COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, cross-border cooperation, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, exchange of information, information system, personal data, road safety, traffic offence, vehicle registration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.3.2023  SWD(2023) 126 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences {COM(2023) 126 final} - {SEC(2023) 351 final} - {SWD(2023) 127 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................................. 1 

1.1.  Road safety policy context ............................................................................................ 1 
1.2.  Legal context ................................................................................................................ 4 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................... 11 

2.1.  What are the problems? .............................................................................................. 13 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? .................................................................................... 16 
2.3.  How likely are the problems to persist? ...................................................................... 21 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?........................................................................................... 23 

3.1.  Legal basis .................................................................................................................. 23 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action .......................................................................... 23 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action ..................................................................... 24 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................. 25 

4.1.  General objective ........................................................................................................ 25 
4.2.  Specific objectives ...................................................................................................... 25 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ....................................................... 27 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .............................................. 27 
5.2.  Description of the policy options ................................................................................ 28 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................. 31 

6.1.  Economic impacts ....................................................................................................... 31 
6.1.1.  Impacts on public administrations .......................................................................... 31 

6.1.2.  Impacts on the private sector (leasing companies) ................................................. 35 

6.1.3.  Impacts on road users ............................................................................................. 36 

6.1.4.  Impacts on SMEs ................................................................................................... 36 

6.1.5.  Impact on the functioning of the internal market and on competition ................... 36 

6.2.  Social impacts ............................................................................................................. 36 
6.2.1.  Impacts on road safety ............................................................................................ 36 

6.2.2.  Impacts on fundamental rights ............................................................................... 39 

6.3.  Environmental impacts ............................................................................................... 40 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .............................................................................. 41 

7.1.  Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 41 
7.2.  Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 43 
7.3.  Coherence ................................................................................................................... 44 
7.4.  Subsidiarity and proportionality ................................................................................. 45 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ......................................................................................................... 47 

Identification of the preferred policy option and stakeholders views ......................... 47 
8.1. 
8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ....................................................... 49 
8.3.  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach ............................................................ 50 

i 

 
 
9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................... 51 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 52 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ................................. 54 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ................................................. 54 

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ..................................................................................... 55 

FEEDBACK RECEIVED ......................................................................................... 57 

OPINIONS RECEIVED IN THE TARGETED AND OPEN CONSULTATION ... 57 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ............................................................................ 62 

1. 

2. 

3. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE ........................................... 62 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS .............................................................. 63 

RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ..................................... 65 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................................... 66 

ANNEX 5: DISCARDED MEASURES ........................................................................................ 89 

ANNEX 6: RETAINED POLICY MEASURES ........................................................................... 91 

ANNEX 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS ............................... 97 

ii 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym  Meaning or definition 

ADAC 

ANPR 

CARE 

Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil Club (German Automobile Club) 

Automatic Number Plate Recognition 

Community database on road accidents 

CBE Directive 

Cross-Border Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/413) 

EIO 

European Investigation Order in criminal matters  
(Directive 2014/41/EU) 

ETSC 

European Transport Safety Council 

EUCARIS 

European car and driving licence information system 

FD 

FIA 

Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA 

Fédération Internationale d’Automobile  
(International Automobile Federation) 

GDPR 

General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) 

IA 

ISA 

LED 

Impact Assessment 

Intelligent Speed Assistance system 

Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680) 

MLA Convention  Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 
of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal 
Matters between the Member States of the European Union 

PM 

PO 

Policy measure 

Policy option 

REFIT 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme 

RESPER 

EU driving licence network 

UVAR 

VRD 

Urban Vehicle Access Restriction 

Vehicle registration data 

iii 

 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

This Impact Assessment accompanies a legislative proposal for a directive amending 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  (hereinafter  “the  CBE 
Directive”)1. 

The CBE Directive aims to improve road safety and to ensure equal treatment of drivers, namely 
resident and non-resident offenders. In the event of certain road-safety-related traffic offences having 
been committed with a vehicle registered in another Member State, it grants the Member State where 
the offence occurred access to the vehicle registration data (VRD) of the Member State of registration 
of the vehicle concerned. This should facilitate the identification of persons liable for a road-safety-
related traffic offence in a Member State other than the one where the vehicle is registered, which is 
an important element in the cross-border enforcement of traffic offences. An effective cross-border 
enforcement ensures equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders and improves road safety 
as it reduces impunity and hence induces a more cautious behaviour by the driver concerned. A more 
cautious behaviour should lead to fewer road accidents and hence a reduction in fatalities, injuries 
and material damage. 

1.1. 

1.1. 

Road safety policy context 

Road safety in the EU has improved quite significantly over the last 20 years. The number of road 
fatalities has gone down by 61.5% from around 51,400 in 2001 to around 19,800 in 2021. 

Figure 1: Road fatalities in the current EU27 between 2000 and 2021, with EU target for 20302 

The  improvement  in  road  safety  has  however  not  been  strong  enough  to  meet  the  EU’s  political 
ambitions. The White Paper on European Transport Policy for 20103 aimed at halving the number 

1   OJ L 68, 13.3.2015, p. 9. 
2   Source: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/2021-road-safety-statistics-what-behind-figures_en  
3   COM(2001) 370 final 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
of road deaths in the EU by 2010. To achieve this objective, the Commission adopted the 3rd European 
Road Safety Action Programme4 in 2003, with a total of 62 proposed actions. One of those actions, 
intended to encourage road users to improve their behaviour, was to “propose measures to strengthen 
checks  and  ensure  the  proper  enforcement  of  the  most  important  safety  rules”.  In  2004,  the 
Commission adopted a recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety5, which among 
others called on Member States to assist one another and to share relevant information on offences 
committed  in  one  Member  State  by  drivers  of  vehicles  registered  in  another  Member  State.  The 
Commission committed itself to submit a proposal for a directive in case the recommendation was 
found not to be sufficiently effective to achieve the 50% reduction goal. 

