 
(BE, DK, DE, FR, IT, LU, NL, AT, FI, SE and UK) and in 17 developing markets (BG, CY, 
CZ, EE, IE, EL, ES, HR, LV, LT,HU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI and SK). As a rule, Western and 
Northern  European  markets  are  considered  to  be  mature,  while  Southern  and  Eastern 
European  markets  still  have  some  significant  growth  potential.43  The  result  of  this  exercise 
for the whole EU is given in Table 3 below.44  

Table 3 - Amount of hired (i.e. both rented and leased) goods vehicles in the EU-28 in 
2014 
Type of vehicle 

Total stock of 
goods vehicles 
in EU-28 

Of which 
total hiring 
(i.e. renting 
& leasing) 

Share 
in total 
stock 
(%) 

Of which 
renting and 
operating 
leasing 

Share 
in total 
hiring 
(%) 

Share 
in total 
stock 
(%) 

Light  commercial  vehicles 
(LCVs) (<3.5 tonnes) 

29.8 million 

2.5 million 

8.4% 

1.42 million 

56.7% 

4.7% 

Heavy 
(HGVs) (>3.5 tonnes) 

goods 

vehicles 

6.1 million 

1.0 million 

15.6% 

0.33 million 

34.8% 

5.4% 

Total 
Source: Leaseurope, Eurostat, national statistical offices. 

35.9 million 

3.5 million 

9.6% 

1.75 million 

50.7% 

4.9% 

Data on overall commercial vehicle leasing (including all types of leasing and renting) in 17 
EU Member States and Switzerland, provided by Leaseurope suggest that the number of new 
leasing  contracts  has  grown  at  an  average  annual  rate  of  3.8%  between  2010  and  2015, 
following a steep fall by around a quarter between 2008 and 2009 in the wake of the financial 
crisis.  Although they could  not  be cross-checked by information  from independent sources, 
the Leaseurope data for the years 2010 to 2015 are assumed to be reliable. In the absence of 
any more comprehensive data and estimates, it is assumed that the  various types of leasing 
and renting have grown at the same robust rate since 2010 and will continue to do so in the 
future.45  

The assumed annual average growth rate of 3.8% will lead to an overall increase in the hired 
vehicle market by 75% until 2030. With the size of the vehicle hiring market growing, more 
players are expected to enter the market which should increase competition and keep hiring 
rates in check. This in turn should strengthen the growth potential of the market. While 3.8% 
is assumed to be the average growth rate across the EU, the growth rate has been assumed to 
be lower in the 'mature markets' and higher in the 'developing markets'.46 Developing markets 

42   Leaseurope is the European Federation of Leasing Company Associations (http://www.leaseurope.org/) 
43   An  important  exception  to  the  rule  is  Italy:  It  is  a  Southern  European  Member  State  with  a  clearly 
underdeveloped truck renting and operating leasing market (see Figure 1 above). However, for the purpose 
of this exercise, it had to be listed among the "mature markets" as the share of hired and leased vehicles in 
Italy is already somewhat above those in developing markets. 

44   Data for individual Member States are given in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 in Annex 4. 
45   Cf. Ricardo (2017). 
46   The assumption is based on feedback from the leasing industry. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
have  been  divided  once  more  into  slow-growing  markets  (CY,  EL,  ES  and  PT)  and  fast-
growing markets (the other developing markets identified above). This distinction is relevant 
for  the  calculation  of  the  assumed  development  trajectories  for  the  different  market  types. 
Fast-growing markets are expected to converge with mature markets more quickly than slow-
growing markets.47 

Figure 2: Market growth trajectories 

100%

LCVs 

l

a
i
t
n
e
t
o
p
t
e
k
r
a
m

l
l

a
r
e
v
o
f
o
e
r
a
h
S

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

HGVs 

Mature
market
trajectory

Fast growing
market
trajectory

Slow growing
market
trajectory

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
years 

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
years 

Note: In most cases, 2016 is assumed to be year 1; by 2030 year 15 is reached. 

Source: Ricardo (2017).  

As  a  result,  under  the  assumed  growth  trajectories,  the  EU28  average  share  of  light 
commercial vehicles held under rental / operating leasing contracts increases from some 5% 
in 2016 to around 8% in 2030. For heavy goods vehicles, the EU28 average share of vehicles 
under rental / operating leasing contracts increases from close to 6% in 2016 to about 9% in 
2030. This means that the stock of light commercial vehicles under rental / operating leasing 
contracts will increase from some 1.5 million in 2016 to 2.6 million in 2030 while the stock 
of heavy goods vehicles under rental / operating leasing contracts is expected to grow from 
some 370,000 in 2016 to around 600,000 by 2030.48 

5.2 DISCARDED POLICY OPTIONS 

Extension of the scope of the Directive to the use of vehicles hired with drivers 

The extension of the scope of the Directive to the use of vehicles hired with drivers has been 
suggested  by  some  Member  States  in  the  discussions  in  the  Council  in  1995  on  the 
Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for 
the carriage of goods by road (COM(95) 2 final).49 This option has been discarded as it would 

47   Cf. Ricardo (2017). 
48   Please note that the figures given here for 2016 are slightly higher than those given in Table 3 above as the 

latter refer to 2014 and the market has slightly grown since. 

49   See Council document 6354/95. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
go beyond what is necessary to address the problems and to achieve the objectives identified 
above. Moreover, it would not be politically feasible in the current economic climate. 

There are risks that the liberalisation of the use of vehicles hired with a driver could in certain 
cases open the way to circumvent the social legislation related to road transport workers in a 
Member  State.  The  extension  would  introduce  a  legally  complex  activity.  Outsourcing  the 
transport  activity  to  a  professional  transport  operator  for  hire  and  reward  would  be  a  less 
complex alternative. 

Complete liberalisation of the use of hired vehicles 

A complete liberalisation of the use of hired vehicles in the sense of allowing their use for all 
forms  of  carriage  of  goods  (and  passengers)  by  road  at  all  times  and  everywhere  in  the 
internal market, without any restrictions related to the place of registration or the time period 
for  renting  would  require  over-riding  all  Member  State  legislation  on  vehicle  registration 
rules. It would be a disproportionate measure as it would go beyond what is needed to solve 
the problems and to achieve the objectives identified above. Moreover, it would be politically 
unfeasible as Member States would fear losing revenues from vehicle taxation. 

Extension of the scope of the Directive to the use of hired buses and coaches 

The idea of providing similar rules as those that exist for the use of hired goods vehicles to 
the use of hired buses and coaches goes back to the Commission's 1992 White Paper.50 It was 
taken up by the Commission in the amended proposal for a Council Directive on the use of 
vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road in 199651 where it said in a 
recital that it would envisage "submitting a proposal for liberalizing the use of vehicles hired 
without drivers for the transport of passengers in other Member States". 

However, no such proposal has been submitted to this day. When the initiative was launched 
to amend the Directive in 2016, the extension of the scope of the Directive to the use of hired 
buses  and  coaches  was  originally  considered  as  one  conceivable  policy  option.  The 
consultation  of  stakeholders,  of  the  public  and  of  the  SME  panel,  however,  concluded  that 
neither appeared there to be a problem (the sector was managing quite well without EU rules) 
nor was there a market for the hiring of buses and coaches without drivers. Whenever bus and 
coach operators are in need of additional buses and coaches, they usually subcontract to other 
bus and coach operators. Also in case of a breakdown of a vehicle abroad, operators usually 
contact  partner  companies  and  ask  them  to  help  out  (usually  hiring  both  coach  and  driver) 
until a replacement vehicle is available.52 It has therefore been decided to discard this option. 

In view of the recent and expected growth in the international transport of passengers by bus 
and  coach  in  the  wake  of  the  recent  liberalisation  of  the  long-distance  coach  market  in 
Germany and France and of the upcoming initiative of the Commission that foresees among 
others  the  EU-wide  opening  of  long-distance  coach  services53,  it  may  be  appropriate  to 
monitor the evolution of the market for hired buses and coaches in the coming years. 

50   The  future  development  of  the  common  transport  policy.  A  global  approach  to  the  construction  of  a 

Community framework for sustainable mobility; COM(92) 494 final of 2.12.92. 

51   COM(96) 115 final of 25.03.1996. 
52   For more information on the outcome of the public consultation and of the consultation of the SME panel 

on this issue, see Annex 2 (towards the end of "Results of consultation activities"). 

53   Cf. initiative n° 9 in Annex 2 to the Commission Work Programme 2017 

22 

 
 
 
                                                            
5.3 POLICY OPTIONS ASSESSED 

The  following  policy  options  have  been  retained  for  analysis;  their  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts will be discussed in detail in chapter 6. 

5.3.1  OPTION 0: ISSUE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

This  non-regulatory  option  foresees  the  issuance  of  recommendations  and  guidelines  to 
clarify  the  application  of  the  Directive  and  to  promote  a  common  approach  in  terms  of  the 
restrictions  applied  at  national  level  concerning  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  for  own 
account operations and of those registered in another Member State. 

5.3.2  OPTION 1: TARGETED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS  

This  option  foresees  specific  surgical  changes  to  the  existing  Directive  with  a  view  to 
reducing  the  scope  for  Member  States  to  restrict  the  use  of  hired  vehicles.  There  are  three 
sub-options:  

Option 1a: Allowing the use of hired goods vehicles for own account operators throughout 
the  EU;  this  way,  own  account  operators  in  the  countries  which  currently  still  impose 
restrictions  would  be  able  to  benefit  from  the  advantages  associated  with  the  use  of  hired 
vehicles. Problems n° 1 and n° 2 identified above would be addressed; 

Option 1b: Allowing the use of goods vehicles which an operator established in one Member 
State has hired in another Member State for a certain period of time (3-4 months) e.g. to meet 
temporary or seasonal demand peaks. This option would help addressing problems n°3 and n° 
4  identified  above.  For  a  certain  period  of  time  (3-4  months),  the  use  of  vehicles  hired  in 
another  Member  State  would  no  longer  be  subject  to  a  patchwork  of  restrictions  in  the  EU 
and  firms  could  move  their  fleets  across  borders  to  meet  short-term  and  seasonal  demand 
peaks, thus increasing the flexibility and productivity of their operations. 

The period "3-4 months" has been chosen as it would allow meeting most of the temporary or 
seasonal  demand  peaks  and  if  needed  also  the  replacement  of  defective  vehicles.  It  would 
hence  provide  sufficient  flexibility  to  operators  while  at  the  same  time  enabling  Member 
States to still have some control over the fleet which their operators use. It should be borne in 
mind in this context that the open public consultation was inconclusive on the question of the 
optimum duration of temporarily allowing the use of vehicles registered in another Member 
State.  Moreover,  national  legislation  does  not  indicate  a  common  duration  either.  It  is 
understood  that  while  Member  States  have  to  allow  the  use  of  vehicles  hired  abroad  under 
this  Option  for  at  least  3-4  months,  they  may  impose  a  maximum  hiring  period,  as  long  as 
that  period  is  not  shorter  than  the  minimum  hiring  period  of  3-4  months  foreseen  in  the 
amended Directive.  

It is assumed that the rules in the Member State where the operator is established regarding 
the  re-registration  of  a  vehicle  that  has  been  hired  (and  is  therefore  registered)  in  another 
Member State are the only ones that restrict the use of a vehicle hired abroad.54 As Option 1b 
only foresees the use of vehicles registered in another Member State on a temporary basis and 
for  no  more  than  3-4  months,  it  is  assumed  that  all  Member  States  which  have  a  re-

54   This is a rather conservative approach as there may be other rules that would restrict the use of a vehicle 
registered abroad but as these other rules have not been brought to the Commission's attention, it is assumed 
that  the  use  of  a  vehicle  registered  abroad  for  3-4  months  should  generally  be  possible  -  save  for  the  re-
registration requirements in some Member States. 

23 

 
 
                                                            
registration  deadline  that  is  longer  than  3  months  or  that  have  no  such  deadline  are  not 
affected by Option 1b.  

According to information provided to the Commission in the course of 2014 in the context of 
the legislative proposal for a Regulation simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles registered 
in another Member State within the Single Market (COM(2012) 164 final), 11 Member States 
appear  not  to  be  affected  by  Option  1b  either  because  they  have  no  deadline  for  the  re-
registration of a vehicle that has been hired abroad (BG, ES, FR, CY, NL, SI, SK and UK) or 
because their deadline is longer than 3 months (BE and CZ (6 months) and SE (1 year)). The 
other 17 Member States are however assumed to be affected (see Table 4 below).55 

Table  4  -  Overview  of  maximum  length  of  use  by  residents  in  a  Member  State  of 
vehicles registered in another Member State 

Re-registration deadline 

Vehicle owner/holder is resident 

Vehicle rented by resident 

Immediately (up to 20 days) 

BG, DK, DE, EE, EL, HR, CY, LV, 
LT, MT, FI, SE, UK 

DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, HR, IT, LT, 
LU, HU, MT, PT, FI 

30-60 days 

3 months 

4 months 

6 months 

1 year 

No deadline 

IE, ES, FR, HU, AT, PL, PT 

RO 

NL 

BE, LU, SI 

IT 

SK 

AT, PL 

LV, RO 

- 

BE, CZ 

SE 

BG, ES, FR, CY, NL, SI, SK, UK 

No information 
Note: Member States in bold have more restrictive re-registration rules for vehicles rented by operators than for 
vehicles owned by operators. 

CZ 

- 

Source: Ricardo (2017) based on information given in a Non-paper which the Commission produced in 2014 at 
the request of COREPER during the discussions about the Commission proposal for a Regulation simplifying 
the  transfer  of  motor  vehicles  registered  in  another  Member  State  within  the  Single  Market,  COM(2012)164 
final of 4.4.2012. 

Several  stakeholders  (national  authorities  and  transport  operators  alike,  but  also  union 
representatives) have highlighted possible negative consequences of this Option as it would 
make  the  enforcement  of  other  rules  governing  the  road  haulage  sector  (in  particular  the 
market access rules) more difficult. Moreover, it would open the door to tax optimisation as 
operators  could  base  most  of  their  fleet  wherever  the  vehicle  taxation  rates  are  lowest  and 
then hire them back.  

This risk should be mitigated through a number of measures. First of all, national authorities 
will continue to  know  what vehicles are at the disposal of their transport undertakings.  For 
instance, the information to be provided in the national electronic registers will in the future 
also  include  the  number  plate  of  each  vehicle  at  the  disposal  of  the  undertakings.  Then, 
national authorities, who have to issue certified copies of the Community licence to their road 
haulage operators for each vehicle at their disposal, may also indicate the number plate of the 
vehicle  on  the  certified  true  copy.  Finally,  limiting  the  opening  of  the  cross-border  hiring 

55   It should be noted that Option 1b may affect not only operators in the 17 Member States which would have 
to change their vehicle registration rules to allow the use of a vehicle hired in another Member State for 3-4 
months, but also operators from the other 11 Member States who would then have legal clarity on the EU-
wide use of a vehicle they have hired in another Member State. The assumption that it would affect only 17 
Member States can hence be regarded as conservative. 

24 

 
 
                                                            
market  to  4  months  in  itself  should  prevent  large-scale  out-flagging  of  the  fleet  and  tax 
optimisation. The authorities of the Member States just would have to make sure that a cross-
border hiring contract is not renewed all the time.  

