COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of the Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences
Date: 2022-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: European driving licence, European standard, administrative cooperation, driving instruction, exchange of information, road safety, road transport, technical standard

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.1.2022  SWD(2022) 18 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  of the Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences {SWD(2022) 17 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

Introduction 

Directive  2006/126/EC  on  driving  licences1  (also  known  as  ‘the  third  driving  licence 
directive’),  was  adopted  in  2006  and  EU  countries  had  to  apply  all  its  provisions  from  19 
January 2013. The directive and its predecessors2 aim to align rules on driving licences in the 
EU  to  improve  road  safety,  to  facilitate  the  free  movement  of  citizens  and  to  fight  driving 
licence fraud. The evaluation assesses to what extent the directive has achieved these general 
objectives.  It  aims  to  establish  evidence-based  conclusions  on  the  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU added value of the directive between 2006 and 2018.  

Effectiveness 

Road safety 

Overall, the directive was found to have improved road safety, despite some limitations in the 
available  data.  Certain  new  provisions  of  the  directive  such  as  the  minimum  standards  for 
driving examiners, the medical examinations for professional drivers and the tests for drivers 
of mopeds and motorcycles are thought to have particularly contributed to this improvement. 

Harmonisation of the driving licence rules 

The  directive  has  further  harmonised  the  driving  licence  rules  across  the  EU.  Nevertheless, 
differences remain  in   the administrative validity periods,  including when these expired,  the 
requirements  for  medical  checks  and  their  frequency,  the  practices  and  requirements  for 
training  and  testing,  the  requirements  for  driving  examiners,  the  mutual  recognition  of 
driving  licence  disqualifications  and  the  recognition  of  driving  licences  issued  by  non-EU 
countries.  

Skills and knowledge 

While  the  directive  establishes  standards  on  skills  and  knowledge  for  drivers,  the  related 
requirements  vary  considerably  by  country.  There  is  limited  and  inconclusive  evidence  on 
whether the directive helped improve driving skills.  

The directive sets out minimum standards on quality assurance and regular training measures 
for driving examiners.  The related provisions  are  considered  sufficient  by most countries  to 

1   Directive  2006/126/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  December  2006  on  driving 

licences (Recast), OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18.  

2   First  Council  Directive  80/1263/EEC  of  4  December  1980  on  the  introduction  of  a  Community  driving 
licence, OJ L 375, 31.12.1980, p. 1 (the first driving licence directive) and Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 
29 July 1991 on driving licences, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1 (the second driving licence directive). 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
guarantee  the  quality  of  training  and  road  safety,  although  some  aspects  could  be  improved 
(e.g. the communication skills of driving examiners).  

Absence of EU rules on mutual recognition of driving disqualifications 

The lack of EU rules on the recognition of driving bans issued in another EU country makes it 
harder to prevent abuse by drivers banned in one country who are still able to drive in another 
country. This issue has also been the subject of several cases at the Court of Justice of the EU. 

Driving licence network / Réseau permis de conduire (RESPER) 

RESPER is an effective tool to share relevant information between national authorities but it 
suffers from quality issues (query errors and incomplete information) and it is not exploited to 
its  full  potential,  e.g.  sharing  information  on  drivers,  penalty  points,  national  codes,  or  a 
driver’s place of normal residence. 

Free movement 

The Union model driving licence, the mutual recognition of licences issued in  EU countries 
and the harmonised minimum age limits for the driving licence categories have likely helped 
facilitate the free movement of citizens inside the EU. By contrast, some provisions that are 
difficult  to  apply  in  practice,  such  as  the  one  on  the  place  of  normal  residence,  may  create 
obstacles to the free movement. Moreover, the lack of a standard approach to the recognition 
of  driving  licences  issued  by  non-EU  countries  can  lead  to  higher  administrative  burden, 
driving licence shopping and barriers for non-EU citizens, including professional drivers.  

Reducing fraud and driving licence tourism 

There  is  only  scarce  information  on  the  effect  of  the  directive  on  driving  licence  fraud  and 
driving  licence  tourism.  However,  roughly  half  the  stakeholders  consulted  think  that  the 
directive – in particular the provisions on RESPER, the Union model driving licence and anti-
fraud measures – has helped reduce both practices. 