The 2006 mid-term  review of the European Road Safety Action Programme makes the following 
observation:  “Many  road  traffic  offences  by  non-residents  of  a  Member  State  are  currently  not 
followed by legal action due to the lack of systematic cooperation between the administrative and 
police  authorities  in  the  Member  States.  In  some  countries  which  have  a  large  volume  of  transit 
traffic, certain offences committed by non-residents may account for as much as 35% of the total 
number of infringements. Even the best results could therefore be better still with more transnational 
cooperation in the field of controls and penalties. This is obviously a European issue and one [...] 
that [we] need to tackle.”6 

In  2008,  the  Commission  adopted  the  legislative  proposal7  that  led  to  Directive  2011/82/EU,  the 
predecessor of the CBE Directive8. In the accompanying impact assessment9, it is estimated that non-
resident drivers account for about 5% of road traffic in the EU (in terms of vehicle-km) but that they 
commit around 15% of speeding offences. Hence, they are relatively more likely to commit speeding 
offences than resident drivers. One of the identified reasons for that was that non-residents perceived 
that they were less likely to be sanctioned when driving in a Member State where they did not reside 
and that they  were less likely to  face judicial action  if they did  not  pay fines imposed by foreign 
authorities. 

In 2010, still some 29,600 people lost their lives on the roads of the current 27 Member States (which 
was significantly above the target set in 2001). The Commission then adopted new policy orientations 
on road safety for the period 2011-2020, with the target of halving the overall number of road deaths 
in the EU by 2020 starting from 201010. That target has however also been missed; in 2020, some 
18,800 people were killed on the roads of the EU’s current 27 Member States. Although that number 
was more than 17% below the corresponding number for 2019 – an impressive annual reduction rate 
which was however heavily influenced by an unprecedented drop in road traffic volumes in the wake 
of  the  COVID-19  pandemic11  –  it  was  still  well  above  the  target  value  for  2020.  Excessive  or 

4   COM(2003) 311 final 
5   Commission Recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC), OJ L 111, 

17.4.2004, p. 75. 

6   See section 3.1 of COM(2006) 74 final 
7   COM(2008) 151 final 
8   OJ L 288, 5.11.2011, p. 1; more information on that Directive and its links with the CBE Directive are provided in 

section 1.2 below. 

9   SEC(2008) 351. 
10   COM(2010) 389 final 
11   During the first lockdown in April 2020, ETSC reported a 70-85% reduction in traffic volumes in major European 

cities (https://etsc.eu/covid-19-huge-drop-in-traffic-in-europe-but-impact-on-road-deaths-unclear/) 

2 

 
                                                 
inappropriate  speed  is  estimated  to  have  caused  10-15%  of  all  accidents  and  30%  of  all  fatal 
accidents.12  

The slowdown in the reduction of the number of road deaths that set in around 2014 (see Figure 1 
above) prompted the transport ministers of the EU to issue a ministerial declaration on road safety at 
the informal transport Council in Valletta in March 201713. In that declaration, the Member States 
called upon the Commission to explore the strengthening of the Union’s road safety legal framework 
to reverse that stagnating trend. 

As part of its third Mobility Package of May 2018, the Commission issued “A Strategic Action Plan 
on Road Safety”14 where it called for a new approach to counter the trend of stagnating road safety 
figures in the EU and move closer to the long-term goal of zero road fatalities in the EU by 2050 
(“Vision Zero”). Among others, the Commission announced that it would “start to assess options to 
improve the effectiveness of the directive on cross-border enforcement of traffic offences, on the basis 
of an evaluation carried out in 2016.”15 

In June 2019, the Commission published the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Next 
steps towards “Vision Zero”16. In it, the Commission proposed new interim targets of reducing the 
number of road deaths by 50% between 2020 and 2030 as well as reducing the number of serious 
injuries by 50% in the same period, as recommended in the Valletta Declaration. It based that policy 
framework on the so-called “Safe System approach”. The system considers death and serious injury 
in road collisions as largely preventable though the collisions will continue to occur. It accepts that 
people make mistakes and aims to ensure that such mistakes do not give rise to fatalities or serious 
injuries by holistically focusing on five pillars: safe roads and roadsides, safe speeds, safe road users, 
safe vehicles, and fast and effective post-crash care, which all contribute to reducing the impact of 
accidents. The cross-border enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences is part of the “safe 
road users” pillar as it reduces the impunity of drivers of vehicles registered in other Member States, 
thus encouraging a behaviour which should be conducive to road safety.  

In its Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy17 of 2020, the Commission reiterated the target of zero 
fatalities in all modes of transport by 2050 and announced the revision of the Directive on cross-
border enforcement of traffic rules under Flagship 10 “Enhancing transport safety and security”.  

In  October  2021,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  the  EU  Road  Safety  Policy 
Framework 2021-203018. While the Parliament acknowledges the progress made since 2015, it also 
regrets that the existing legal framework laid down in the CBE Directive does not adequately ensure 
investigation in order to enforce penalties or recognition of decisions on penalties. It believes that 
better cross-border enforcement of road traffic rules would increase compliance and act as a deterrent, 
thereby  reducing  dangerous  behaviour  and  improving  road  safety;  it  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
address those issues in the next review of the Directive. 