Option 1c: This option is a combination of Option 1a and Option 1b. It would allow both the 
use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  for  own  account  operators  throughout  the  EU  and  the  use  of 
goods vehicles hired in another Member State for a period of 3-4 months. 

5.3.3  OPTION 2: SAME RULES FOR HIRED VEHICLES AS FOR OWNED VEHICLES 

Under Option 2, the legal framework for the use of hired vehicles is the same as the one for 
the  use  of  vehicles  owned  by  operators.  It  does  not  matter  whether  a  vehicle  is  owned  or 
hired. This also means that the same rules (e.g. in terms of registration requirements) apply to 
a  vehicle  hired  in  another  Member  State  as  those  that  apply  to  a  vehicle  bought  in  another 
Member State. Option 1a is hence fully included in Option 2. All restrictions on the use of 
hired vehicles for own account transport operations are lifted.  

However,  as  regards  the  use  of  vehicles  which  have  been  hired  in  another  Member  State, 
some Member States apply less restrictive rules for instance when it comes to the requirement 
for  re-registration  of  the  vehicle  in  the  Member  State  where  the  operator  is  established.  In 
such  cases,  it  is  considered  disproportionate  to  request  Member  States  to  apply  exactly  the 
same rules to the use of hired vehicles as they do to the use of vehicles owned by operators. 
Member  States  should  not  have  to  apply  more  restrictive  rules  to  the  use  of  hired  vehicles 
than they do right now. In such cases, it would be sufficient that the use of hired vehicles is 
not discriminated against or is not subject to more restrictive rules than those that apply to the 
use of vehicles owned by operators.  

As Table 4 above shows, the requirements for re-registration of a vehicle from one Member 
State that is used by an operator established in (or a resident of) another Member State differ 
from  Member  State  to  Member  State.  Only  in  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg  and  Portugal  (in 
bold in the table), do vehicles hired abroad need to be registered earlier than vehicles which 
have been bought abroad by a resident. In most other Member States, vehicles that have been 
hired  abroad  are  subject  to  less  restrictive  re-registration  rules  than  vehicles  purchased  by 
residents abroad. 

5.4 ARE SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES TARGETED BY THE DIFFERENT 

OPTIONS?  

Almost all enterprises active in the road haulage sector and in the sector "renting and leasing 
of motor vehicles" are SMEs. According to Eurostat, more than 99% of all enterprises mainly 
active in either of the two sectors employ fewer than 50 persons. Road hauliers and vehicle 
leasing  companies  are  among  the  sectors  most  affected  by  the  initiative.  Own  account 
operators are from a number of different economic sectors; while it is impossible to say how 
many of them are SMEs, the option of liberalising the use of hired vehicles for own account 
operators should be particularly beneficial for own account operators that are SMEs as they 
stand  to  benefit  most  from  the  advantages  associated  with  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  as 
opposed to vehicles owned by them (more flexibility, higher productivity, less capital tied up 
in assets etc.). 

25 

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

AFFECTED?  

6.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

The  impacts  of  each  policy  option  have  been  calculated  relative  to  the  baseline  trajectory 
described in section 5.1.2 above. It has been assumed that all policy options start to gradually 
take effect from 2020 onwards. In 2020, 25% of the policy impact is assumed to be felt, in 
2021, 50% is felt, 75% in 2022 and the full policy impact (100%) from 2023 onwards. The 
impacts presented usually refer to the situation in 2030. 

6.1.1  IMPACT ON THE ROAD TRANSPORT MARKET 

As  described  in  the  modelling  approach  in  Annex  4,  the  main  cost  savings  for  transport 
operators  comes  from  the  fact  that  hired  vehicles  can  help  increase  their  productivity.  As 
hired vehicles tend to have higher utilisation rates than vehicles owned by the operators56, in 
particular  if  they  are  only  needed  to  cover  short-term  or  seasonal  demand  peaks,  overall 
fewer vehicles are needed to provide the same amount of transport services. It is assumed that 
the utilisation rate is 11.1% higher, so only 9 hired vehicles are needed to replace 10 vehicles 
owned by the operators (10% reduction in vehicle stock). 

1)  Impact on transport operators of Option 0 

Issuing recommendations and guidelines as foreseen under Option 0 is not expected to have 
any  impact  on  the  use  of  hired  vehicles.  As  the  existing  legal  framework  is  not  being 
changed,  the  current  restrictions  will  remain  in  place  and  operators  are  not  expected  to 
change their behaviour. Virtually all stakeholders who have been interviewed share this view. 

2)  Impact on transport operators of Option 1a 

Under this option, the restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles with a maximum mass 
above  6  tonnes  for  own  account  operations  are  removed.  As  currently  only  Greece,  Italy, 
Spain  and Portugal  apply such  restrictions, the impact of Option  1a is limited to  these four 
Member States. The share of own account operations in total vehicle mileage is used as the 
basis for estimating the growth in hired vehicles under this option. While in the baseline, no 
vehicles  would  be  hired  for  own  account  purposes,  it  is  assumed  that  under  Option  1a  the 
market penetration of hired vehicles in the own account segment will be about the same as it 
is  in  the  segment  for  hire  and  reward.  The  model  predicts  around  35,000  additional  hired 
vehicles in the four Member States together in 2030 compared with the baseline scenario. 

Table 5 - Estimate of the number of hired HGV under Option 1a based on own account 
mileage share and baseline number of hired vehicles 
Member State 
(MS) 

Number of hired 
HGVs under 
Option 1a in 2030 

Additional hired 
vehicles above baseline 
through Option 1a 

Share of own 
account operations 
in total vkm 

Number of hired 
HGVs in 
baseline in 2030 

12% 

11% 

22% 

55% 

- 

Italy 

Spain 

Portugal 

Greece 

Total (4 MS) 
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

56   Cf. Ricardo (2016). 

81,143 

37,847 

5,911 

14,496 

139,397 

26 

92,114 

42,735 

7,585 

31,923 

174,357 

10,971 

4,888 

1,674 

17,427 

34,960 

 
 
                                                            
As each hired vehicle is assumed to replace 1.1 vehicles owned by operators (due to the on 
average  higher  utilisation  rate  of  hired  vehicles),  38,500  HGV  are  being  replaced  in  2030 
under Option 1a. Since each HGV replaced produces annual savings for transport operators 
of some €825 (see Table 4-1 in Annex 4), total annual savings amount to almost €32 million. 
Under the sensitivity case of a 5% fuel saving from hired vehicles (see modelling approach in 
Annex 4), total cost savings of Option 1a increase to €75 million, as each vehicle replaced 
leads to an additional €1,100 worth of annual fuel savings (i.e. a total of €43 million of fuel 
savings). 

3)  Impact on transport operators of Option 1b 

Option 1b allows the use of goods vehicles that have been hired in another Member State for 
3-4  months.  It  applies  to  both  light  commercial  vehicles  (<3.5  tonnes)  and  heavy  goods 
vehicles  (>3.5  tonnes).  While  stakeholders  said  they  would  welcome  harmonised  rules  for 
temporary cross-border hiring, they have not been able to quantify the potential benefits this 
would  bring  to  them.  Moreover,  no hard  data  could  be  gathered  on  the  number  of  vehicles 
hired in another Member State. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the practice of hiring goods 
vehicles in another Member State is rather uncommon. 

Again,  the  modelling  provides  some  clues  on  the  possible  economic  impact  of  harmonised 
rules  for  cross-border  hiring.  Such  harmonised  rules  are  expected  to  lead  to  an  even  better 
utilisation of the pool of hired vehicles, as the same pool can be shared by a larger number of 
operators.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the  reduction  rate  of  the  size  of  the  fleet  owned  by 
operators  by  hired  vehicles  increases  from  10%  to  11%  due  to  harmonised  rules  on  cross-
border hiring. As this will lead to some cost savings, which in a highly competitive market 
environment are passed on to customers, a 1% increase in demand is expected (lower prices = 
more  demand).  The  overall  number  of  hired  vehicles  hence  remains  the  same  as  in  the 
baseline, but the higher utilisation rate due to a harmonised framework for cross-border hiring 
means that a greater number of owned vehicles can be displaced (see Figure 3 below).  

Figure 3: Illustration of the approach for quantifying the impacts of Option 1b 

Source: Ricardo (2017). 

27 

 
 
 
As 10% more vehicles are assumed to be replaced by hired vehicles under Option 1b, there is 
a 10% increase in net savings per vehicle replaced. In the case of light commercial vehicles 
(<3.5  tonnes),  this  adds  up  to  total  cost  savings  of  around  €50  x  900,000  vehicles  =  €45 
million over the baseline in 2030. In the case of heavy goods vehicles (> 3.5 tonnes), it adds 
up to total cost savings of around €83 x 350,000 vehicles = €29 million over the baseline in 
2030. In total, Option 1b should bring annual cost savings of around €74 million by 2030 for 
transport operators.  

Under  the  5%  fuel  saving  scenario,  each  light  commercial  vehicle  replaced  is  expected  to 
save some €500 in fuel cost per year and each heavy goods vehicle is expected to save some 
€1,100 per year in fuel. As the number of additional vehicles replaced above the baseline is 
9,000 light commercial vehicles and 4,000 heavy goods vehicles, fuel savings amount to €4.5 
million for light commercial vehicles and €4.4 million for heavy goods vehicles, i.e. a total of 
€9  million.  Including  the  fuel  cost  savings,  total  cost  savings  of  Option  1b  can  thus  be 
assumed to be €83 million per year. 

4)  Impact on transport operators of Option 1c 

Option 1c is the sum of Option 1a and Option 1b. As both Options are independent of each 
other,  their  effects  can  be  added  up.  Total  cost  savings  (including  fuel  savings)  for 
transport  operators  from  Option  1c  are  hence  expected  to  be  €158  million  (€75  million 
from Option 1a and €83 million from Option 1b) in 2030. 

5)  Impacts on transport operators of Option 2 

Option 2 ensures that the legal framework for the use of hired vehicles is not more restrictive 
than  the  rules  that  apply  to  the  use  of  vehicles  owned  by  operators.  Option  2  fully  covers 
Option  1a.  In  addition,  less  restrictive  re-registration  rules  would  be  required  in  the  four 
Member  States  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg  and  Portugal  where  currently  the  re-registration 
requirements for vehicles hired abroad are stricter (i.e. the grace period before re-registration 
is required is shorter) than for vehicles purchased abroad.  

Cost savings associated with less stringent  rules on cross-border hiring of light  commercial 
vehicles  in  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg  and  Portugal  are  expected  to  amount  to  €17  million 
per  year,  the  corresponding  figure for  heavy  goods  vehicles  being  €10  million.  In  addition, 
the €32 million saving from Option 1a also applies, bringing the total cost savings for heavy 
goods  vehicles  to  €42  million.  Including  the  5%  fuel  saving  assumption,  cost  savings  for 
transport operators amount to €19 million in the case of light  commercial vehicles and €86 
million in the case of heavy goods vehicles. Total operational cost savings from Option 2 
hence amount to €105 million. 

6)  Summary of economic impact for transport operators 

The evolution of the cost savings over time from the use of hired heavy goods vehicles and 
hired light commercial vehicles is given in Figures 4-4 and 4-5 respectively in Annex 4.  

In  a  microeconomic  perspective,  the  assumed  reduction  in  fixed  operating  costs  by  10% 
translates into cost savings of around 1.5% of the average overall cost (i.e. fixed and flexible 
operating  cost)  per  vehicle  as  fixed  costs  have  a  share  of  around  15%  in  total  vehicle 
operating  costs (incl.  fixed  costs  as well  as  costs  for  driver,  fuel,  tyres etc.)57.  Even if  only 

57   See Figures 4-2 and 4-3 in Annex 4. 

28 

 
 
                                                            
50%  of  these  savings  accrue  to  transport  operators,  they  still  reduce  their  costs  by  0.75% 
when moving from the use of owned vehicles to the use of hired vehicles. Together with the 
assumed  5%  savings  in  fuel  costs  which,  depending  on  the  vehicle  type,  can  be  up  to  one 
third  of  overall  vehicle  costs,  total  cost  savings  of  more  than  2%  appear  achievable.  In  a 
highly competitive environment, a 2% cost saving is quite important. 

However,  in  a  macroeconomic  perspective,  when  the  potential  cost  savings  are  put  in 
perspective of the total costs of road haulage operators across the EU, they appear admittedly 
rather small. Even the maximum total annual cost savings calculated for Option 1c in 2030 
(€158 million) are no more than 0.06% of the total costs of the road haulage sector in the EU 
today (which are estimated to be around €280 billion).58  

However,  the  majority  of  cost  savings  will  be  made  in  the  Member  States  which  currently 
most  restrict  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles.  In  Greece,  for  instance,  the  potential  cost 
savings are expected to be  equivalent to  around 1.7%  of the total  costs in  the road haulage 
sector today, mainly due to its important own account transport segment. Greek own account 
operators should therefore be among those benefitting most from a liberalisation of the use of 
hired  goods  vehicles.  In  addition,  Options  1b  (and  1c)  should  bring  greater  advantages  to 
border regions across the EU and to small Member States as their operators are more likely to 
make use of cross-border hiring. 

With costs in  the road haulage sector  as  a  whole going  down by at  most  0.06%  (in Option 
1c), and assuming  a  price elasticity of  -1, the resulting increase in transport  demand across 
the EU will also be no more than +0.06%.59 

Box: How realistic is it that the calculated impacts will actually materialise? 

The  impacts  have  been  modelled  under  rather  conservative  assumptions  regarding  the 
benefits  of  hired  vehicles  (efficiency  gains  of  more  than  10%  have  been  suggested;  fuel 
savings going up to 7%) and regarding the vehicles affected in particular by Option 1b where 
the calculated impact is rather small (and may turn out to be much bigger). By contrast, the 
assumed size of the vehicle leasing market in the baseline in 2030 (75% bigger than in 2015; 
average  annual  growth  of  +3.8%)  which  also  affects  the  impact  of  the  individual  policy 
options,  is  admittedly  on  the  upper  end  of  projections.  Overall,  however,  the  impacts 
presented here are considered to be reasonable and fairly realistic. 

6.1.2  IMPACT ON THE VEHICLE HIRE SECTOR 

While the growth in the road haulage sector from the removal of barriers for the use of hired 
vehicles is expected to be relatively small (see above), the same cannot be said of the impact 
on the vehicle hire sector. Under Option 1a, the number of HGVs replaced by hired vehicles 
in  2030  is  6.4%  higher  than  in  the  baseline,  under  Option  1b,  it  is  0.7%  larger  than  in  the 
baseline. Under the combined Option 1c, the market is 7.2% larger compared to the baseline. 
Figure 4-6 in Annex 4 shows this difference over baseline in absolute terms. The maximum 
number of HGVs replaced by hired vehicles reaches just over 43,000 in 2030 (in Option 1c). 