Efficiency 

It  is  unclear  whether  the  directive  has  led  to  excessive  costs  or  administrative  burdens  for 
citizens, authorities and firms. The rules on the Union model driving licence and on RESPER 
do not appear to have led to higher costs for citizens; they have likely helped reduce red tape. 

However, standardised validity periods, the requirement to renew driving licences and regular 
medical  checks  for  professional  drivers  are  likely  to  have  increased  both  the  administrative 
burden and the costs for citizens. Some stakeholders also claim that the system of progressive 
access to category A licences has led to higher costs and burdens for applicants. 

There  are  significant  differences  among  EU  countries  in  the  costs  of  obtaining  a  driving 
licence,  mainly  due  to  differing  national  requirements  and  efficiency  levels  in  national 
administrations. The training costs charged in each country also differ to some extent. 

2 

 
 
 
There is scope for simplification and for a reduction of the administrative burden in the areas 
of online licence renewal and medical checks for professional drivers, progressive access to 
category A licences, weight limits for category B licences, establishment of a driver’s place of 
normal residence.  

Digital solutions and the digitisation of driving licences have not been sufficiently explored, 
and RESPER could be used more to reduce the administrative burden.  

Relevance 

The directive’s current rules on driving skills and knowledge do not sufficiently reflect new 
technological  solutions,  such  as  semi-automated  and  automated  driving,  vehicles  with 
automatic transmission, advanced driver-assistance systems, and alternative fuels vehicles.  

Some stakeholders have raised concerns that there are no EU-wide rules to regulate the safe 
use of micro-mobility solutions such as electric scooters, bikes and mopeds. Others, however, 
doubt the necessity of an EU initiative on micro-mobility. 

As  regards  young  drivers,  the  minimum  age  limits  established  by  the  directive  are  deemed 
broadly  adequate.  However,  in  particular  for  moped  licences,  those  limits  vary  between 
countries. Motorcyclists’ associations consider that the requirements of the progressive access 
system make it too difficult for young people to get a category A licence.  

While industry  representatives  think that lower  minimum  age limits for  professional  drivers 
could  help  address  the  problem  of  driver  shortage  in  Europe,  trade  unions  believe  that  the 
minimum age is low enough and that efforts should instead focus on making transport a more 
attractive sector in which to work.  

As regards older drivers, rules vary between countries (e.g. increased medical checks, shorter 
validity periods on renewal). There is no conclusive evidence that fitness screening based on 
age provides significant safety benefits. More attention should instead be paid to drivers with 
high health risks.  

Coherence 

The  evaluation  found  no  major  inconsistencies  among  the  directive's  own  provisions. 
However, minor inconsistencies in the equivalence rules were raised, as was the insufficient 
level of detail of the standards on alcohol, drugs and medicinal products (Annex III). 

No  major  inconsistencies  between  the  directive  and  international  conventions  with  similar 
objectives (the Geneva and Vienna Conventions on Road Traffic) could be established.  

3 

 
 
 
 
The  directive  is  consistent  with  EU  road  safety  policy  objectives  (e.g.  Vision  Zero3  and  the 
Valletta  Declaration4).  It  complements  the  cross-border  enforcement  directive5,  but  possible 
synergies  in  enforcement  through  a  mutual  recognition  of  driving  disqualifications  are  not 
exploited. As regards other EU legislation, the directive could be better aligned with the EU 
type approval legislation for vehicles. 

EU added value 

Without  the  directive,  EU  countries  would  likely  have  cooperated  through  bilateral 
agreements  and  through  other  means,  which  would  however  likely  have  resulted  in  more 
complex  licensing  systems  and  a  higher  administrative  burden.  In  this  respect,  the  main 
benefit of the directive is the increased standardisation of driving licence rules across the EU. 

3   EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Next steps towards “Vision Zero”; SWD(2019) 283 final of 

19.6.2019; https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/SWD2190283.pdf 

4   Valletta  Declaration  on  Road  Safety  of  29  March  2017,  endorsed  by  the  Council  on  8  June  2017: 

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9994-2017-INIT/en/pdf 

5   Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 facilitating cross-

border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, OJ L 68, 13.3.2015, p. 9. 

4