12   See: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/road_safety_thematic_report_speeding.pdf  
13   See:  https://eumos.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Valletta_Declaration_on_Improving_Road_Safety.pdf;  in  June 
2017, the Council adopted conclusions on road safety endorsing the Valletta Declaration (see document 9994/17). 
14   Annex I to COM(2018) 293 final (Europe on the Move. Sustainable mobility for Europe: safe, connected and clean) 
15   More information on the evaluation referred to here is provided in section 1.2 below. 
16   SWD(2019) 283 final 
17   COM(2020) 789 final 
18   P9_TA(2021)0407 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0407_EN.pdf  

3 

 
                                                 
Sustainable Development Goals 

Improving road safety is a global policy objective. In the context of the United Nation’s 2030 agenda 
for sustainable development, road safety is part of sustainable development goal #11 “Make cities 
and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” and in particular target 11.2 “By 
2030,  provide  access  to  safe,  affordable,  accessible  and  sustainable  transport  systems  for  all, 
improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of 
those  in  vulnerable  situations,  women,  children,  persons  with  disabilities  and  older  persons”. 
Enforcement  of the  legislation on behavioural  risks is  among the core principles of the 2020 UN 
“Stockholm Declaration”19. 

1.2. 

1.2. 

Legal context 

The CBE Directive 

The  CBE  Directive,  adopted  on  11  March  2015,  includes  all  substantive  provisions  of  Directive 
2011/82/EU20 which had  been adopted under  Article 87(2) TFEU  (police  cooperation) instead of 
under  Article  91(1)(c)  TFEU  (measures  to  improve  transport  safety)  and  which  was  therefore 
annulled  by  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU  on  6  May  2014  in  Case  C-43/1221.  When  annulling 
Directive 2011/82/EU, the Court maintained its effects until the entry into force of a new Directive 
which was to happen within 12 months of the date of the judgment. The CBE Directive entered into 
force  on  17  March  2015,  thus  providing  for  a  seemless  continuation  of  the  application  of  the 
provisions  of  the  annulled  Directive  2011/82/EU,  the  transposition  deadline  of  which  had  been  7 
November 2013. In most Member States22, the provisions of the CBE Directive were hence already 
to be applied since that date, not only since 6 May 2015, the transposition deadline of that Directive. 

The CBE Directive aims to improve the protection of all road users by facilitating the cross-border 
exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences committed with a vehicle registered 
in a Member State other than the one in which the offence took place, and hence the enforcement of 
related sanctions. It applies to the following eight road-safety-related traffic offences: (1) speeding, 
(2) failing to use a seat belt, (3) failing to stop at a red traffic light, (4) drink-driving, (5) driving while 
under the influence of drugs, (6) failing to wear a safety helmet, (7) the use of a forbidden lane and 
(8) illegaly using a mobile phone or any other communication devices while driving.  

As the CBE Directive helps to identify the owner/holder of a vehicle registered in a Member State 
other than the Member State in which an offence has been committed, it is of particular relevance for 
all  offences  detected  with  automatic  or  manual  detection  equipment  (mostly  cameras)  where  the 
offence is detected remotely (i.e. without stopping the vehicle and/or identification of the driver on 
the spot). The overwhelming majority of road traffic offences are detected by automatic detection 

19   https://www.roadsafetysweden.com/contentassets/b37f0951c837443eb9661668d5be439e/stockholm-declaration-

english.pdf 

20   Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border 

exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, OJ L 288, 5.11.2011, p. 1. 

21   Case C-43/12 Commission v Parliament and Council; ECLI:EU:C:2014:298. 
22   All Member States but Ireland and Denmark (and the United Kingdom at the time). Those three Member States chose 
not to adopt and apply Directive 2011/82/EU in accordance  with  Articles 1 and 2 of Protocols No 21 and No 22 
annexed to the TEU and the TFEU. This opt-out was no longer available under the revised legal basis of the CBE 
Directive, which the three Member States in question had to transpose by 6 May 2017, two years later than the other 
Member States and some 3.5 years after the corresponding provisions of Directive 2011/82/EU were to apply in the 
other Member States. 

4 

 
                                                 
equipment (about 90% of speeding offences are detected by automatic speed cameras). On average, 
about 15% of automatically detected offences in the EU are committed by non-resident offenders, 
some 96% of which are speeding offences.23 

Each Member State designates a competent authority as  a national contact point which grants the 
national  contact  points  of  other  Member  States  access  to  its  national  vehicle  registration  data, 
allowing them to conduct automatic searches on specific data related to vehicles and their owners or 
holders. The software application to be used for the automatic searches is the European Vehicle and 
Driving  Licence  Information  System  (Eucaris)  that  is  also  used  for  the  exchange  of  vehicle 
registration data in the fight against terrorism or cross-border crime24. 

Once  the  person  suspected  of  having  committed  a  road-safety-related  traffic  offence  has  been 
identified, the Member State in which the offence was committed decides whether to initiate follow-
up proceedings. If it decides to do so, the CBE Directive also determines the way in which the offence 
should be communicated to the person concerned and provides a (non-obligatory) template for the 
letter to be sent. The letter has to be sent in the language of the registration document of the vehicle 
(if that information is available) or in one of the official languages of the Member State of registration. 