58   Cf. Ricardo (2017). 
59  

ibid. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                            
Average annual non-fuel vehicle costs are around €17,000 per HGV (see Figure 4-3 in Annex 
4) which can be assumed to roughly correspond to the turnover per vehicle in the HGV hiring 
sector. Under Option 1a, the extra number of HGVs replaced in 2030 is 38,500 (see above) 
thus  resulting  in  some  extra  €650  million  turnover.  Under  Option  1b,  an  additional  4,000 
HGV and some 9,000 LCV are replaced by hired vehicles in 2030. At an operating cost of 
€17,000  per  HGV  and  of  €10,000  per  LCV,  this  translates  into  extra  revenues  of  €158 
million. Assuming a 10% profit rate in the industry, expected profits in the vehicle hire sector 
may therefore increase by €65 million, €16 million and around €81 million under Options 1a, 
1b and 1c respectively. Option 2 combines the growth in the vehicle hire market from Option 
1a and the growth of Option 1b in Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal. At €72 million 
additional gross profits by 2030, its impact is between Option 1a and Option 1c. 

At a more general level, removing restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles significantly 
improves market conditions for vehicle rental and leasing companies. The vehicle rental and 
operating leasing market in Member States with restrictions is relatively underdeveloped (see 
Figure 1 above). Removing the restrictions is bound to help develop these markets which will 
benefit  from  the  arrival  of  new  companies  providing  vehicle  rental  services  which  in  turn 
increases competition and the supply of vehicles for hire or rent.  

In  this  sense,  in  particular  Option  1a  is  expected  to  shake  up  the vehicle  rental  and  leasing 
sector  in  the  four  Member  States  which  currently  restrict  the  use  of  hired  heavy  goods 
vehicles  for  own  account  purposes.  Option  1b  allows  the  vehicle  rental  sector  to  offer  its 
services  across  borders  for  up  to  3-4  months.  This  should  improve  the  productivity  of  the 
fleet of the vehicle hiring and leasing sector - above all in the 17 Member States which will 
have to adapt their re-registration rules for vehicles hired abroad to the new Directive. Option 
1c  combines  the  benefits  of  Option  1a  and  Option  1b.  Option  2  combines  the  benefits  of 
Option 1a with only a few of the benefits from Option 1b. Its impact is hence smaller than 
that of Option 1c. 

6.1.3  IMPACT ON AUTHORITIES 

Administrative burden on authorities 

Options 0, 1a and 2 are not expected to create any tangible additional administrative burden 
for  national  authorities.  However,  the  authorities  of  some  Member  States  (DK,  IT)  have 
raised the issue that the liberalisation of cross-border hire in Option 1b (and hence also 1c) 
may make enforcement of market access and social rules more complicated as the registration 
plate of the vehicle does not indicate the place of establishment of the operator.  

The Greek authorities believe that a register of hired vehicles would be required to be able to 
ensure that cross-border hiring is only done on a temporary basis and not in a permanent way 
to  minimise  tax  burdens  or  to  obscure  illegal  business  practices.  The  Swedish  authorities, 
who already now appear to allow foreign-registered trucks to be used in Sweden for up to one 
year,  do  not  have  a  specific  register.  For  the  roughly  60  foreign  trucks  currently  in  use  by 
Swedish operators, the creation of a dedicated register is arguably not worthwhile. However, 
if the use of goods vehicles hired in another Member State was allowed across the EU, thus 
eliminating  legal  uncertainty,  the  number  of  such  vehicles  may  increase  significantly.  The 
economic analysis of Option 1b above suggests that by 2030 around 4,000 more heavy goods 
vehicles  and  9,000  more  light  commercial  vehicles  would  be  replaced  due  to  the  legal 
certainty provided by this Option that a vehicle hired in another Member State can be used 

30 

 
 
for  up  to  3-4  months  without  any  restrictions.  The  creation  and  operation  of  a  dedicated 
register would create additional costs of around €500,000 per year EU-wide.60 

Alternatives  have  been  suggested  by  the  European  Transport  Workers'  Federation  (ETF). 
They include the indication of the vehicle number plate in the national electronic registers of 
road transport undertakings (which are connected through ERRU, the European Register for 
Road  Transport  Undertakings61)  and/or  the  allocation  of  a  temporary  number  plate  by  the 
authorities  of  the  Member  State  where  the  operator  hiring  the  vehicle  is  established.  These 
alternatives  are  likely  less  expensive  than  the  creation  of  a  new  register.  However,  own 
account  operators  are  not  covered  by  the  national  registers  and  issuing  temporary  number 
plates could still create some administrative burden.  
Own account operators are less likely to hire vehicles in another Member State62 and Member 
States  have  to  issue  a  certified  copy  of  the  Community  licence  to  professional  transport 
operators for each vehicle at their disposal. Through this system, they already now have some 
control  over  what  is  happening  in  their  countries.  A  dedicated  register  for  hired  vehicles 
seems  therefore  unnecessary.  Some  additional  enforcement  costs  to  effectively  control  the 
use of vehicles hired in another Member State will likely be required though. 

Budgetary consequences 

All policy options (except for Option 0) are expected to have an impact on Member States' 
tax  revenues.  The  harmonisation  of  rules  on  the  use  of  vehicles  hired  in  another  Member 
State (in particular Option 1b, but also 1c and 2) may incentivise operators to hire vehicles 
registered in Member States with low taxation levels. While such cross-border hiring should 
in  principle  only  be  possible  on  a  temporary  basis,  e.g.  to  cover  seasonal  demand  peaks, 
unscrupulous  operators  may  opt  for  a  more  permanent  use  of  vehicles  hired  abroad  (or  for 
constant  renewals  of  short-term  hiring  contracts).  It  was  not  possible  to  estimate  the  tax 
losses  and  gains  due  to  increased  cross-border  hiring  activities.  In  any  case,  effective 
enforcement measures should prevent such behaviour. 

Overall vehicle tax revenues could go down slightly as altogether fewer vehicles are needed 
when  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  is  being  intensified,  due  to  the  higher  utilisation  rate  on 
average  of  hired  vehicles  compared  with  non-hired  vehicles.  However,  the  cost  savings 
achieved  through  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  and  the  associated  increase  in  productivity  may 
translate into a higher profitability of the sector, which should lead to increases in corporate 
tax  revenues.  This  can  be  expected  under  all  policy  options  except  Option  0.  Option  1c  is 
expected to lead to losses in vehicle tax revenues of €11 million63 but gains in corporate tax 
revenues of €38 million64, leading to a net increase in tax revenues of €27 million in 2030. 
Option 1a will bring additional tax revenues to all four South European countries which apply 
restrictions on the use of hired heavy goods vehicles for own account operations. 

60   For 

comparison,  EUCARIS, 

the  European 

car 

and  driving 

licence 

information 

system 

(https://www.eucaris.net/) , has an annual budget of €640,000. 

61   For more information on ERRU see here: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/rules-governing-access-

profession/european-register-road-transport-undertakings-erru_en  

62   Eurostat data suggest that 88% of all own account transport operations in the EU do not cross borders. 
63   €3 million of this total are due to fewer light commercial vehicles being needed and €8 million come from 

the need for fewer heavy goods vehicles; see Table 4-2 in Annex 4. 

64   See  Table  4.3  in  Annex  4.  The  gains  in  corporate  tax  revenues  do  not  include  possible  gains  from  the 
taxation  of  higher  profits  of  transport  operators  due  to  the  5%  fuel  saving  scenario,  as  these  gains  are 
assumed to be offset by corresponding losses in fuel taxation. 

31 

 
 
                                                            
6.1.4  SME IMPACT 

Option 0 will not help SMEs as the guidelines and recommendations are not legally binding 
and as they may be interpreted differently, potentially causing even more confusion. Option 
1a gives many SMEs in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, who carry goods on own account, 
the possibility to use hired vehicles. Some concerns were expressed, that SMEs in the road 
haulage  sector  could  potentially  suffer  from  increased  competition  from  own  account 
operators. But on the other hand, the draft measure will allow them to save costs and to put 
their  capital  in  more  lucrative  investments  instead  of  spending  it  on  vehicles  which  would 
then likely be underutilised. SMEs should particularly benefit from this option as their access 
to capital is usually more restricted than the one for bigger companies.  

Option  1b  increases  the  flexibility  of  SMEs  and  of  bigger  companies  -  shifting  vehicles 
around  to  meet  seasonal  or  temporary  demand  peaks  in  another  Member  State  may  benefit 
bigger  companies  more  but  SMEs  also  benefit  from  the  greater  choice  in  renting  a  vehicle 
that  Option  1b  offers  them.  The  impact  of  Options  1c  and  2  on  SMEs  is  expected  to  be 
similar to the combined impact of Options 1a and 1b in the case of Option 1c and somewhat 
weaker as regards the cross-border hiring in Option 2. 

6.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS 

In  this  section,  the  impact  of  the  various  options  on  employment,  working  conditions  and 
road safety are being assessed.  

6.2.1  EMPLOYMENT 

Opening up hitherto closed markets for the use of hired vehicles is bound to create additional 
business in the vehicle leasing sector. The impact on employment has been calculated using 
the average number of vehicles per employee in the commercial vehicle renting and leasing 
industry (16.45). Assuming that a 1% increase in activity leads to a similar level of increase 
in  employment,  a  total  of  2,900  additional  jobs  are  expected  to  be  created  in  the  vehicle 
leasing  sector  by  2030  under  Option  1c,  an  increase  by  1.7%  in  the  sector  "renting  and 
leasing of motor vehicles" and by 11.1% in the subsector "renting and leasing of trucks".  

The  2,100  extra  jobs  under  Option  1a  are  only  created  in  the  four  Member  States  with 
restrictions (Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal). This  means that also under Option 1c, over 
70%  of  all  additional  jobs  are  created  in  these  four  Member  States.  Option  1b  leads  to  the 
creation of 800 extra jobs in the vehicle renting and leasing business in the 17 Member States 
with  more  restrictive  re-registration  requirements  for  vehicles  registered  abroad.  Additional 
jobs  may  also  be  created  in  the  11  Member  States  which  do  not  have  to  change  the  re-
registration rules, as the clear legal framework allowing the EU-wide use of vehicles hired in 
another Member State may incentivise operators also in these countries to more intensely tap 
into foreign markets. These potential additional jobs have not been quantified though. 

The intensified use of hired goods vehicles is expected to lead to some job creation also in the 
road  haulage  sector.  Again,  assuming  a  1%  increase  in  activity  leads  to  a  1%  increase  in 
employment,  Option  1c  is  expected  to  create  up  to  1,700  new  jobs  by  2030.65  All  other 
options  are  expected  to  create  fewer  additional  jobs  than  Option  1c.  Employment  in  both 
sectors combined is hence expected to increase by up to 4,600. 

65   As mentioned above (at the end of section 5.1.1), the increase in activity is +0.06%. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
6.2.2  WORKING CONDITIONS 

A  few  stakeholders, including  a  representative  of  the  drivers  (ETF),  raised  concerns  over  a 
possible deterioration in working conditions due to the increased competitive pressure as an 
indirect effect of the initiative. The Italian authorities reported that Option 1a may lead to an 
expansion of the provision of illegal transport  services for hire and reward by own account 
operators  as  their  access  to  vehicles  would  be  facilitated.  As  own  account  operators  do  not 
face the same regulatory framework as operators for hire and reward, the increased level of 
unfair competition would negatively affect the working conditions in the sector. This concern 
has  however  not  been  raised  by  anyone  in  a  Member  State  without  restrictions  for  own 
account operators and no evidence was provided. It may hence be unfounded.  

Option 1b allows for the use of vehicles hired in another Member State. Representatives of 
workers consider that this will render the enforcement of the social and market access rules in 
road  transport  more  difficult  as  the  direct  linkage  between  the  vehicle  and  the  driver  is 
weakened. A trade union representative (ETF) suggested that this impact may be mitigated by 
requiring the vehicle number plate to be indicated in the national electronic registers of road 
transport  undertakings  and  /or  the  allocation  of  special  temporary  number  plates  for  the 
period  of  the  cross-border  hire.  While  there  are  fears  of  indirect  negative  impacts  of  the 
increased use of hired vehicles, some direct positive impacts should come from the use of a 
hired vehicle fleet that is more modern and more comfortable than older vehicles. 

6.2.3  ROAD SAFETY 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  -  authorities,  hauliers  associations,  vehicle  renting  /  leasing 
companies  -  indicated  that  the  impact  on  road  safety  is  either  neutral  or  slightly  positive. 
Hired  vehicles  are  on  average  newer,  hence  they  tend  to  be  equipped  with  more  modern 
safety  technology  such  as  brake  assist  systems.  As  hired  vehicles  are  generally  also  better 
maintained  (according  to  information  provided  by  the  leasing  industry),  they  are  more 
reliable and less likely to break down. Overall, this should make the roads somewhat safer.66  

Some stakeholders (transport operators) saw a potential safety risk in the fact that drivers are 
usually not fully familiar with the hired vehicle. Others (a trade union representative) feared 
that  cross-border  hiring  may  reduce  the  safety  level  of  vehicles.  Finally,  an  organisation 
representing public enterprises in Austria feared that cross-border hiring would increase the 
competitive pressure on undertakings which would put drivers under increased strain. Road 
safety may suffer as a result. It should be stressed though that the risks and fears mentioned 
here could not be substantiated and no supporting evidence has been provided or found. 

6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

CO2  is  the  main  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emitted  by  road  transport  vehicles.  It  is  directly 
proportionate to (fossil) fuel consumption. Almost all goods vehicles run on diesel, so their 
emissions contribute to climate change. The CO2 emissions of trucks have not gone down a 
lot  in  the  past.  The  focus  in  technological  development  was  on  exhaust  treatment  to  lower 
pollutant emissions. This in turn required more energy which, together with a trend towards 
more powerful vehicles, kept fuel consumption and hence CO2 emissions at a relatively high 

66   See, for instance, the 2014 Rental Truck Safety Study Report to Congress, available on the FMCSA website 
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Rental%20Truck%20Safety%20Study%20Report
%20Enclosure%20FINAL%20July%202014.pdf 

33 

 
 
                                                            
level. However, latest developments in vehicle technology appear to have led to a decrease in 
specific fuel consumption, hence a decrease in CO2 emissions. EURO VI vehicles have been 
found to consume about 4% less fuel than EURO V vehicles.67 As EURO VI vehicles have 
been introduced 4 years after EURO V vehicles, the recent development in fuel economies is 
equivalent to a 1% reduction of CO2 emissions per year. This trend is expected to continue 
over the modelled time horizon, not least because of the introduction of aerodynamic devices 
and more aerodynamic cabins in the wake of Directive (EU) 2015/719.68  

As regards the CO2 emissions of light commercial vehicles (vans), test cycles suggest a drop 
of emissions by around 2.2% per year for new vans brought on the market between 2012 and 
2015.69 To meet the 2020 target of 147 g CO2 per km, CO2 emissions per km will have to go 
down by 2.7% per year. For the modelling, a 3% year-on-year reduction in CO2 emissions of 
light commercial vehicles is assumed.  

Pollutant  emissions  (NOx,  PM  etc.)  are  assumed  to  go  down  by  the  same  rate  as  CO2 
emissions over the modelled time horizon (2016-2030). They have already gone down quite 
significantly  over  the  past  15  years  with  the  introduction  of  ever  more  stringent  EURO 
emission standards. As reductions of the emission limits on a similar scale are not expected in 
the future, a more modest annual rate of reduction of 1% in the emission of major pollutants 
is assumed. The reduction of pollutant emissions of light commercial vehicles is expected to 
slow to 3% per year from 2020 onwards from slightly higher levels until then. 

