COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay fees in the Union (recast)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: cross-border cooperation, electronic equipment, exchange of information, road transport, toll, traffic offence, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 191 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay fees in the Union (recast) {COM(2017) 280 final} {SWD(2017) 190 final} {SWD(2017) 192 final} {SWD(2017) 193 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet  

Impact  assessment  on  the  Revision of Directive 2004/52/EC and Commission Decision 2009/750/EC  ("EETS 
Legal Framework") 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
National electronic toll collection markets are dominated by local monopolies and providers of EU-wide toll 
collection services ('EETS1 providers') encounter barriers to expand into new markets. As a result, road users 
need many different on-board units (OBU), contracts and invoicing arrangements to pay tolls in different parts 
of the EU, resulting in a lot of costs and burden. 
Another problem is the relative impunity of vehicles registered in one Member State which do not pay tolls in 
another Member State. Indeed, there is today no efficient solution at the EU level for exchanging information on 
toll offenders. This results in toll revenue leakage and frustration among compliant drivers, but also inhibits 
technological evolution from traditional toll plazas to modern free-flow tolling solutions. 
What should be achieved?  
General objective: Contribute to the correct functioning of the Internal Market by ensuring full access to 
interoperability in tolling services in line with and proportionate to the road users' needs. 
Specific objective 1: Remove market entry barriers and foster the development of a competitive market for 
electronic toll collection services 
Specific objective 2: Improve the level of enforcement of tolls from foreign-registered vehicles 
Specific objective 3: Remove the excessive obligations on EETS providers 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
The sub-optimal way in which the electronic toll collection market is organised in Member State A negatively 
affects road users registered in Member State B, and vice  versa. Therefore, no Member State individually has 
the incentive to change things, unless the interest of EU citizens and businesses is taken into account. This can 
only be achieved if action is undertaken at the EU level. 
As regards the cross-border enforcement of tolls, a purely intergovernmental approach has proven not to work. 
An efficient system of exchange of information on toll offenders can only be put in place by the EU for all 
Member States. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
Three alternative solutions have been considered: 
1) Self-regulation to achieve specific objective 1 + legislative measures to achieve specific 
objective 2 and 3. In this policy option the Commission agrees with the industry on a number of clear 
operational objectives derived from the first specific objective, but refrains from imposing the way to achieve 
these objectives. The self-regulation is completed with hard regulation to achieve specific objectives 2 and 3. 
2) Legislative approach, where all identified problems and problem drivers are addressed with EU legislation 
(changes to Directive 2004/52/EC and to Decision 2009/750/EC). 
3) A single EU ETC standard to facilitate technical and procedural interoperability + legislative 
measures to promote competition on the market and to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. In this 
policy option the cost of providing interoperable services is reduced thanks to deep harmonisation of tolling 
systems and procedures. The other objectives are attained through changes to the legislation. 
Policy option 2 is the preferred option. It is the second most effective in reaching the objectives, 
but ranks highest in terms of cost-benefit analysis. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
PO1 is supported by the EETS Facilitation Platform (EFP) – the industry's co-operation platform involving main 
e-tolling actors in 12 countries. Most EFP members also support (large parts of) PO2.  
The legislative measures included in PO2 largely build on the industry's and national administrations' findings on 
the deficiencies of the current legislation. Nearly all the measures received strong support from stakeholders 
(and in particular Member States), although opposition was voiced regarding certain elements. 
Finally, PO3 has the support of non-professional road users, and has been mentioned as the path to follow by 
certain politicians. It is however largely rejected by representatives of the tolling industry. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

1 EETS: European Electronic Toll Service. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
PO2 will bring savings to road users amounting to €370 million (net present value - NPV, 2016-2025). Most of 
these savings will benefit the trucking industry, which is predominantly composed of SMEs. Mangers of 
road networks will benefit from savings from not procuring redundant OBUs (€48 million NPV) and additional 
toll revenues resulting from better rules on cross-border enforcement (€150 million per year). EETS providers 
will experience a reduction in regulatory burden linked to entering national markets (€ 10 million NPV, for an 
expected group of 12 EETS providers). Furthermore, they will see their market expand with additional revenues 
of €700 million per year. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Managers of road networks will experience additional costs of adapting their tolling systems to new 
requirements amounting to €174 million (NPV). 
Overall, the net cumulated benefit of PO2 (benefits-costs) is €254 million (NPV). 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

The only type of impact on SMEs is benefits, hence no exemptions are needed. The main affected SME group is 
road haulage companies. The net positive cumulative economic impact for them amounts to €300 
million (NPV). 

Overall, the initiative will increase the level of competitiveness in the electronic toll collection market by 
establishing fair market rules. The initiative will contribute to increasing the level of competitiveness of road 
hauliers (as it will reduce for them the amount of regulatory burden). It will greatly increase the level of 
competitiveness of EETS providers. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
As many road managers are in fact national administrations or agencies, the additional costs for road managers 
will have an impact on national budgets. This impact will however be relatively low (maximum a couple of 
million euros per national administration). 
The mandatory use of the 'reseller model', where the EETS provider invoices users in his own name, rather than 
in the name of the road manager, could lead to some difficulties with implementation in Member States which 
consider tolls as taxes. 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
Other impacts will not be significant compared to the ones already described above. 
Proportionality?  
The measures in policy option 2 have been defined on the basis of lengthy consultation and dialogue with all the 
actors of the ETC market, and thus reflect a consensus between industry players. This should guarantee its 
proportionality. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
It is foreseen that the Commission will analyse the impacts of the new legislation in 2025. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
PO3b would 

 

 
 
 
 

reduce congestion costs by €9 billion  by 2030, provide additional toll revenues of €10 billion/year and 
help increase investment in roads by 25% 
significantly reduce CO2, NOx and particulate matter emissions 
improve public health and reduce the costs of air pollution and accidents (€0.37 billion by 2030) 
allow generating up to 208,000 new jobs and additional benefits of 0.19% of GDP, and 
contribute to the equal treatment of EU citizens by halving the price of short term vignettes. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Freight transport costs increase by 1.1%, with costs for passengers unchanged. Costs to authorities include the 
deployment  of  new  tolling  systems  or  expanding  existing  ones  for  the  Member  States  concerned  (one-off 
investment  of  €1.2-1.4  billion  altogether),  and  operating  costs  of  €168-200  million/year.  Extension  of  road 
charging to new parts of the network and new user groups could increase compliance costs for road users by 
€198-228 million/year. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Close  to  100%  of  road  haulage  companies  are  SMEs.  The  extension  of  road  tolls  would  increase  compliance 
costs for them; however, most of the additional costs are passed on to clients, leading to a marginal (less than 
0.25%) increase in prices. 

Increased investment in infrastructure would have a strong positive impact on the construction industry. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
The public sector will benefit from additional revenues, which come at the cost of investment in the deployment 
and operation of new electronic tolling systems. The net impact on  Member State budgets could amount to a 
surplus of close to €10 billion per year. 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
A relatively strong reduction in diesel consumption (by 1.3%) is expected. 
Proportionality?  
The initiative merely contributes to the achievement of the objectives. Rather than mandating the application of 
road  charging,  it  co-ordinates  and  facilitates  national  action.  Costs  to  Member  States,  businesses  and  citizens 
are  limited  compared  to  potential  benefits.  Thus  it  does  not  exceed  what  is  necessary  to  solve  the  identified 
problems and meet the objectives. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The Commission will evaluate the new legislation in 2025. 

4