Some  unintentionally  committed  road  traffic  offences  by  non-residents  (e.g.  because  drivers  are 
unaware of the speed limits) may be prevented by raising the awareness of citizens as regards the 
road safety traffic rules in force in the different Member States. To this end, Article 8 of the CBE 
Directive requires Member States to inform the Commission of those rules and the Commission to 
make them available on its website in all official languages.25  

Evaluation of the CBE Directive 

As required by Article 11 of the CBE Directive, in  November 2016 the Commission submitted a 
report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Directive26. The report 
was accompanied by the ex-post evaluation of the Directive27. The evaluation provided some useful 
indicators on a number of key aspects of the operation and impact of the CBE Directive.  

As an increasing number of road traffic offences committed by non-residents have been investigated 
over time, it was found that the CBE Directive had a positive impact on removing the anonymity of 
offenders who committed a road-safety-related traffic offence abroad. However, the measures of the 
CBE  Directive  were  inadequate  to  remove  their  impunity.  In  2015,  around  50%  of  detected  road 
traffic offences committed by non-residents were not investigated and around 50 % of the financial 
penalties for those road traffic offences that had been investigated were not successfully enforced. 
Almost  all  offences  where  offenders  refused  to  pay  financial  penalties  were  not  enforced,  which 
means that successfully enforced penalties were essentially due to voluntary payments.  

23   Cf. Ecorys et al. (2022): IA support study for the revision of the CBE Directive. Final Report. 
24   Cf. Article 15 of Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2018 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA 
on the stepping-up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combatting terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ L 
210, 6.8.2008, p. 12. The same tools are also used for the exchange of information on those who fail to pay a road 
fee, and on their vehicles – see Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 
2019 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on 
the failure to pay road fees in the Union, OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 45. 

25   The Commission’s “Going Abroad” website: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm  
26   COM(2016) 744 final 
27   SWD(2016) 355 final 

5 

 
                                                 
The  difficulties  in  cooperation  between  Member  States  in  investigating  road  traffic  offences  and 
enforcement of sanctions after exchanging vehicle registration data, especially where different legal 
liability  regimes  are  applied,  is  the  main  explanation  for  this.  Nevertheless,  such  cooperation 
appeared successful between Member States which concluded bilateral or multilateral agreements 
complementing  EU  law28.  The  main  results  of  the  evaluation  and  how  they  have  been  taken  into 
account in this impact assessment can be found in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Links between conclusions of the ex-post evaluation and the impact assessment 

Main ex-post evaluation conclusions 

Impact Assessment 

Conclusions on relevance 

The Directive is relevant insofar as it covers the main 
road safety-related traffic offences. However, more 
offences may need to be added in the future, in line 
with increased means of automatic checking, e.g. not 
keeping sufficient distance with the vehicle in front, 
dangerous overtaking and dangerous or illegal parking. 

Vehicle registration data exchange under the Directive 
is unnecessary when the vehicle needs to be stopped in 
order to detect the offence, which is the case for drink- 
and drug-driving. These offences could therefore be 
taken out of the scope of the Directive. 

An extension of the scope of the Directive is 
considered. 

Although it may not be strictly necessary from an 
enforcement perspective to keep drink- and drug-
driving within the scope of the Directive, it is con-
sidered appropriate to keep these important offences, 
which kill thousands of people every year, in the scope 
of the Directive, to raise citizens’ awareness of the 
related traffic rules in other Member States. 

The CBE Directive is deemed relevant in raising 
awareness of the different traffic rules in the Member 
States. 

The possibility of providing additional information to 
citizens, in particular on sanctions and appeal 
procedures, is being considered. 

In order to improve the effectiveness of the Directive, 
the IA looks at measures aiming to streamline mutual 
assistance and recognition procedures between 
Member States in the cross-border investigation of 
road safety-related traffic offenses and the cross-border 
enforcement of financial penalties. 

Conclusions on effectiveness 

The CBE Directive improved the cross-border 
enforcement of sanctions, particularly in those Member 
States which actively implemented it. The electronic 
information system provides for an effective, 
expeditious, secure and confidential exchange of 
vehicle registration data and does not generate an 
unnecessary administrative burden. The number of 
investigated cases has increased manyfold once the 
provisions of the Directive started applying. The 
Directive has reduced discrimination between resident 
and non-resident offenders. 
The deterrence effect of the CBE Directive and hence 
its impact on road safety could however be stronger if 
not only around 50% of all investigated cases had a 
successful follow-up and ended up with the financial 
penalty being paid (in most cases voluntarily). 

Conclusions on efficiency  

The costs related to the cross-border exchange of 
vehicle registration data and follow-up procedures 
under the CBE Directive are moderate and usually 
offset by the revenue generated by the payment of 

The cost effectiveness of the cross-border exchange of 
vehicle registration data in the case of road-safety- 
related traffic offences committed by non-residents 
increases with a higher share of financial penalties 

28  E.g. the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum, the Nordic police cooperation on border control and cross border 
crime  and  the  bilateral  agreements  between  Germany  and  Austria,  between  France  and  Belgium  and  between 
Germany and the Netherlands. 

6 

 
                                                 
Main ex-post evaluation conclusions 
fines. The evaluation concludes that alternative 
systems (bilateral/multilateral agreements) would be 
more costly, as well as less effective. 

Impact Assessment 

being paid. The IA proposes ways to improve the 
follow-up procedures in investigations and 
enforcement of the sanctions. 

Conclusions on coherence  

The CBE Directive is internally coherent (specific 
objectives of raising awareness of traffic rules and 
facilitating the cross-border enforcement of offences 
reinforce each other) and complements other EU legal 
acts which also aim at influencing the behaviour of 
drivers of motorised vehicles with a view to improving 
road safety (e.g. Directive 2006/126/EC on driving 
licences).   