Although  hired  vehicles  are  normally  younger  than  the  average  fleet  and  hence  more  fuel 
efficient, ultimately, lifetime vehicle mileage and emissions should be roughly equal between 
hired  and  non-hired  vehicles.  The  key  difference  is  that  hired  vehicles  are  used  more 
intensively over the first few years of their life, thus running a greater share of their lifetime 
mileage  in  early  years  and  reaching  their  lifetime  vehicle  mileage  sooner  than  non-hired 
vehicles. The intensified utilisation of hired vehicles means more frequent fleet renewal. 

All other things equal, if rented vehicles are utilised over a 5-year use period, their average 
age is 2.5 years. If these rented vehicles are utilised 11% more intensively than the vehicles 
they replace in a company fleet (as was assumed in the quantification of economic impacts), 
this means replacing a fleet that is 11% larger and used 11% longer. The average age of the 
replaced fleet would hence be 0.28 years (just over 3 months) above that of the rental fleet.  

Given  that  an  annual  reduction  by  1%  is  assumed  for  NOx,  PM  and  CO2  emissions  from 
heavy duty vehicles (i.e. heavy goods vehicles and buses and coaches), a reduction in average 
fleet age by 0.28 years will mean reductions of 0.28% amongst these emission categories for 
the  share  of  transport  activity  replaced  by  hired  vehicles.  For  light  commercial  vehicles, 
where improvements in NOx and CO2 emissions of 3% annually are assumed, hired vehicle 
emissions will be 0.83% lower than average vehicle emissions. 

Feeding  the  model  with  all  these  assumptions  and  adding  the  assumed  5%  fuel  efficiency 
gains  of  leased/rented  vehicles  over  non-rented  vehicles,  the  overall  impact  of  the  policy 
options on CO2 and pollutant emissions can be calculated. As shown in Table 4-4 in Annex 
4, the result is a reduction of the emissions over the baseline by 0.04% at most (option 1c; 
LCV and HGV combined). Although this small relative reduction may not be impressive, it 
still helps in the fight for cleaner air and against climate change, at almost no cost. 

67   http://www.eurotransport.de/news/lkw-verbrauchswerte-von-1966-bis-2014-immer-abwaerts-6550678.html  
68   OJ L 115, 6.5.2015, p. 1. 
69   http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/co2-emissions-from-cars-and 

34 

 
 
 
                                                            
7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?  

7.1 EFFECTIVENESS 

In  terms  of  the  extent  to  which  the  policy  options  achieve  the  objectives  identified  above, 
Option  0  (issuing  recommendations  and  guidelines)  is  only  marginally  more  effective  than 
the  baseline  (do  nothing).  All  stakeholders  agree  that  guidelines  and  recommendations  will 
not help remove existing restrictions on the use of hired vehicles. A guidance document may 
help  operators  to  better  understand  the  legal  framework  but  it  will  not  lead  to  legislative 
changes. Moreover, as it is not legally binding, and as it may be interpreted differently, it may 
lead to even more confusion. 

Options 1a and 1b are two complementary options each of which contributes to the creation 
of  a  level  playing  field  in  the  EU  road  transport  market.  The  two  options  target  a  different 
segment  of  the  market  for  hired  vehicles  (Option  1a:  own  account  operators  using  heavy 
goods vehicles in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal; Option 1b: transport operators using light 
commercial  vehicles  and/or  heavy  goods  vehicles  and  vehicle  leasing/renting  companies  in 
particular  in  the  17  Member  States  where  current  re-registration  rules  for  vehicles  hired 
abroad would not allow the use of such a vehicle for 3-4 months without re-registration). 

The  combined  Option  1c  brings  together  the  benefits  of  Option  1a  and  1b.  The  increased 
effectiveness arises both from the removal of the restrictions on the use of hired vehicles for 
own  account  operations  in  the  Member  States  concerned  and  from  increased  flexibility 
through the possible use of vehicles hired in another Member State for 3-4 months to meet 
temporary or seasonal demand.  

Option 2 is not as effective as Option 1c, as it leaves Member States the freedom to choose 
their own rules regarding the use of vehicles hired in another Member State as long as they 
treat them the same way as vehicles purchased abroad. It hence fails to create a level playing 
field and does not fully address the current regulatory patchwork. Only four Member States 
(Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal) would need to change their legislation with regard 
to the requirements for re-registration of vehicles hired abroad. It is hence less effective than 
Option 1c where all Member States would introduce the same minimum period (3-4 months) 
regarding the use of vehicles hired abroad. 

7.2 EFFICIENCY 

The regulatory costs of each option are relatively small. The production and dissemination of 
guidelines and recommendations under Option 0 would create some minor costs in terms of  
administration. 

Option 1a will remove current restrictions on the use of hired heavy goods vehicles for own 
account operators. The enforcement authorities in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal will no 
longer have to enforce the restrictions which should ease their regulatory burden and reduce 
their enforcement costs. The Italian authorities believe however that allowing the use of hired 
goods vehicles for own account operators may create other problems as it could incentivise 
own  account  operators  to  provide  more  illegal  transport  operations  for  hire  and  reward 
without  being  subject  to  the  same  rules  on  access  to  the  profession  or  to  the  market  as 
professional transport operators for hire and reward. The need to combat this kind of unfair 
competition  reduces  the  overall  cost  savings  for  the  administration.  For  own  account 
transport  operators  in  the  four  Member  States,  however,  the  compliance  costs  would 
disappear. Overall, Option 1a should result in a reduction of regulatory costs. 

Option 1b (hence also Option 1c) allows the use of goods vehicles hired in another Member 
State for a period of 3-4 months. In order to prevent operators from abusing this possibility to 

35 

 
 
hire goods vehicles in another Member State for longer periods, some implementation costs 
are likely to occur. Member States will want to restrict the use of vehicles hired in another 
Member State to a maximum period to make sure that  there is no out-flagging of complete 
vehicle  fleets.  Some  stakeholders  indicated  the  need  to  set  up  a  system  through  which 
transport operators or vehicle renting/leasing companies provide information on the specific 
vehicle indicating the period during which it will be used in another Member State. Whether 
a  dedicated  registry  is  needed  to  effectively  monitor  and  enforce  the  maximum  period,  as 
some stakeholders suggested, is not certain. The use of existing systems (such as ERRU) may 
be sufficient. In any case, the benefits from the increased flexibility for operators and vehicle 
hiring/leasing companies are expected to outweigh any additional costs of such a system. 

Option 2 would require legislative changes in the four Member States affected by Option 1a 
(removing the restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles for own account operators) and 
in  the  four  Member  States  which  currently  have  stricter  rules  on  the  re-registration  of  a 
vehicle  hired  abroad  than  on  the  re-registration  of  one  purchased  abroad.  As  two  Member 
States (Italy and Portugal) are affected by both changes, a total of six Member States would 
face  implementation  costs.  Any  possible  additional  enforcement  costs  would  hence  only 
occur  in  these  Member  States.  They  are  however  expected  to  be  minimal,  in  particular  in 
relation to the expected benefits.  

7.3 COHERENCE WITH OTHER MAINSTREAM EU POLICIES 

The  coherence  of  the  proposed  policy  options  with  two  strategic  policy  documents  of  the 
Commission,  the  Agenda  for  Jobs,  Growth,  Fairness  and  Democratic  Change  of  President 
Juncker (the so-called "Juncker priorities")70 and the 2011 White Paper on transport policy71, 
has been assessed. Policy Option 0 is neutral towards all the strategic policy objectives as it is 
not expected to have much (if any) impact. 

The other options contribute positively to the creation of jobs, growth and investment. They 
all contribute to the removal of restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles which creates 
jobs and investment opportunities not only in the vehicle renting/leasing sector but also in the 
road  haulage  sector.  By  allowing  the  use  of  goods  vehicles  that  have  been  hired  abroad, 
Options  1b,  1c  and  2  are  seen  critically  in  particular  by  representatives  of  the  trade  unions 
who fear that this would make enforcement of road transport rules more difficult and lead to 
unfair  competition  and  a  deterioration  of  working  conditions.  Options  1a,  1b,  1c  and  2 
promote the use of hired goods vehicles which are generally newer, safer, less polluting and 
more fuel efficient than non-hired vehicles. This supports the objectives of the Energy Union 
and  of  a  forward-looking  climate  change  policy  (and  hence  also  the  GHG  and  the  air 
pollutant reduction target of the White Paper) as well as the EU's road safety policy. 

The  deepening  of  the  internal  market  for  both  road  hauliers  and  vehicle  renting/leasing 
companies  is  at  the  core  of  each  of  these  options.  They  all  facilitate  market  access  and 
support  the  creation  of  a  level  playing  field.  Each  of  these  options  is  expected  to  lead  to 
(slightly)  lower  costs  for  transport  operators.  In  this  respect  they  would  have  a  negative 
impact  on  modal  shift.  However,  as  the transport  operations  which  are  carried  out  with  the 
help  of  hired  goods  vehicles  usually  do  not  lend  themselves  to  carriage  by  other  modes  of 
transport, the impact on modal shift can be considered to be neutral. 

70   Juncker,  J.-C.  (2014):  A  new  start  for  Europe.  My  agenda  for  Jobs,  Growth,  Fairness  and  Democratic 
Change.  Political  Guidelines  for  the  next  European  Commission.  https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-
political/files/juncker-political-guidelines-speech_en_0.pdf. 

71   COM(2011) 144 final of 28.3.2011. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
Table 6 - Coherence of policy options with key EU policy objectives 
("+" = positive contribution; "O" = no contribution; "-" = negative contribution) 

Policy areas and priorities 

Option 0  Option 1a  Option 1b  Option 1c  Option 2 

Juncker priorities 

-   Boost for Jobs, Growth and Investment 

-  Resilient  Energy  Union  with  a  Forward 
    Looking Climate Change Policy 

-   Deeper and fairer internal market 

2011 White Paper 

-  Access to market and fair competition 

-  GHG emission reduction 

-  Reducing local noise and air pollution 

-  Road safety 

-  Modal shift 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

O 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

O 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

O 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

O 

7.4 PROPORTIONALITY AND SUBSIDIARITY 

Option 1a directly addresses the existing restrictions on the use of hired heavy goods vehicles 
by own account  operators in  certain Member  States.  The cost-benefit ratio of this option is 
positive as it removes outdated restrictions and gives  own account operators the freedom to 
use hired heavy goods vehicles. The option is targeted to the Member States with restrictions 
and it looks very straightforward and proportionate. 

Option 1b directly responds to the problem related to the lack of flexibility and efficiency in 
fleet utilisation. The limited demand for the use of goods vehicles hired in another Member 
State  (no  precise  figures  on  the  size  of  the  (potential)  market  for  cross-border  hire  are 
available; transport operators generally seem to prefer to hire goods vehicles in the Member 
State where they are established) raises the question whether legislative action in this area is 
justified. At the same time, the existing restrictions hinder vehicle hiring/leasing companies 
and transport operators from moving their fleet around to meet temporary or seasonal demand 
in another Member State. The costs for de-registration and re-registration of a vehicle in the 
Member  State  of  establishment  seem  prohibitive  for  short-term  hire.  Allowing  the  use  of  a 
vehicle hired in another Member State for 3-4 months will remove this administrative burden. 
It addresses the need for more flexibility without going beyond what is necessary to achieve 
this objective.  

The patchwork of rules that apply to the use of goods vehicles hired in another Member State 
may  also  be  addressed  by  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  regulation  on  simplifying  the 
transfer  of  motor  vehicles  registered  in  another  Member  State  in  the  Single  Market.72  This 
proposal  would  also  provide  harmonised  rules  related  to  the  re-registration  requirements  of 
vehicles purchased in another Member State. However, it would not necessarily allow the use 
of a vehicle that has been hired in another Member State throughout the internal market as the 
authorities  of  a  third  Member  State  may  still  restrict  its  use  based  on  the  provisions  of  the 
Directive.  Option  1b  would  hence  still  be  necessary  to  allow  the  EU-wide  use  of  vehicles 
hired in another Member State. 

72   COM(2012) 164 final of 4.4.2012. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Option 1c combines the benefits of Option 1a and Option 1b. The analysis related to Option 
1a and Option 1b hence also applies to Option 1c. As it is the most effective option with a 
still positive benefit-cost ratio, it is also proportionate.  

Option  2  only  affects  6  out  of  28  Member  States  and  hence  is  bound  to  have  lower 
implementation costs than Option 1c. However, it is also less effective than Option 1c as it 
does not provide for harmonised rules regarding the use of vehicles hired in another Member 
state. It hence does not remove the patchwork of rules in the EU in this area. While it does 
not go beyond what is needed to address the issues at stake, it seems not go far enough either. 

With regard to subsidiarity, Option 1a would not require EU action if the four Member States 
were to lift their restrictions on their own. However, authorities from two of the four Member 
States  (Italy  and  Portugal)  have  clearly  indicated  that  they  do  not  intend  to  do  so.  The 
patchwork of rules regarding the use of hired goods vehicles by own account operators would 
therefore persist. On this basis, EU action is the only way to address this issue.  

Options  1b  (and  1c)  also  require  action  at  EU  level  as  Member  States  will  not  provide  a 
common  approach  to  the  question  of  cross-border  hiring  on  their  own.  It  is  a  cross-border 
issue by nature. The same applies to Option 2 which is just a variant of Option 1c. 

7.5 CONCLUSION: PREFERRED POLICY OPTION 

Table 7 below provides an illustration of how the options compare based on the explanations 
given in the previous paragraphs. Option 1c, combining Option 1a and Option 1b, emerges as 
the  preferred  option,  as  it  is  the  most  effective  policy  option.  If  the  creation  of  a  separate 
register for hired vehicles for enforcement purposes can be avoided, it is also among the most 
efficient  options.  Option  1c  would  provide  solutions  to  problems  (removing  restrictions  / 
creating harmonised legal framework) that can only be solved at EU level.  But it would not 
go beyond what would be needed to solve the issues at stake, while addressing them all. 

Table 7 - Comparison of policy options 
("++"= strongly positive, "+" = weakly positive; "O" = no impact; "-" = weakly negative, "--" = strongly negative) 

Policy areas and priorities 

Option 0  Option 1a  Option 1b  Option 1c  Option 2 

Effectiveness 

Efficient and flexible use of goods vehicles 

Reduce 
profitability of road transport operators 

operating 

costs 

/ 

increase 

Capacity to respond to changes in demand 

Simplify / improve regulatory framework 

Equal access to market for hired vehicles 

Reduce  fuel  consumption  and  air  pollution 
from road transport 

(implementation 

/ 

Efficiency 

to  authorities 

Costs 
enforcement) 

Costs to industry 

Cost/ benefit ratio 

Coherence 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

+ 

max.  
€75 mio 

+ 

max.  
€83 mio 

+ 

+ 

max. 
€158 mio 

max.  
€105 mio 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

O/+ 

O/+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

O/-* 

O/-* 

O/-* 

O/-* 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

O 

+ 

+ 

O 

O 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Proportionality 
Note: * Negative sign denotes increased costs in comparison with the baseline. 