Conclusions on EU added value 

The CBE Directive brings EU added value by 
providing a harmonised framework for the exchange of 
vehicle registration data between Member States. This 
could not be ensured in the same way by existing 
bilateral or multilateral agreements. The harmonised 
EU-wide framework of the CBE Directive is the only 
one that can ensure equal treatment of EU citizens. 

The IA does not intend to address the issue of mutual 
recognition of driver disqualification between Member 
States (a driver resident in one member State losing his 
or her right to drive a vehicle because of an offence 
committed in another Member State), as this should be 
dealt more appropriately in the context of Directive 
2006/126/EC on driving licences. 

EU action continues to be needed to deliver on the 
policy objectives. 

Different legal liability regimes in Member States 

The  CBE  Directive  facilitates  the  exchange  of  vehicle  registration  data  (VRD)  between  Member 
States.  However,  even  if  that  exchange  worked  accurately,  it  often  offers  too  little  evidence  to 
successfully investigate the offender. This is  among others due to different legal liability regimes 
being applied in Member States: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Owner/holder liability regime. A penalty is issued to the vehicle owner/holder, based on 
information included in the VRD, unless the vehicle owner/holder provides information on 
the actual offender i.e. the driver, who is personally liable for the offence; 
Strict owner liability regime. Although the actual offender is identified, the payment of the 
financial penalty may be requested indistinctly from the vehicle owner/holder or the actual 
offender, even if the vehicle owner/holder identifies the actual offender; 
Strict driver liability regime. A penalty is issued only to the driver (the actual offender). In 
cases where an offence is detected remotely by using automated/manual checking equipment 
(e.g. when the driver is not identified on the spot), the actual offender has to be identified 
from the picture produced by the equipment in order to issue a financial penalty. 

Especially in Member States which apply a strict driver liability regime, only the actual offender can 
be held liable for the offence. For these Member States, the CBE Directive provides too little evidence 
to follow-up detected offences, as it allows only the identification of the vehicle owner/holder (via 
vehicle  registers)  who  is  not  necessarily  the  driver  having  committed  the  offence.  For  example, 
enforcement authorities in Sweden have to provide evidence that the presumed offender (the vehicle 
owner/holder)  was  the  driver  of  the  vehicle  with  which  the  offence  was  committed.  They  cannot 
require the vehicle owner/holder to  identify the actual offender because this  would contradict the 
privilege against self-incrimination foreseen by their national legislation. Besides Sweden, Germany 
also  applies  a  strict  driver  legal  liability  regime.  Contrary  to  this,  in  some  Member  States  (e.g. 
Hungary), the vehicle owner/holder is liable for certain offences covered by the CBE Directive, even 
if he/she claims that he/she was not the driver, and in some extreme cases even if he/she is able to 
name the actual offender, but cannot prove its identity with legally binding documentation. 

7 

 
 
Other EU instruments linked to the cross-border investigation and enforcement of offences  

The  CBE  Directive  provides  a  cooperation  tool  facilitating  certain  steps  in  the  cross-border 
enforcement of sanctions for road-safety-related traffic offences. However, it harmonises neither the 
nature  of  the  offences  nor  the  sanction  schemes  for  the  offences,  where  the  national  rules  in  the 
Member State of offence apply. In some cases, as mentioned above, additional evidence needs to be 
exchanged for a successful investigation. Cross-border investigation procedures aimed at, inter alia, 
collecting additional evidence to identify the driver who has committed the offence may be covered 
by additional instruments, most of which are however tailored to the cross-border investigation of 
criminal offences and are not much used for the investigation of administrative offences. 

-  The Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the 

European Union (MLA Convention)29 

The MLA Convention establishes a system of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the 
Member  States  of  the  EU.  Mutual  assistance  shall  apply  where  the  decision  may  give  rise  to 
proceedings  before  a  court  having  jurisdiction  in  criminal  matters.  A  certain  level  of  procedural 
protection  of  the  potential  offender  is  offered  under  the  MLA  Convention.  It  requires  that  the 
important parts of a procedural document must be translated into the language(s) of the Member State 
on the territory in which the addressee is staying. 

-  The European Investigation Order in criminal matters (EIO)30  

Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters replaced to a 
major extent the MLA Convention and it is the main legal tool to gather cross-border evidence. It 
provides for a judicial decision issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State (‘the 
issuing State’) to have one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in another Member 
State  (‘the  executing  State’)  to  obtain  evidence.  The  procedures  that  EIO  uses,  together  with  its 
safeguards, are perceived as cumbersome for investigating the high number of (minor) road traffic 
offences that are often qualified as administrative. 

-  Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual 

recognition to financial penalties31 

Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA is the EU instrument for the mutual recognition of the Member 
States'  administrative  or  judicial  decisions  on  financial  penalties  issued  by  a  foreign  authority.  It 
applies to all criminal offences. For certain offences, the double criminality principle32 is lifted, i.e. 
these offences give rise to recognition and enforcement, if they are punishable in the issuing State 
and defined by the law of the issuing State. Road traffic offences are specifically mentioned among 
such offences (“conduct which infringes road traffic regulations”). 

29   Council  Act  of  29  May  2000  establishing  in  accordance  with  Article  34  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  the 
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ C 197, 
12.7.2000, p. 1. 

30   Directive  2014/41/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  regarding  the  European 

Investigation Order in criminal matters, OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1. 

31   Council  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  of  24  February  2005  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual 

recognition to financial penalties, OJ L 76, 22.3.2005, p. 16. 

32   The alleged offence must be categorised as a criminal offence in both the issuing State and the executing State. 

8 

 
                                                 
-  The  so-called  “Prüm  Decisions”  on  stepping  up  cross-border  cooperation,  particularly  in 

combatting terrorism and cross-border crime33 

Council  Decision  2008/615/JHA  on  the  stepping  up  of  cross-border  cooperation,  particularly  in 
combatting  terrorism  and  cross-border  crime,  and  Council  Decision  2008/616/JHA  on  the 
implementation  of  Decision  2008/615/JHA  contain  rules  for  operational  police  cooperation  and 
information  exchange  between  authorities  responsible  for  the  prevention  and  investigation  of 
criminal offences. They notably lay down the conditions and procedures for the automated transfer 
of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and certain national vehicle registration data. A proposal for a 
Regulation on automated data exchange for police cooperation (‘Prüm II’), adopted on 8 December 
202134, among others suggests adding facial images of the suspects to the data categories which can 
be exchanged. The inter-institutional negotiations on that proposal are still ongoing. 

Link of these instruments to the CBE Directive, and their limitations in use for road safety traffic 
offences 

In some cases, the investigation mechanism put in place in the CBE Directive does not allow  the 
identification of the presumed offender due to information on the vehicle owner/holder in the national 
VRD  not  being  available,  accurate  or  up-to-date,  or  due  to  the  impossibility  of  identifying  the 
offender through the simple exchange of VRD,  e.g.  in  cases  where a strict  driver liability regime 
applies in the Member State where the offence has been committed. In such cases, the authorities 
need to rely on other EU legal instruments for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, such as using 
an MLA request or initiating the procedures under the European Investigation Order. However, 
these  instruments  are  not  tailored  to  investigate  millions  of  remotely  detected  road-safety-related 
traffic  offences  under  the  CBE  Directive,  since  they  are  designed  to  facilitate  investigation 
procedures under criminal matters and they require certain procedural safeguards that are perceived 
to be cumbersome by administrative authorities for the investigation of relatively “minor” road traffic 
offences. More than 60% of Member States indicated in targeted consultations that they do not use 
the MLA Convention or the EIO in the context of the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related 
traffic offences. The rest of the authorities seem to use these instruments only for the investigation of 
road accidents, especially when there are fatalities or serious injuries. 

As  regards  the  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA,  while  it  facilitates  the  cross-border 
enforcement  of  financial  penalties  in  general,  through  mutual  recognition  of  financial  penalties 
imposed for road traffic offences, it gives rise to difficulties. These are related to the heterogeneous 
nature  of  road  traffic  offences  in  Member  States  and  due  to  some  characteristics  of  the  judicial 
cooperation  instrument.  For  example,  when  financial  or  administrative  authorities  deal  with  road 
traffic offences – regardless of whether these offences are qualified as administrative or criminal – 
not  respecting  procedural  guarantees  applying  to  criminal  offences  may  lead  to  a  refusal  of  the 
decisions.  Another  issue  of  the  application  of  the  Framework  Decision  to  road  traffic  offences  is 
linked to the existence of different legal liability regimes. The existence of varying liability regimes 
can lead to the recognition being refused in situations where the decision of the issuing Member State 
is based on vehicle owner/holder liability (i.e. the owner/holder of the vehicle with which an offence 
was committed can be fined)  while the  executing State applies  strict  driver liability. Some of the 

33   Council  Decision  2008/615/JHA  of  23  June  2008  on  the  stepping  up  of  cross-border  cooperation,  particularly  in 
combatting terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ L 210 , 6.8.2008, p. 1; and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 
June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA, OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12. 

34   COM(2021) 784 final 

9 

 
 
                                                 
grounds for non-recognition may also play a significant role in practice when dealing with road traffic 
offences. For example, Article 7(2)(h) of the Framework Decision allows an executing Member State 
to not recognise a decision if the financial penalty is below EUR 70. Since many road traffic offences 
are sanctioned with a smaller financial penalty, a follow up is not guaranteed.  

With respect to the Prüm Decisions, the CBE Directive relies on the already existing legal basis for 
the EUCARIS35 application to exchange VRD. Article 4 of the CBE Directive requires that searches 
be conducted in compliance with the procedures as described in Decision 2008/616/JHA. The current 
provisions in the CBE Directive limit the exchange of data (and hence the use of EUCARIS) to a 
specific set of information contained in the VRD, as specified in Annex I to the CBE Directive, which 
is not always sufficient to investigate road traffic offences (e.g. when the owner/holder was not the 
driver and information on the actual driver is required). 

Other EU instruments dealing with driver behaviour 

The CBE Directive mainly helps in the cross-border enforcement of financial penalties. Financial 
penalties alone are usually inflicted for relatively minor road-safety-related traffic offences. Major 
road-safety-related traffic offences committed domestically (i.e. in the Member State that issued the 
driving  licence  to  the  offender)  usually  lead  to  a  change  of  the  offender’s  record  in  the  national 
penalty  point  system  and/or  to  the  suspension  of  the  driving  licence  (driving  disqualification)  in 
addition to a hefty fine. When major road-safety-related traffic offences are committed in a Member 
State other than the one that issued the driving licence,  then EU law does currently not  foresee a 
compulsory recognition of penalty points or driving disqualification in the Member State that issued 
the  licence.  The  principle  of  territoriality  of  criminal  and  police  laws  only  allows  a  driver 
disqualification in the territory of the country where he or she committed a serious traffic offence 
while other countries do not have to recognize and enforce such a decision on their respective territory 
which means that the driver concerned may be able to continue to drive in other countries36. However, 
some bilateral agreements cover a mutual recognition of driving disqualification37. 