O 

+ 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFIT conclusion 

Option  1c would  help the  operators  active  in  road  transport  -  both  on own  account  and  for 
hire  and  reward  -  save  significant  costs.  The  use  of  hired  vehicles  would  reduce  operating 
costs  which  have  been  quantified  above  and  indeed  more  cost  savings  are  conceivable:  if 
operators could hire goods vehicles in another Member State for 3-4 months without having 
to  de-register  and  re-register  the  vehicle  they  would  save  a  lot  of  money,  time  and 
administrative  burden.  Assuming  that  1%  of  all  vehicles  subject  to  (predominantly  short-
term)  rental  or  operational  leasing  contracts  were  hired  across  borders,  and  these  1%  were 
currently  subject  to  de-registration  and  re-registration  requirements  in  case  they  were  hired 
for a period of 3-4 months, operators could save some EUR 12.8 million in the year 2030 by 
not  having  to  de-register  and  re-register  vehicles  which  are  registered  in  another  Member 
State (see also section 2.2 above).  

Moreover, the costs of compliance with the amended rules should be lower as there is more 
clarity  regarding  the  EU-wide  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  for  own  account  transport 
operations and regarding the EU-wide use for a period of 3-4 months of vehicles which have 
been  hired  in  another  Member  State.  By  opening  up  additional  possibilities  for  the  use  of 
hired goods vehicles, the initiative would remove administrative barriers and lower the cost 
for operators. At the same time it would increase the flexibility of undertakings in organising 
their freight transport operations and hence would raise their productivity. 

In short: the Directive would again be fit for purpose. Regulatory costs would be lower; the 
regulatory framework would be clearer and more predictable. The revision of the Directive in 
this way would fit well in the Commission's REFIT programme. 

The implementation and enforcement of the rules would however require careful monitoring 
of  the  activities  of  operators  who  use  vehicles  which  they  have  hired  abroad.  The 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  Directive  is  closely  linked  to  those  of  the  two 
Regulations governing access to the occupation of road transport operator and access to the 
international road haulage market. The provisions of these Regulations can help enforce the 
Directive,  e.g.  the  use  of  the  European  Register  of  Road  transport  Undertakings  (ERRU) 
which will include the number plate of the vehicles at the disposal of each transport operator. 
Moreover, the indication of the number plate of the motor vehicle on the certified true copy 
of the Community licence - which is already done by a number of Member States - could be 
spread  as  an  example  of  best  practice.  The  competent  national  authorities  of  the  Member 
States  which  issue  theses  certified  copies  would  then  have  some  control  over  the  vehicles 
used by their respective operators. 

39 

 
 
 
 
8.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?  

Currently, the Directive does not contain any monitoring and reporting arrangements on the 
basis of which the performance of the Directive, its implementation and enforcement could 
be evaluated. 

A monitoring framework should start with the monitoring of the correct transposition of the 
Directive  and  its  implementation  in  the  Member  States.  All  Member  States  should  have  to 
allow  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  for  own  account  operations.  Moreover,  all  Member  States 
should have to adapt their national laws to allow the use of vehicles hired in another Member 
State (at least) for a set (minimum) period given in the Directive. The adaptations in national 
law should have to be made within a given time period. Member States should be required to 
inform the Commission about their transposition into national law. 

The overall functioning of the Directive should also be monitored to assess to what extent the 
provisions of the Directive contribute to a better functioning of the road haulage market and 
of the market for hired/leased goods vehicles. The relevant data should be available from the 
leasing industry and/or national authorities. 

A provision might also be added to the Directive which foresees a review and evaluation of 
the new rules around five years after they have been transposed into the national law of the 
Member  States.  The  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  could  be  based  on  a 
number  of  elements:  for  example,  on  information  to  be  provided  by  a  dedicated  survey  of 
transport  operators  and  of  vehicle  rental  /  leasing  companies.  The  evaluation  should  be 
focused on assessing the extent to which the revised Directive provides a smooth framework 
for the use of hired goods vehicles. Data on the use of vehicles hired in another Member State 
should  become  available  through  the  national  electronic  registers  of  road  transport 
undertakings  which  will  collect  the  number  plate  of  the  vehicles  at  the  disposal  of  the 
undertakings. 

Table 8 - Proposed monitoring and evaluation framework 

Operational objectives 

Indicator 

Source(s) 

Implementation 

All Member States to allow the use of 
for  own  account 
hired  vehicles 
operations 

Number of Member States that allow the 
use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  for  own 
account operations 

Commission  /  national 
authorities 

All  Member  States  to  introduce  into 
national legislation relevant provisions 
to  ensure  that  transport  operators  can 
use  (at  least)  for  a  set  (minimum) 
period  -  as  defined  in  the  Directive  - 
goods  vehicles  hired 
in  another 
Member  State  without  restrictions  or 
the requirement for re-registration 

Monitoring 

Increase the size and share of the hired 
goods  vehicle  market  in  road  freight 
transport operations 

Minimise  obstacles  for  firms  entering 
the  hired  vehicles  market  in  Member 
States 

Commission  /  national 
authorities 

into 

date 

to  ensure 

Number of Member States that have by a 
set 
national 
introduced 
that 
legislation  provisions 
transport operators can use (at least) for a 
set  (minimum)  period  -  as  defined  in  the 
Directive  -  goods  vehicles  hired 
in 
another Member State without restrictions 
or the requirement for re-registration 

Size  and  growth  of  the  hired  goods 
vehicle market across the EU (number of 
vehicles / turnover of sector) 
Share  of  hired  vehicles 
registrations 

in  new 

Industry 
Leaseurope) 

Industry 
Leaseurope) 

(e.g. 

(e.g. 

Number  of  new  firms  entering  in  the 
hired goods vehicles market 

Industry 
Leaseurope); Eurostat 

(e.g. 

40 

 
 
 
 
Increase  access 
registered in another Member State 

to  hired  vehicles 

Remove/address  any  aspects  of  the 
legal  framework  that  cause  confusion 
and uncertainty 

Evaluation 

Increased access of transport operators 
to  hired  vehicles  (related  to  specific 
objective (SO) 1 above) 

Increased  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles 
to 
in  road  freight  transport  leads 
reduced  operating  costs  and  increased 
profitability 
transport 
of 
operations (related to SO 3 above) 

road 

Increased used of hired goods vehicles 
in  road  freight  transport  leads 
to 
increased vehicle utilisation (related to 
SO 3 above) 

Increased  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles 
in road freight transport leads to lower 
fuel  consumption  and  air  pollution 
(related to SO4 above) 

Remove/address  any  aspects  of  the 
legal  framework  that  cause  confusion 
and  uncertainty  (related 
to  SO  2 
above) 

Number  of  vehicles  registered  in  another 
Member States hired by national transport 
operators 

National 
(registry)  or 
report (survey) 

authorities 
industry 

Number  of  infringements  related  to  the 
use of hired vehicles (total / cross-border) 

Commission  /  national 
authorities 

to  which 

Extent 
transport  operators 
consider that there are issues / constraints 
to  the  access  and  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles  

Operating costs in road transport sector 

Survey  of 
operators 

transport 

Survey  of 
operators 

transport 

Level  of  utilisation  of  (hired)  goods 
vehicles by road transport operators 

Survey  of 
operators 

transport 

Characteristics  of  hired  vehicle  fleet 
compared  to  overall  fleet  (across  all 
Member States), e.g. in terms of 
- age / fuel efficiency 
- average operating costs 
- emission standards 

in 

Extent  to  which  transport  operators  and 
/ 
undertakings 
leasing  business  consider  that  the  legal 
framework on the use of hired vehicles is 
complicated 

the  vehicle  rental 

Survey  of 
operators 

transport 

transport 
Survey  of 
the 
operators  and  of 
vehicle renting / leasing 
sector 

41 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The  Directorate-General  for  Mobility  and  Transport  (DG  MOVE)  was  leading  the 
preparation  of  this  initiative  and  the  work  on  the  impact  assessment  in  the  European 
Commission.  The  agenda  planning  reference  is  2016/MOVE/023  "Revision  of  Directive 
2006/1/EC". The initiative was validated on 1 July 2016. 

An  inter-service  steering  group  (ISG),  chaired  by  the  Secretariat-General  with  close 
involvement by DG MOVE, was established in April 2016 in view of the preparation of this 
initiative.  The  ISG  met  five  times  in  the  period  from  April  2016  to  February  2017.  The 
following  Directorates-General  (DGs)  participated  in  the  work  of  the  group:  Secretariat-
General  (SG),  Legal  Service  (SJ),  DG  CLIMA,  DG  EMPL,  DG  ENER,  DG  ENV,  DG 
GROW, DG RTD and DG TAXUD. 

An online public consultation took place from 11 August to 4 November 2016 (see Annex 2). 

2.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board received  the  draft  version  of the  present  impact  assessment 
report  on  24  February  2017  and  following  the  Board  meeting  on  22  March  2017  issued  a 
positive  opinion  with  reservations  on  24  March  2017.  The  reservations  of  the  Board  were 
addressed in the revised IA report as follows: 

RSB reservations 

Modification of the IA report 

Policy context not clearly explained 

The policy context has been elaborated 

Problem  definition  fails  to  demonstrate  the 
magnitude and urgency of the problem  

The  case  for  considering  the  extension  of  the 
scope of the Directive to the use of hired buses 
and coaches has not been made 

Potential  risks  of  the  implementation  of  the 
preferred  option 
tax  optimisation; 
(e.g. 
difficulties  for  Member  States  to  enforce  rules) 
are not sufficiently assessed 

As  it  is  a  REFIT  initiative,  there  should  be  some 
quantitative  data  on  the  potential  for  the 
reduction of the administrative burden 

The reporting on the stakeholder consultation is 
not sufficiently comprehensive and transparent. 

A  rough  estimate  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
problem  has  been  provided;  while  there  is  no 
urgency  as  such,  the  adoption  of  the  2017  road 
initiatives provides a window of opportunities 

As  there  appears  to  be  no  problem,  the  Option 
related  to  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the 
Directive  to  the  use  of  hired  buses  and  coaches 
has been discarded upfront. 

The  potential  risks  and  measures  to  mitigate 
them have been more elaborated. 

A  rough  quantification  of  the  potential  cost 
reductions has been provided. 

has 

The  information  provided  on  the  stakeholder 
consultation 
The 
been 
information  from  the  stakeholder  consultation 
has  been  more  extensively  used  to  support  the 
policy options and choices.  

expanded. 

42 

 
 
 
 
3.  EVIDENCE AND EXTERNAL EXPERTISE USED  

The  impact  assessment  relied  mainly  on  the  support  study  carried  out  by  an  external 
consultant73. This study itself followed up from the support study for the ex-post evaluation 
of Directive 2006/1/EC carried out by the same consultant74.  

The whole report and the options considered in the IA report  were  designed  by taking  into 
account the following documents and evidence: 

ACEA, 2016. ACEA Tax Guide 2016. [Online] Available at: 
http://www.acea.be/uploads/news_documents/ACEA_TAX_GUIDE_2016.pdf 

AECOM, 2014. Task A: Collection and Analysis of Data on the Structure of the Road Haulage Sector in the 
European Union. Report for the European Commission. [Online] Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/doc/2014-02-03-state-of-the-eu-road-haulage-market-task-a-
report.pdf 

Charanzová, D., 2015. Council must remove handbrake on EU vehicle registration reform. The Parliament 
magazine. [Online] Available at: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/council-must-remove-
handbrake-eu-vehicle-registration-reform  

Commercial Motor, 2014. Why is empty running on the rise?. [Online] Available at: 
http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/the-best-of-cm-investigates-why-is-empty-running-on-the-rise 

Council of the European Union, 1995. Minutes of the meeting of the transport working group on the 
Commission proposal [COM 95(2)] in relation to the use of hired vehicles without driver (in French). 

DFF, 2014. RHA Cost Tables 2014, Prepared for the Road Haulage Association. [Online] Available at: 
http://www.andersonstransport.com/documents/terms/Cost-Tables-2014-EDITION.pdf 

European Commission & AECOM, 2014. Task A: Collection and Analysis of Data on the Structure of the Road 
Haulage Sector in the European Union., http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/doc/2014-02-03-state-
of-the-eu-road-haulage-mar: s.n. 

European Commission & AECOM, 2014b. Task B: Report on the State of the EU Road Haulage Market, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/doc/2014-02-05-state-of-the-eu-road-haulage-market-task-b-
report.pdf: s.n. 

European Commission, 1983: Proposal for a Council Directive on the use of hired vehicles for the carriage of 
goods by road [et al.] (COM(83) 266 final of 18.5.1983) [Online] Available at 
http://aei.pitt.edu/32339/1/COM_(78)_772_final.pdf  

European Commission, 1989:  Report from the Commission to the Council on the use of vehicles hired without 
drivers for the carriage of goods by road, (COM(89) 430 final of 13.9.1989. [Online] Available at 
http://aei.pitt.edu/3758/1/3758.pdf 

European Commission, 1995. Proposal for a Council Directive on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for 
the carriage of goods by road (COM(95) 2 final of 13.2.1995. [Online] Available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:51995PC0002&from=EN  

European Commission, 2010. Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM (2010) 
2020 final of 3.3.2010, [Online] Available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 

European Commission, 2011c. WHITE PAPER Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011) 144 final of 28.3.2011) [Online] Available at 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144  

73   Insert link once published. 
74   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-evaluation-

of-directive-2006-1-ec-final-report.pdf 

43 

 
 
                                                            
European Commission, 2012a. Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment - Proposal for a 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles 
registered in another Member State within the Single Market. (SWD)2012)81 of 4.4.2012 [Online] Available at 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0081. 

European Commission, 2014d. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
State of the Union Road Transport Market (COM(2014)222 final of 14.4.2014), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0222 

European Commission, 2016b. Taxation Trends in the European Union. [Online] Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/gen_info/economic_analy
sis/tax_structures/2016/econ_analysis_report_2016.pdf 

Eurotransport, 2014. Lkw-Verbrauchswerte von 1966 bis 2014: Immer Abwärts. [Online] Available at: 
http://www.eurotransport.de/news/lkw-verbrauchswerte-von-1966-bis-2014-immer-abwaerts-6550678.html 

Fraikin, 2014. Press release: Exclusive: Euro VI Ecotest 15 trucks tested and benchmarked. [Online] Available 
at: http://www.fraikin.com/IMG/pdf/CP_Fraikin_Eco_Test_UK.pdf 

Fraikin, 2016. What is contract hire?. [Online] Available at: http://www.fraikin.co.uk/contract-hire 

FTA & PWC, 2014. The Logistics Report, https://www.pwc.co.uk/transport-logistics/assets/lr14-report-web-
060514.pdf: 

ICCT, 2015. Briefing: Comparison of real-world off-cycle NO X emissions control in Euro IV, V, and VI. 
[Online] Available at: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_Briefing_EuroIV-V-VI-
NOx_Mar2015.pdf 

ICCT, 2016. Briefing: A technical summary of Euro 6/VI vehicle emission standards. [Online] Available at: 
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_Euro6-VI_briefing_jun2016.pdf 

Juncker, J., 2014. A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change- 
Political Guidelines for the next European Commission, [Online] Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/file/1955/download_en?token=zuzFAimW  

Leaseurope, n.d.. The Road to 2050. Promotional brochure [Online] Available at: 
http://www.leaseurope.org/uploads/documents/policyissues/automotive/Truck_leaflet_web.pdf 

OECD, 2016. Road haulage charges and taxes. International Transport Forum.. [Online] Available at: 
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ITF_ROAD_HAULAGE 

Ricardo , 2016. Ex-post evaluation of the Hired Vehicles Directive 2006/1/EC - Final report. s.l.: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-evaluation-of-
directive-2006-1-ec-final-report.pdf. 

Ricardo, 2017 (forthcoming). Impact assessment for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and 
Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. [Online]. 

Rogers, E. M., 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Significance & CE Delft, 2010. Price sensitivity of European road freight transport – towards a better 
understanding of existing results. A report for Transport & Environment.. [Online] Available at: 
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/2010_07_price_sensitivity_road_freight_significance
_ce.pdf 

Steer Davies Gleave, 2016. Comprehensive Study on Passenger Transport by Coach in Europe, s.l.: s.n. 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/studies/doc/2016-04-passenger-transport-by-
coach-in-europe.pdf 

TNO, 2015. Emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates of diesel vehicles. [Online] Available at: 
http://publications.tno.nl/publication/34617056/4QHNNo/TNO-2015-R10838.pdf 

44 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2  

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Consultation activities 

The following consultation activities were carried out: 

In the context of the preparation of the upcoming road initiatives, the Commission organised 
several seminars and meetings with (EU level) stakeholders and Member States in 2015 and 
2016  to  discuss,  among  others,  also  the  experience  they  had  with  Directive  2006/1/EC  and 
their views of any changes to the Directive. 

Targeted consultation of authorities and expert stakeholders 

In the course of the impact assessment, a total of 33 interviews with stakeholders have been 
carried out. 137 stakeholders had been contacted but 104 either declined or did not respond to 
the request for an interview, despite several reminders. The interviewed stakeholders can be 
grouped  in  six  different  types  of  stakeholders:  road  hauliers  and  their  representatives  (11 
interviews),  national  ministries  and  enforcement  authorities  (8  interviews),  vehicle  leasing 
companies  and  their  representatives  (6  interviews),  road  passenger  transport  operators  and 
their  representatives  (5  interviews),  customers  of  road  transport  operators  and  their 
representatives (3 interviews) and, last but not least, trade unions and their representatives (1 
interview). Vehicle manufacturers have also been contacted but no interview was carried out. 

Table 2-1: Summary of stakeholder interviews  
Type of stakeholder 

Contacted 

Carried 
out 

Declined / no 
response 

National road haulage operators association 

International road haulage operators association 

Haulage operator 

National ministry 

National road transport enforcement authority 

Vehicle leasing company 

National leasing association 

International leasing association 

National road passenger transport operators' association 

International road passenger transport operators' association 

Passenger transport operator 

National association of customers of road transport operators 

International  association  of  customers  of  road  transport 
operators 

International transport workers' association 

Vehicle manufacturer 

Total (*) 

38 

3 

4 

13 

5 

7 

12 

1 

24 

4 

12 

10 

3 

1 

1 

7 

3 

1 

6 

2 

4 

1 

1 

3 

2 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

31 

0 

3 

7 

3 

3 

11 

0 

21 

2 

12 

8 

2 

0 

1 

137 

33 

104 

Note: (*) The total is one less than the sum of the individual categories as one stakeholder represents both road 
haulage operators and road passenger transport operators and is hence listed twice in the categories above.  
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

45 

 
 
12 week online open public consultation (OPC) on Your Voice in Europe 

In  addition,  an  online  public  consultation  was  carried  out  between  11  August  2016  and  4 
November  2016  (12  weeks).  A  link  to  the  consultation  was  provided  on  the  corresponding 
website of DG MOVE.75 In order not to create too much consultation fatigue, it was decided 
to  carry  out  a  back-to-back  consultation that  would  gather  views  from  the  public  related  to 
both the ex-post evaluation (i.e. views on the experience with the present Directive and on the 
use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  in  general)  and  related  to  a  subsequent  impact  assessment  on 
possible  revision  of  the  Directive  (i.e.  views  on  some  specific  policy  options  and  their 
expected  impacts).  Respondents  were  also  given  the  opportunity  to  provide  any  further 
comments at the end of the questionnaire.  

A total of 27 respondents filled in the online questionnaire. Slightly more than half of them 
(14)  were  transport  operators  or  associations  representing  them.  Public  authorities  (5)  and 
vehicle leasing companies (4) accounted for 19 and 15% respectively of the respondents. The 
remaining  4  responses  were  from  a  communal  enterprise  association  and  from  a  private 
citizen.  It  should  be  noted  that  no  trade  union  or  related  association  participated  in  the 
consultation  (see  Table  2-2  below).  The  European  Transport  Workers  Federation  (ETF) 
representing drivers from across the EU had however already been contacted in the context of 
the targeted stakeholder interviews (see above).  

The respondents came from a total 15 Member States; 3 respondents indicated that they were 
based in more than one Member State. This covered 10 of the 15 Member States of the EU 
before 2004 (BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, AT, FI, SE and UK) and 5 of the 13 Member States 
that had joined the EU since then (CZ, EE, LV, MT and PL).  

Table 2-2: Respondents to the questionnaire of the public consultation 
Type of stakeholder 

Number of responses 

Transport operators / their representatives 

Public authorities 

Vehicle leasing companies / their representatives 

Organisations representing general and SME business interest 

Public / communal enterprise associations 

Private individual  

Workers' representatives / trade unions 

Total 

SME Panel survey 

14 

5 

4 

2 

1 

1 

0 

27 

Finally, as most companies affected by the Directive are SMEs, a specific consultation using 
the  SME  panel  of  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network76  was  carried  out  to  gather  views  from 
SMEs.  It  went  from  22  September  2016  till  11  November  2016  (7  weeks).  Two  separate 
questionnaires had been prepared, one related to the use of hired goods vehicles and the other 
related to the use of hired buses and coaches.  

75   http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/consultations/2016-review-hired-vehicles-carriage-goods_en 
76   https://een.ec.europa.eu/  

46 

 
 
                                                            
A total of 156 responses were received to the questionnaire on the use of hired goods vehicles 
that  had  been  sent  to  the  SME  panel.  They  came  from  various  economic  sectors.  The 
transport,  storage  and  communication  sector  (which  provide  transport  services  for  hire  and 
reward)  and  the  sector  wholesale  and  retail  trade  (which  is  an  important  player  in  own 
account transport activities) were most represented.  

Table 2-3: Respondents  to  the  questionnaire  on  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  sent  to 

the SME panel by sector 

Sector 

Transport, storage and communication 

Wholesale and retail trade 

Manufacturing 

Other community, social and personal service activities 

Construction 

Number of responses 

45 

43 

22 

18 

15 

Other* 
Note:  The  total  (169)  is  above  the  number  of  respondents  (156)  as  the  questionnaire  allowed  respondents  to 
select multiple sectors.  
* 'Other' includes mining and quarrying, electricity, gas and water supply, hotels, restaurants and bars, public 
administration and defence,  education,  finance  intermediation, health  and  social work, real  estate,  renting and 
business activities, and agriculture, hunting and forestry. 

26 

The  respondents  to  the  SME  panel  questionnaire  related  to  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles 
came from a total of 13 EU Member States (from 6 of the 15 Member States of the EU before 
2004 (DK, DE, ES, FR, IT and PT) and from 7 of the 13 Member States which have joined 
the EU since then (EE, LT, HU, PL, RO, SI and SK)). Around 70% of the respondents came 
from the three Member States Romania (39%), Poland (19%) and Italy (13%). 

A  total  of  94  responses  were  received  to  the  questionnaire  on  the  use  of  hired  buses  and 
coaches that had been sent to the SMA panel. More than half (56%) of them were providers 
of passenger transport services by bus and coach. Groups with fewer than 5 responses are not 
indicated  separately  any  analysis  based  on  such  a  low  number  of  respondents  per  group  is 
bound to  be subject to  a great deal of uncertainty.  As all other sectors were  represented by 
fewer  than  5  respondents,  the  only  meaningful  distinction  that  can  be  made  is  the  one 
between 'bus and coach operators' on one side and 'others' on the other side. 

Table 2-4: Respondents to the questionnaire on the use of hired buses and coaches sent 

to the SME panel by sector 

Sector 

Providers of passenger transport services by bus/coach 

Number of responses 

50 

Other* 
Note: The total (90) is below the number of respondents (94) as 4 respondents did not indicate their sector. 
*  'Other'  include  additional  road  transport  services,  public  institutions,  informatics,  alloy  traders,  maritime 
transport, engineering, horticulture, agriculture, tourism agency, IT solution providers and software developers, 
financial  services  and  accountants,  driving  schools,  retail  sale  companies,  guided  tour  operators,  construction, 
healthcare, business advisors, security and a university. 

40 

The respondents to the SME panel questionnaire related to the use of hired buses and coaches 
came from a total of 12 EU Member States (from 5 of the 15 Member States of the EU before 
2004 (DE, ES, FR, IT and PT) and from 7 of the 13 Member States which have joined the EU 
since then (EE, LT, HU, PL, RO, SI and SK)). Almost 78% of the respondents came from the 
three Member States Romania (36%), Italy (28%) and Poland (14%). 

47 

 
 
Results of consultation activities77 

The targeted stakeholder consultation provided some relevant input on the proposed policy 
options and the expected impacts. The stakeholder interviews have also been used to gather 
additional data to support the analysis. 

The  consultation  of  the  SME  panel  on  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  provided  some 
additional input on the potential benefits of the use of hired vehicles. The majority of the 156 
respondents  indicated  that  increasing  the  flexibility  of  operations,  meeting  seasonal  or 
temporary demand peaks, addressing issues related to defective / damaged vehicles, reducing 
operating  costs  and  having  access  to  specific  types  of  vehicles  were  considered  either 
important or very important benefits. Indirectly, the open public consultation also confirmed 
this  view  as  the  majority  of  respondents  (15  out  of  25)  indicated  that  the  impacts  which 
existing  restrictions  would  have  on  the  reduction  of  the  flexibility  of  transport  operations 
were considered to be either fairly or very important. 

Only 11% of respondents to the SME panel (14 out of 130) indicated that they had experience 
with the hiring of goods vehicles registered in another Member State. 8 of the 14 repondents 
said that they did not face any restrictions in using the vehicle.  

The main issue brought up in the public consultation was the patchwork of rules that apply 
to  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  in  the  EU.  Two  thirds  (11  out  of  17)  of  all  respondents 
found  the  unclear  implementation  of  the  existing  rules  concerning  the  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles  a  very  important  or  fairly  important  problem.  Three  quarters  (19  out  of  25)  of  all 
respondents thought that the presence of different restrictions across EU Member States when 
it  comes  to  the  use  of  hired  goods  vehicles  with  a  maximum  mass  above  6  tonnes  by  own 
account  operators  would  create  a  complicated  legal  framework  that  caused  uncertainty  for 
firms and transport operators. No fewer than 84% of all respondents (21 out of 25) thought 
that the complicated legal framework related to the use of a goods vehicle that has been hired 
in  another Member State  was causing uncertainty  for firms. 92%  of respondents  (23 out  of 
25)  thought  that  ensuring  a  coherent  and  consistent  legal  framework  in  the  use  of  hired 
vehicles across Member States was an important objective of the Directive. 

When asked to propose other objectives of the initiative that should be considered, a number 
of further options were presented. Many of the ideas related to more harmonised rules across 
the  EU.  For  example,  it  was  suggested  by  an  EU-wide  industry  association  for  road-rail 
combined transport that the Directive should look to introduce legislation on the parameters 
of  registration,  offering  the  issuance  of  European  registrations  as  a  solution.  In  addition,  it 
was  felt  that  these  registers  should  be  opened  to  all  enforcement  authorities  across  the  EU, 
preferably  in  real-time  to  enable  more  consistent  and  effective  monitoring.  Additionally,  it 
was proposed by an organisation representing road transport operators in the Netherlands that 
the  ability  of  Member  States  to  interpret  the  legislation  differently  should  be  minimised. 
Other  suggestions  for  tentative  objectives  that  the  initiative  should  consider  include 

77   A  presentation  of  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  and  of  the  consultations  of  the  SME  panel  by 
stakeholder  category  is  not  provided  here  because  the  relatively  low  number  of  respondents  to  the 
consultations  negatively  affects  their  level  of  representativeness  for  their  respective  group.  There  is 
therefore a high risk that such a disaggregated presentation would lead to wrong conclusions. 

48 

 
 
                                                            
improving  social  standards  for  drivers,  facilitating  the  access  to  new  technologies  by 
operators, and tackling CO2 emissions from vehicles. 

As the road haulage business in the EU is increasingly international, it is not surprising that 
the operators call for more harmonised rules to increase the legal certainty of their operating 
environment.  It  is  for  the  same  reason  that  more  than  three  quarters  (19  out  of  24)  of  the 
respondents in the public consultation were of the opinion that the EU is the most appropriate 
level to design rules on the use of hired goods vehicles in transport operations across the EU. 

When  asked  about  the  opinion  on  the  different  policy  options,  the  response  to  Option  0 
(Issue  Guidelines  and  Recommendations)  was  largely  negative.  It  was  felt  that  this  would 
only be effective to a limited extent for clarifying the legal framework relating to the use of 
hired vehicles to both authorities and operators. It was highlighted that these documents have 
no real legal value and are ineffective when compared to the introduction of clear provisions 
in  legal  texts.  Additionally,  these  documents  may  be  still  subject  to  differences  in 
interpretation  by  individual  Member  States,  and  therefore  would  not  offer  a  satisfactory 
solution  to  current  problems  of  inconsistency  of  application.  It  was  even  suggested,  by  a 
public authority in Malta, that since these guidance recommendation documents would not be 
binding,  it  could  actually  result  in  further  confusion  within  the  sector  due  to  different 
interpretations by different parties. The impact on harmonisation would be very limited, since 
Member States would have no obligation to amend current national legislation. It would not 
be an appropriate response for moving towards a more harmonised system according to the 
respondents,  which  as  earlier  identified,  is  a  key  concern  with  the  current  application  of 
Directive 2006/1/EC. 

If a guidance document were to be produced, survey respondents suggested that it should try 
to introduce clarity as much as possible, in an effort to somewhat harmonise the legislative 
framework  on  an  EU-wide  scale.  Also,  it  should  make  reference  to  Regulation  (EC) 
1072/2009, which also makes provisions for hired vehicles. 

When  asked  about  the  impacts  of  this  measure  on  factors  affecting  the  haulage  sector,  the 
vehicle  hiring  sector  and  public  administrations,  the  survey  respondents  indicated  that  it 
would largely have no impact, as suggested previously. 

Option  1a  is  met  with  greater  positivity  in  comparison  to  option  0.  The  factors  that  this 
option is most likely to have a positive impact upon, according to the survey respondents, are 
the level of competition, investment in cleaner vehicles, and the creation of new jobs within 
the vehicle leasing sector. 