Thematically this subject falls within the scope of Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences38 which 
already today contains “various provisions concerning the exchange, the withdrawal, the replacement 
and the recognition of driving licences”39. A revision of that Directive is being prepared in parallel 
to the revision of the CBE Directive. For reasons of consistency, the issue of a mutual recognition of 
driving disqualification is to be addressed in the context of that revision.  

35   EUCARIS is an information exchange system that provides an infrastructure and software to member countries to 
share, among others, relevant information in the area of road traffic. It ensures that the central vehicle and driving 
licence registers of the Contracting Parties to the EUCARIS Treaty are accurate and reliable; it assists in preventing, 
investigating and prosecuting offences against the laws of individual States in the field of driving licences, vehicle 
registration  and  other  vehicle-related  fraud  and  criminality;  and  it  provides  rapid  exchange  of  information.  The 
Contracting Parties agreed to allow each other access to their respective central vehicle registers and central driving 
licence  registers  concerning  specific  data  sets  considered  useful  for  the  application  of  the  Treaty.  The  European 
Commission is not a Contracting Party to the Treaty (i.e. the European Commission is not involved in the exchanges 
between Member States through EUCARIS). 

36   Cf. also judgment in case C-266/21; ECLI:EU:C:2022:754.  
37   E.g.  between  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom:  https://www.rsa.ie/services/licensed-drivers/mutual-recognition-of-

disqualifications-ireland-and-uk  

38   OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18. 
39   Article 11 of Directive 2006/126/EC. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.  2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The evaluation of the CBE Directive of 2016 found that the significant potential of the Directive to 
improve  road  safety  could  be  better  realized  if  the  impunity  of  non-resident  drivers  was  further 
reduced by increasing the effectiveness of the Directive.  

There is a clear link between the enforcement of road traffic rules and road safety, irrespective 
of whether road traffic offences are committed by residents or non-residents. A recent ETCS PIN 
Flash Report40 suggests that sustained intensive enforcement of traffic rules that is well explained 
and publicised has a long-lasting effect on driver behaviour. When drivers perceive the chance of 
being detected as being sufficiently high, they will avoid committing road traffic offences, which in 
turn improves road safety (the most common offence, speeding, is a factor in around 30% of all fatal 
crashes  in  the  EU).  The  enforcement  of  road  traffic  rules  is  a  key  element  of  the  “Safe  System” 
approach as it directly impacts  the  “safe road users” pillar of that approach. National road safety 
strategies usually encompass enforcement measures to reduce the number of fatalities and serious 
injuries.  

A reduction in  road traffic offences  contributes  to decreasing the number of road accidents in  all 
countries. An estimate for Norway (Elvik 199741) and the ESCAPE report42 suggest that if 16 of the 
most frequent road traffic offences were eliminated, the number of road accident fatalities could be 
reduced by 48% and the number of injured could be reduced by 27%. Estimates for Sweden (Elvik, 
Amundsen 200043) indicate that the number of road accident fatalities could be reduced by 63% and 
the number of injured by 37% if violations of road traffic rules did not occur. 

Furthermore, another study by Elvik et al. of 201544 found that a 1% increase in the level of speed 
enforcement (hours speed cameras are  activated) is  associated with  a 0.6 to  0.7% decrease in  the 
number of road accidents.45  

A study by Alonso et al. conducted in Spain in 201246 found that about 60% of randomly selected 
road users said that they changed their speeding habits after being caught speeding and being fined 
for it.47 Effective enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules can hence improve driver behaviour. 

40   ETSC  (2022):  How  Traffic  Law  Enforcement  Can  Contribute  to  Safer  Roads.  PIN  Flash  Report  42 

https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/ETSC_PINFLASH42_v2TH_JC_FINAL_corrected-060522.pdf 

41   Elvik, R. (1997): Vegtrafikklovgivning, kontroll og sanksjoner. Potensialet for å bedre trafikksikkerheten og nytte-

kostnadsvurdering av ulike tiltak. TØI notat 1073. Oslo, Transportøkonomisk institutt 

42   Mäkinen, T., Zaidel, D. M. et al. (The „Escape“ Project, 2003): Traffic enforcement in Europe: effects, measures, 
needs and future. Technical Research Centre of Finland (http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/proj6/escape/escape_d10.pdf) 
43   Elvik, R., Amundsen, A. H. (2000): Improving Road Safety in Sweden. An Analysis for Improving Safety, the Cost-
Effectiveness  and  Cost-Benefit  Ratios  of  Road  Safety  Measures.  Oslo,  Institute  of  Transport  Economics 
(https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=10771) 

44   Elvik, R. (2015): Methodological guidelines for developing accident modification functions. Accident Analysis & 
Prevention 80(3), 26-36 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515001232?via%3Dihub). 
45   For the purposes of this impact assessment, this effect has been scaled down because foreign road users only account 
for a subset of all road fatalities in the EU and because they mostly use relatively safer roads (motorways). The effect 
of Elvik (2015) is reduced to a 0.1% reduction in the number of road accidents due to the route choice of foreign 
registered vehicles and is only applied to 10% of all accidents involving such vehicles (cf. Annex 4 below).  