However,  this  was  not  a  unanimous  opinion  shared  by  all  survey  respondents.  Some  open-
text responses expressed concerns that this amendment would in fact be damaging to small 
hauliers.  The  ability  of  operators  to  use  vehicles  with  a  greater  gross  vehicle  weight  and 
therefore  load  capacity  would  lead  to  the  extension  of  the  range  of  own-account  operators. 
Small  hauliers  would  lose  out  since  they  would  be  relatively  less  cost  effective.  Therefore, 
the option was seen as a potential threat to these hauliers, although there was no agreement 
on  the  size  of  the  threat.  An  organisation  representing  vehicle  leasing  companies  in  Italy, 
however, claimed that since the rental of trucks enables businesses to remove financial risk 
associated with truck ownership and operation, small hauliers may not be as largely affected 
as previously thought. 

49 

 
 
Option  1b  was  met  with  broad  positivity  from  the  survey  respondents.  Survey  responses 
suggest this amendment would have the greatest effect on the level of competition, growth, 
and job creation within the vehicle leasing sector. By contrast, only few respondents felt that 
it would have a negative impact on any of the factors considered. 

Additional  comments,  however,  highlight  some  concerns  with  this  option  which  should  be 
considered.  For  example,  whilst  it  is  strongly  agreed  that  the  proposed  measure  would 
provide  an  injection  of  competition  within  the  vehicle  leasing  and  road  haulage  sectors,  a 
coordinated  template  response  (two  organisations  representing  road  haulage  operators  in 
Belgium,  and  EU-wide)  felt  this  would  have  a  negative  effect  on  SMEs  and  some  other 
companies  within  the  sector.  It  was  also  suggested  by  an  organisation  representing  road 
haulage operators in the Netherlands that some companies would utilise the legislation to hire 
vehicles from other Member States, where tax regimes are lower. This would cause increased 
competitive pressures for SMEs, in a similar manner to the concerns raised in Option 1a. 

Additionally, it was stated by an organisation representing public enterprises in Austria that 
road  safety  and  quality  may  suffer  as  a  result  of  this  policy  option,  as  it  increases  the 
competitive  pressure  and  thus  puts  drivers  under  increased  strain.  Finally,  a  Swedish 
association of transport enterprises suggested that costs of administration and compliance are 
likely  to  increase  for  monitoring  and  enforcement  authorities.  However,  this  option  would 
achieve positive effects by allowing companies to add vehicles to their fleet on a temporary 
basis  to  meet  seasonal  demand  fluctuations.  There  was  also  support  for  a  harmonised 
definition of how long a vehicle can be hired for across all Member States. 

When asked about how long the fixed duration of 'temporary' should be, there was a mixed 
response from the respondents. Whilst few suggested that this duration should be less than a 
month,  there  was  an  even  spread  of  responses  for  between  one  and  12  months.  One 
respondent indicated that a minimum of 3 months should be applied, but he did not see a need 
to set a maximum. A final respondent noted that ‘it should be recalled that according to the 
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice the notion of temporary in service provision is settled by 
the duration, regularity, frequency and continuity of the service, to be decided on a case by 
case basis’. 

Option 2 is to introduce the same rules for hired vehicles as already exist for owned vehicles. 
Member States would not be able to impose specific restrictions on hired vehicles, and these 
vehicles  would  be  bound  by  existing  Member  State  legislation  around  vehicle  registration 
requirements.  For  example,  there  is  typically  a  requirement  to  register  a  vehicle  within  a 
Member  State  if  it  is  primarily  used  or  based  within  that  Member  State  following  a  grace 
period. 

It  was  felt  that  this  option  would  have  a  number  of  positive  impacts.  For  example,  it  was 
expected that it would improve productivity of transport operations, whilst cutting costs for 
road transport operators. Additionally, it is thought to have positive impacts, as with the other 
options,  on  the  growth,  job  creation,  investment  in  new  vehicles,  and  level  of  competition 
within the vehicle leasing sector. Unlike other options, however, it is expected to also have 
largely positive effects on the growth within the road haulage sector. By contrast, however, it 
was indicated that it would increase the competitive pressure on SMEs. 

50 

 
 
 
Results with regard to a possible extension of the scope of the Directive to the use of hired 
buses and coaches (an option that has been discarded as no problem could be established) 

When  asked  about  the  need  for  an  EU  level  legislation  on  the  use  of  hired  buses  and 
coaches, only 22% of the respondents to the online public consultation (6 out of 27) replied 
'Yes'  while  33%  (9  out  of  27)  saw  no  need  and  44%  (12  out  of  27)  had  no  opinion  on  the 
matter. 8 of 23 respondents indicated that they would be in favour of such a measure, whereas 
5  respondents  were  against.  The  remaining  10  responses  either  indicated  that  they  were 
neither in favour nor against, or they did not know. The reason for this mixed support may be 
related  to  a  lack  of  certainty  as  to  the  necessity  of  this  measure.  The  passenger  transport 
market is reported to function properly, also at European level, with the renting of passenger 
transport vehicles common among coach/bus companies themselves. The survey respondents 
were  split  as  to  whether  introducing  passenger  transport  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive 
would  benefit  or  harm  the  sector.  They  felt  however  that,  if  buses  and  coaches  were  to  be 
covered by Directive 2006/1/EC, they should be regulated with the same freedom as HGVs 
and the rules on the use of hired buses and coaches should be harmonised across the EU.  

When asked about the effects of an extension of the scope of the Directive to the use of hired 
buses  and  coaches,  a  large  share  of  respondents  was  unsure  of  the  consequences  of  the 
measure.  In  general,  the  largest  positive  effects  are  expected  for  the  vehicle  leasing  sector, 
where respondents felt that growth, job creation and the level of competition would benefit 
from  the  measure.  However,  due  to  the  large  share  of  "Do  not  know"  responses,  no  strong 
conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. Some concerns raised by the survey respondents 
include  a  potential  deterioration  of  driver  working  conditions  due  to  the  increased 
competitive  pressure  which  the  measure  entails,  and  the  need  to  ensure  that  only  the  most 
environmentally friendly EURO class vehicles should be allowed to be leased. 

The  consultation  of  the  SME  panel  on  the  use  of  hired  buses  and  coaches  found  that 
almost half (27/60) of those who had replied that they were involved (in one way or another) 
in  the  provision  of  passenger  transport  services  had  never  used  hired  buses  and  coaches. 
When asked about the legal situation of the use of hired buses and coaches in their country, 
respondents from 5 Member States contradicted each other and some 18% did not know the 
answer. This suggests that a relatively high number of respondents are not fully aware of the 
legal  situation  in  their  country.  Almost  half  (12/28)  of  those,  who  replied  to  the  question 
whether they would consider using more hired coaches and buses if the restrictions in their 
countries  were  lifted,  said  they  would  do  so.  Similar  to  the  situation  with  regard  to  hired 
goods vehicles, the main benefits from the use of hired buses and coaches were seen to be the 
ability to meet seasonal or temporary demand peaks, to increase the flexibility of operations 
and to help reduce operating costs of passenger transport operations. 

Use of consultation results 

It  was  not  possible  to  get  much  quantitative  information  from  the  consultation  process. 
However,  the  qualitative  information  that  has  been  gathered  was  of  great  value  for  this 
impact assessment as the feedback received was fairly consistent and plausible. 

The lack of support for the potential option of extending the scope of the Directive to the use 
of hired buses and coaches in the public consultation and the large share of respondents who 
had no opinion on this issue (even among bus and coach operators as the related SME panel 
questionnaire indicated) was taken into account when this potential option was discarded. 

51 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3  

WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW 

Who is affected 

How are they affected? 

Own account 
operators 

Road transport 
Operators 

Vehicle renting / 
leasing companies 

National 
authorities in the 
Member States 

Society in general 

Own  account  operators  across  the  EU  will  be  allowed  to  use  hired  goods 
vehicles  with  a  maximum  mass  above  6  tonnes.  At  the  moment,  this  is 
restricted  in  Greece,  Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal.  The  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles can contribute to increased flexibility and productivity. 

Road transport operators will have legal certainty that they can use vehicles 
that they have hired in a Member State other than the one where they are 
established  for  3-4  months.  They  may  thus  benefit  from  more  choice  and 
potentially  better  deals  across  borders,  in  particular  if  they  are  from 
Member  States  with  a  less  developed  vehicle  renting  /  leasing  sector  and 
from border regions. 

The  vehicle  renting  /  leasing  industry  benefits  from  access  to  hitherto 
closed  markets  (the  own  account  operators  in  the  four  Member  States 
mentioned  above)  and  from  the  possibility  to  move  around  its  vehicles 
from  Member  States  where  the  vehicles  would  be  idle  to  Member  States 
where  they  may  be  needed  on  a  temporary  basis  (3-4  months)  to  satisfy 
seasonal or other short-term extra demand. This increases the productivity 
and profitability of the vehicle renting/leasing sector in the EU.  

National authorities will be relieved from controlling and enforcing market 
access  restrictions  such  as  the  ones  related  to  the  use  of  hired  goods 
vehicles  for  own  account  operations.  At  the  same  time,  the  temporary 
permission to use vehicles hired in another Member State will also need to 
be enforced. While the Directive does not impose a maximum hiring period 
for cross-border hires, most Member States will want to have one in place 
to  avoid  that  their  transport  operators  start  moving  their  fleet  to  Member 
States with low tax levels and hire them back.  

Tax  revenues  are  bound  to  increase  mainly  due  to  higher  profits  in  the 
vehicle renting/leasing sector and in the road haulage sector. 

Society  should  benefit  from  the  increased  use  of  hired  vehicles  as  hired 
vehicles  are  generally  newer,  cleaner  and  safer.  As  hired  vehicles  are 
usually better maintained than the average fleet, they also tend to be more 
fuel  efficient.  Altogether,  the  initiative  will  contribute  to  lower  pollutant 
emissions, lower CO2 emissions and fewer road deaths. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4  

MODELLING APPROACH AS WELL AS TABLES AND GRAPHS SUPPORTING THE ANALYSIS 

Modelling approach to derive the economic impact of the use of hired vehicles 

The  starting  point  of  the  modelling  is  that  the  use  of  hired  vehicles  allows  companies  to 
increase their productivity by being able to respond to fluctuations in demand more quickly 
and drawing on a pool of vehicles available for hire when they need one. The question is then 
how  this  increase  in  productivity  is  to  be  estimated.  It  is  known  that  hired  vehicles tend  to 
have higher utilisation rates than vehicles owned by operators. The more vehicles are hired, 
the  fewer  vehicles  are  hence  needed  to  carry  out  the  same  amount  of  transport  operations. 
Leasing industry representatives have claimed that fleet size could be reduced by up to 10% 
when  an  operator  moves  from  owning  his  vehicles  to  hiring  them.78  The  assumption  of  a 
possible reduction of the average fleet size by 10% through the use of hired vehicles is at the 
core of the modelling approach. 

It  is  assumed  that  the  annual  fixed  operating  costs  of  a  vehicle  (depreciation,  interest  on 
capital,  vehicle  insurance  and  vehicle  ownership  tax)  are  identical  for  hired/leased  vehicles 
owned  by  leasing  companies  and  for  vehicles  directly  owned  by  transport  operators.  As 
explained above, the use of hired vehicles instead of vehicles owned by the operators allows 
for  a  10%  reduction  in  the  overall  vehicle  stock.  A  10%  reduction  in  the  vehicle  stock 
translates into a 10% reduction in fixed operating costs. It is assumed that the cost savings in 
the  case  of  a  vehicle  replaced  by  a  hired  vehicle  are  equally  shared  between  the  transport 
company hiring the vehicle and the leasing company owning it. 
Based on 2014 Cost Tables of the UK Road Haulage Association RHA79, the cost savings per 
vehicle  in  the  UK  could  be  estimated.  As  the  fixed  operating  costs  vary  between  Member 
States, the numbers have been adjusted for each Member State. As a result, the average fixed 
operating costs per vehicle in the EU have been found to be around €9,700 per year for a light 
commercial vehicle (<3.5 tonnes) and some €16,500 per year for a heavy goods vehicle (>3.5 
tonnes; weighted average between road tractors and rigid trucks). 

Table 4-1 - Net cost saving for transport operator per vehicle replaced by hiring 
HGV 
Type of cost 

LCV 

Annual fixed cost (EU average) 

€9,737 

€16,502 

Stock reduction / Fixed cost saving through hire 

Gross cost saving per vehicle replaced 

Proportion accruing to transport operator 

Net cost saving accruing to transport operator 
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

X 

= 

X 

= 

€974 

€487 

10% 

50% 

€1,650 

€825 

78   In  stakeholder  interviews,  leasing  companies  have  even  reported  a  possible  fleet  size  reduction  by  up  to 
30% in the heavily seasonal food haulage business. However, it is not clear to what extent this reduction 
can actually be attributed to improved vehicle utilisation. It is true that vehicles used during peak periods by 
one customer may be rented out to another customer during non-peak periods, but only to the extent that the 
two  customers  are  faced  with  two  different  peak  periods.  The  "extreme"  version  of  possible  fleet  size 
reduction  has  therefore  not  been  considered  (also  because  it  was  not  found  to  be  representative  for  all 
sectors using hired vehicles). 

79   Available at http://www.andersonstransport.com/documents/terms/Cost-Tables-2014-EDITION.pdf  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Another potential cost saving element comes from the fact that hired vehicles are on average 
more fuel efficient than other vehicles on the market, not only because they are on average 
newer  but  also  because  they  are  on  average  better  maintained  than  other  vehicles.80  To 
explore  the  potential  impact  of  improved  fuel  efficiency  of  hired  vehicles,  a  sensitivity 
analysis which quantified the effects of a 5% reduction in fuel consumption has been carried 
out. 

Representatives  of  the  leasing  industry  indicated  that,  due  to  their  bargaining  power,  their 
knowledge  of  the  vehicle  market  and  economies  of  scale,  leasing  companies  usually  get 
better deals than the average transport operator would when acquiring a vehicle. In a highly 
competitive market, they are bound to pass these benefits at least in part on to their customers 
who  may  thus  benefit  from  additional  financial  advantages  from  using  hired  vehicles. 
However, as it was not possible to cross-check the information and to quantify these benefits, 
the operational cost saving calculations focus on the first two categories mentioned above  - 
reduced  fleet  size  due  to  higher  utilisation,  and  fuel  cost  savings  due  to  newer  and  better 
maintained vehicles. 

80   Fraikin, a truck hire company, and certifying agency Dekra performed fuel economy tests on 15 EURO VI 
trucks and found that, under highway operating conditions, the best performing ones had up to 7% lower 
fuel  consumption  than  the  average.  It  is  assumed  that  vehicle  hiring  /  leasing  companies  will  offer  their 
customers the most fuel efficient vehicles on the market. Lowering the fuel costs of customers is one of the 
main selling points of leasing companies. http://www.fraikin.com/IMG/pdf/CP_Fraikin_Eco_Test_UK.pdf. 

54 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 4-1: Problem tree diagram 

55 

 
 
 
 
Annual vehicle costs as input to the quantification analysis 

Figure 4-2: Estimated annual operating costs for an articulated truck by Member State 

Notes: Direct country-specific cost estimates only available for BE, FR, DE, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, SI, ES. Cost 
figures for the other MS are scaled, using Eurostat data on relative labour cost levels in the transportation and 
storage  sector,  and  on  purchasing  power  parities  for  providing  estimates  of  capital,  tyre,  and  repair  and 
maintenance costs in each Member State. 

Source: Ricardo (2017). 

56 

 - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200SwedenDenmarkUnited KingdomFinlandIrelandBelgiumFranceItalyLuxembourgNetherlandsAustriaGermanySpainGreeceCyprusPortugalSloveniaHungaryCzech RepublicSlovakiaEstoniaCroatiaLatviaPolandRomaniaLithuaniaBulgariaDriver cost k€/yrYearly cost of veh financing & possession k€/yrFuel cost k€/yrTyres k€/yrMaintenance‐repair k€/yrInsurance (vehicle) k€/yrOwnership tax k€/yrOverheads k€/yr 
 
 
 
Figure 4-3: Annual non-fuel vehicle costs across Member States used in leasing 
calculations 

Notes:  Costs  for  van  and  rigid  truck  based  on  UK  figures  from  DFF  International  (2014)  scaled  by  the  cost 
ratios between Member States from the Figure 4-2 above. 

57 

 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000DenmarkSpainSwedenIrelandCzech Rep.FinlandSlovakiaUKEstoniaCyprusGermanyHungaryLatviaGreeceCroatiaEU28NetherlandsLuxembourgPolandAustriaBelgiumItalySloveniaFranceLithuaniaPortugalBulgariaRomaniaHGV (average of rigid and road tractor)Road tractor12t rigid truck3.5t van 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-4: Summary of total annual operating cost savings for HGVs in the EU28 over 
baseline for all policy options (except Option 2) 

Note: The slope changes in 2023 as all policy options are presumed to be phased in between 2020 and 2023 and 
only take full effect from 2023 onwards. Option 3 should be read as Option 2. 
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

Figure 4-5: Summary of total annual operating cost savings for LCVs in the EU28 over 
baseline for all relevant policy options 

Note: The slope changes in 2023 as all policy options are presumed to be phased in between 2020 and 2023 and 
only take full effect from 2023 onwards. As Option 1a only affects HGVs, there is no impact on LCVs. The cost 
savings for Option 1c are hence the same as those for Option 1b. Option 3 should be read as Option 2. 

Source: Ricardo (2017). 

58 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4-6: Number of HGV replaced by hired vehicles over baseline (data for EU28) 

Note: Option 3 should be read as Option 2. 

Source: Ricardo (2017). 

Figure 4-7: Number of LCV replaced by hired vehicles over baseline (data for EU28) 

Note: Option 3 should be read as Option 2. 

Source: Ricardo (2017). 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4-2 - EU-28 level overview of estimated losses in taxation revenues in 2030 from 
reduction in goods vehicle stock due to intensified use of hired vehicles 

Option 

Rental fleet 

Stock 
replaced by 
rental fleet 

Net 
reduction 
in stock 

Net reduction 
in stock over 
baseline 

Weighted 
average tax 
per vehicle 

Total loss 
in tax 
revenues 

LCV Baseline 

2,334,088 

2,593,431 

259,343 

LCV Option 1b 

2,334,088 

2,602,382 

268,294 

LCV Option 2 

2,334,088 

2,597,150 

263,062 

HGV Baseline  

543,454 

HGV Option 1a  

578,413 

HGV Option 1b 

543,454 

HGV Option 1c  

578,413 

HGV Option 2 
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

578,413 

603,838 

642,681 

607,844 

647,058 

643,960 

60,384 

64,268 

64,390 

68,646 

65,548 

- 

8,950 

3,719 

- 

3,884 

4,006 

8,262 

5,164 

- 

€306 

€249 

- 

€1,115 

€926 

€1,491 

€1,072 

- 

€3 mio 

€1 mio 

- 

€4 mio 

€4 mio 

€8 mio 

€6 mio 

Option 

Table 4-3 - EU-28 level  overview  of  estimated gains  in corporate tax revenues in  2030 
from operating cost savings (/ extra profits) due to the intensified use of hired vehicles 
Increase in 
Hire/rental companies' 
average 
extra profits 
taxation 
revenues 

Transport operators' 
cost saving in 2030 

Effective average tax 
rate 

HGVs 

HGVs 

LCVs 

LCVs 

Option 1a 

€0 

€31 mio 

€0 

€65 mio 

27% (4 MS) 

Option 1b 

€45 mio 

€29 mio 

€9 mio 

€7 mio 

21% (avg. for 17 MS) 

Option 1c 

€45 mio 

€60 mio 

€9 mio 

€72 mio 

21% (avg. for 17 MS) 

€17 mio 
Option 2 
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

€41 mio 

€4 mio 

€68 mio 

21% (avg. for 17 MS) 

€26 mio 

€19 mio 

€39 mio 

€27 mio 

Table 4-4 - Summary of the environmental impacts of the policy options in 2030 for the 
EU28 for LCVs and HGVs (incl. assumed 5% improvement in fuel efficiency) 

Option 

Share replaced 
by rental 
vehicles in 2030 

Improvement NOx, PM 
and CO2 performance 
of rental fleet 

Emission savings 
from rental 
vehicles 

Savings over 
baseline 

LCV  Baseline  (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

LCV Option 1b (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

LCV  Option  2  (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

HGV  Baseline  (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

HGV Option 1a (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

HGV Option 1b (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

HGV Option 1c (extra 
5% fuel saving) 

HGV  Option  2  (extra 
5% fuel saving) 
Source: Ricardo (2017). 

8.70% 

8.73% 

8.71% 

9.96% 

10.60% 

10.07% 

10.72% 

10.62% 

5.83% 

5.83% 

5.83% 

5.28% 

5.28% 

5.28% 

5.28% 

5.28% 

60 

0.5074% 

- 

0.5092% 

0.0018% 

0.5082% 

0.0007% 

0.5257% 

- 

0.5595% 

0.0338% 

0.5292% 

0.0035% 

0.5634% 

0.0376% 

0.5607% 

0.0349% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4-5  -  Estimating  the  overall  number  of  hired  (=  rented  and  leased)  commercial 
vehicles in the EU28 

Note: Green values are estimates of leased vehicle stock based on total MS vehicle stock multiplied by average 
share of leased vehicles for developing markets; red values are estimates of leased vehicle stock based on total 
MS vehicle stock multiplied by average share of leased vehicles for mature markets. 

Sources: [1]: Leaseurope annual members’ survey, data for 2015. [2] Eurostat – sum of stock of road tractors, 
and lorries (payloads <1,500 kg for LCVs <3.5t GVW) for 2012 or 2013. Gaps in Eurostat data for BE, DK, 
FR, EL, HU, LT, LU, NL, PT, SK, SE, UK were filled using national sources from the years 2010-2016 using the 
latest year available. 

61 

LCVHGVLCV  HGVLCVHGVLCVHGVBEm656 000145 00078 13030 628BGd261 000106 0006 65010 245CZd43 20054 600468 000136 0009.0%40.0%43 20054 600DKm75 40030 100396 00041 00019.0%73.0%75 40030 100DEm314 800209 1001 986 000776 00016.0%27.0%314 800209 100EEd11 4008 20052 00036 00022.0%23.0%11 4008 200IE  d283 00027 0007 2112 610ELd9003 600840 000280 0000.0%1.0%9003 600ESd111 9004 475 000671 0003.0%111 90064 854FRm535 70084 3006 257 000534 0009.0%16.0%535 70084 300HRd90 00049 0002 2934 736ITm231 000115 6003 385 000759 0007.0%15.0%231 000115 600CYd97 00017 0002 4721 643LVd40 00037 0001 0193 576LTd51 00079 0001 3007 636LUm30 00010 0003 5732 112HUd331 000147 0008 43414 208MTd2 00040 000513 866NLm132 200828 000135 00016.0%132 20028 516ATm341 00076 00040 61316 053PLd34 90050 0002 303 000898 0002.0%6.0%34 90050 000PTd23 6001 225 00088 0002.0%23 6008 505ROd492 000228 00012 53622 037SId54 00031 0001 3762 996SKd18 00022 200209 00084 0009.0%26.0%18 00022 200FIm46 00046 000411 000109 00011.0%42.0%46 00046 000SEm516 00080 00061 45616 898UKm689 50090 5003 736 000506 00018.0%18.0%689 50090 500Developing market averaged243 900138 60011 273 0002 954 0002.5%9.7%287 242285 512Mature market average m2 024 600575 60018 542 0003 171 00011.9%21.1%2 208 373669 808Total2 268 500714 20029 815 0006 125 0008.4%15.6%2 495 615955 320Member StateMature/ developing marketLeaseurope data [1]: stock of hired (= rented and leased) goods vehicles in 2015Eurostat data [2]: overall stock of goods vehiclesCalculated share of hired (= rented and leased) goods vehiclesOverall stock of hired (= rented and leased) goods vehicles (incl. gap-filled estimates) 
 
 
 
Table 4-6 - Estimating the number of renting and operating leasing vehicles in the EU28 

Note:  Green  values  are  estimates  of  operating  leasing  stock  based  on  total  MS  leasing  stock  multiplied  by 
average share of operating leasing for developing markets; red values are estimates of operating leasing stock 
based on total MS leasing stock multiplied by average share of operating leasing for mature markets. 

Source: [1]: Leaseurope annual members’ survey, data for 2015. 

62 

Share of renting and operating leasing among all hired goods vehicles [1]LCVHGVLCV  HGVBEm--48 26512 861BGd--1 2011 841CZd19%8 38310 5958 38310 595DKm17%12 6415 04612 6415 046DEm21%66 03743 86466 03743 864EEd20%2 2351 6072 2351 607IE  d--1 302469ELd--162647ESd--20 20311 654FRm100%535 70084 300535 70084 300HRd--414851ITm36%83 94142 00783 94142 007CYd--446295LVd--184643LTd--2351 372LUm--2 207887HUd--1 5232 553MTd--9695NLm74%98 01421 14298 01421 142ATm--25 0896 741PLd--6 3018 985PTd--4 2611 528ROd--2 2633 960SId--248538SKd14%2 4903 0712 4903 071FIm--28 41619 316SEm--37 9647 096UKm--425 93438 002Developing market averaged18%18%51 86151 304Mature market average m62%42%1 364 208281 263Total59%38%1 416 069332 567Member StateMature/ developing marketEstimate of goods vehicles held under renting and operating leasing contractsOverall stock of goods vehicles under renting and operating leasing contracts (incl. estimates) 
 
 
(1) Consultation 
with SMEs 
representatives 

(2) Preliminary 
assessment of 
businesses likely to 
be affected 

(3) Measurement of 
the impact on 
SMEs 

ANNEX 5  

SME TEST 

SMEs  have  been  contacted  throughout  the  process.  As  the 
sectors  concerned  by  this  initaitive  predominantly  (>99%) 
consist  of  SMEs,  they  could  bring  in  the  views  during  the 
stakeholder consultation in the second half of 2016, during the 
open  public  conultation  (12  weeks  from  11  August  till  4 
November  2016)  and  during  the  consultation  of  the  SME 
panel  of  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network  (7  weeks  from  22 
September till 11 November 2016).  

The  SME  panel  questionnaire  has  been  translated  in  all 
languages of the EU. Two questionnaires were prepared, one 
about  the  hiring  of  goods  vehicles  and  the  other  about  the 
hiring  of  buses  and  coaches.  A  total  of  156  responses  have 
been received for the first one, 94 for the second one. 

Two categories of SMEs are likely to be most affected by the 
initiative:  SMEs  in  the  road  haulage  sector  and  SMEs  in  the 
vehicle rental / leasing sector. 

SMEs  from  other  economic  sectors  in  EL,  IT,  ES  and  PT 
carrying  out  own-account  transport  operations  will  also  be 
affected  as  they  will  have  the  possibility  to  hire  goods 
vehicles.  

As  SMEs  are  particulalry  credit-constrained,  the  option  of 
hiring  or  leasing  a  goods  vehicles  instead  of  buying  it  is  of 
particular relevance for them. 

The impacts on companies in the road haulage and the vehicle 
renting  /  leasing  business  (>99%  SMEs)  is  given  in  sections 
6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the main text. Own-account operators in EL, 
IT, ES and PT stand to benefit from the initiative in terms of 
lower costs, increased flexibility and higher productivity.  

Some stakeholders (among which trade union representatives) 
believe  that  allowing  the  hiring  of  goods  vehicles  for  own 
account operators and in other Member States will benefit the 
bigger  companies  rather  than  the  smaller  ones.  Smaller 
operators  would  have  to  suffer  from  increased  competititive 
pressure.  However,  no-one  prevents  them  from  also  using 
hired goods vehicles and benefit from the related advantages.  

(4) Assess 
alternative options 
and mitigating 
measures 

At the end of the impact assessment, there was no indication 
that  the  preferred  option  might  result  in  a  disproportionate 
burden for SMEs. Consequently, there is no element showing 
the  need  for  SME  specific  measures  in  order  to  ensure 
compliance with the proportionality principle.  

63 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6  

THE ROAD INITIATIVES - THE 'BIG PICTURE' 

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' (COM(2015) 550 final) and on 'A Framework Strategy 
for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy' (COM(2015) 
80 final) 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. 

IAs 

Legislation 

Priorities 
A  deeper  and 
fairer  Internal 
Market 

Hired vehicles 
Access  to  the  haulage  market 
and to the Profession  
Social aspects: Driving/rest time, 
working  time  and  enforcement 
measures  (tachograph),  Posting 
of  workers  and  enforcement 
measures 
Access  to  the  market  of  buses 
and coaches 
Climate 
Energy Union  Eurovignette 

and 

European Electronic Toll Service 
(EETS) 

Directive 2006/1 
Regulation 1071/2009 & 1072/2009  

Regulation  561/2006  and  Regulation 
165/2014  
Directive  96/71,  Directive  2014/67, 
Directive  2002/15 
and  Directive 
2006/22  
Regulation 1073/2009 

Directive 1999/62 
Directive 2004/52 
Commission decision 2009/750 

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 
initiatives81.   

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. 

81   More specifically in the Annex under points 6, 11 and 39 

64 

 
 
 
                                                            
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  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. 

WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR ACTION? 

Road  transport  is  for  a  large  part  international  (around  34%82)  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. 

82   Statistical Pocketbook 2016, EU Transport in figures 

65 

 
 
                                                            
  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. 

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  levels  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  in  reducing  pollutants  from  heavy  goods 
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  although  user 
charges and tolls are levied on most motorways and other TEN-T roads. 

Electronic tolling systems in the EU are still far from being interoperable, despite the primary 
objective of EU legislation of establishing "one contract/one on-board unit/one invoice" for 
the  users.  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 allow the use of electronic waybills).  

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. 

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 

66 

 
 
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  road  safety.  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  IA  on  the  Eurovignette  Directive  will  assess  options  to  promote  financially  and 
environmentally  sustainable  and  socially  equitable  (road)  transport  through  a  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 electronic tolls in the EU  – for users and 
for 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. 

67 

 
 
 
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  combined  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 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 “letterbox” 
companies  in  low-wage countries.  Tackling the issue  of posting  of workers in road 
transport goes therefore hand in hand with the issue of establishment of road transport 
operators, which again illustrates the link between internal market and social aspects 
of road transport. 

  Promoting 

interoperability  of  electronic 

lower 
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. This shows the close link between the Eurovignette 
and EETS initiatives. 

tolls  systems  will 

lead 

to 

  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 overall coherence. 

  The initiative 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. 

68