46   Alonso, F., Esteban, C., Calatayud, C. & Sanmartín, J. (2013). Speed and road accidents: Behaviors, motives, and 
assessment of the effectiveness of penalties for speeding. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(3), p. 58-64. 
47   This  finding  has  been  used  in  this  impact  assessment.  It  has  been  assumed  that  driving  behaviour  will  remain 
unchanged in the first year of implementation of the proposed measures (2025). However, 60% of drivers who commit 
an offence in the 1st year are assumed to change their behaviour in the 2nd year (and continue to drive safely thereafter). 
No additional drivers are assumed to adapt their behaviour from the 2nd year onwards (cf. Annex 4 below). 

11 

 
                                                 
In the case of road traffic offences committed with vehicles registered abroad, non-resident drivers 
are not expected to adapt their behaviour unless they are also punished / their impunity is reduced / 
removed. 

The  inadequate  application  of  enforcement  measures  to  non-resident  drivers  due  to  the  lacking 
effectiveness of the CBE Directive leads to more road accidents (and related consequences in terms 
of  fatalities,  injuries  and  material  damage)  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case.  It  is  estimated  that 
foreign road users are, on average, engaged in 10% of all fatal road accidents48, although they account 
only for around 5% of total traffic volume. 

It is therefore important that the effectiveness of the CBE Directive be increased. Some shortcomings 
of  the  Directive  are  of  a  structural  nature  which  can  only  be  addressed  through  a  revision  of  the 
Directive. They are related to its scope, to deficiencies in the identification of the offender and to 
deficiencies in the follow-up procedures of cross-border investigations of road-safety-related traffic 
offences and their enforcement.  

At  the  same  time,  some  issues  related  to  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  of  presumed  non-
resident offenders should also be addressed. The Commission has received a number of complaints 
from citizens on issues related to appeal procedures, missing evidence, late delivery of information 
letters  /  penalty  notices,  missing  translations  and  problems  in  accessing  specific  information 
including on financial penalties. These complaints indicate that there may be a need to better protect 
the fundamental rights of non-resident offenders.  

The problems, their drivers and effects are summarised in Figure 2 below.  

Figure 2: Problem tree  

48   Source: CARE database. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.1. 

2.1. 

What are the problems? 

Problem 1: The CBE Directive is not fully effective in removing impunity of drivers who committed 
road-safety-related traffic offences with vehicles registered abroad 

The main objective of the CBE Directive is to improve road safety by facilitating the enforcement of 
road-safety-related traffic offences across borders and hence removing the impunity of drivers who 
commit the offences in a Member State other than that in which the vehicle is registered. Unless they 
are also punished / their impunity is reduced / removed, non-resident offenders are not expected to 
adapt  their  behaviour.  Equal  treatment  demands  that  non-resident  offenders  face  the  same 
consequences for their behaviour as resident offenders.  

It is estimated that on average around 15% of all remotely detected speeding offences in EU Member 
States are committed with vehicles registered in another country49, while those vehicles account for 
only about 5% of total traffic. There are significant variations between transit countries and popular 
holiday destinations on one side (foreign-registered vehicles account for 20% of all remotely detected 
speeding offences in FR and for 42% in LU) and peripheral and/or island countries on the other (the 
corresponding share is 3% in PT and just 1% in FI).  

Effective enforcement only works if the offences are properly detected, investigated and sanctioned 
and if the sanctions are also enforced. At the detection stage, if a road traffic offence is not detected 
or insufficiently detected, the offender will escape the justice with no effect on their behaviour in a 
way that would improve road safety. The evaluation of the CBE Directive has found that too many 
offenders still go unpunished. This is the case also for offences which are not covered by the Directive 
and for which the instruments provided by the Directive can therefore not be used. 

It  is  also  clear  that  more  controls  and  a  higher  number  of  automatic  detection  equipment  lead  to 
increased detection of the offences which  contributes to  lower impunity of road traffic offenders, 
including drivers of vehicles which are registered in another Member State. The CBE Directive does 
not prescribe a certain control intensity, nor does it prescribe how Member States have to control 
compliance  with  the  applicable  road  traffic  rules,  as  this  is  perceived  by  the  stakeholders  as  the 
competence of Member States authorities. The CBE Directive plays a vital role only in the stage once 
a road-safety-related traffic offence has been detected remotely.50  

The main strengths of the CBE Directive arguably lie in the investigation stage. Once a road traffic 
offence has been detected remotely by automatic or manual detection equipment which recorded the 
registration number of the vehicle with which the offence was committed, the CBE Directive ensures 
effective exchange of VRD. This means that the competent authorities of the Member State where 
the offence was committed have access to relevant vehicle registration data of the Member State of 
registration of the vehicle. This allows identifying the vehicle holder/owner. The CBE Directive then 
provides a template for the information letter/the penalty notice which should be sent to the presumed 
offender. In case the financial penalty is not paid voluntarily, it needs to be enforced.  

49   Source: Ecorys et al. (2022). Estimate based on actual data from 15 EU Member States. This concurs with the findings 

of the impact assessment for the original CBE Directive (SEC(2008) 351).  

50   This notwithstanding, the EU is also actively supporting activities of police authorities aimed at improving compliance 
control with the road traffic rules in place, including at the detection stage (e.g. in the context of ROADPOL, the 
European Roads Policing Network (https://www.roadpol.eu)), and is expected to continue to do so in the future.  

13 

 
                                                 
The enforcement is based on other instruments such as Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, 
which provides for the mutual recognition of financial penalties between Member States, or bilateral 
agreements between (mostly neighbouring) Member States or multilateral agreements such as the 
CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum51.  

For the offences which are covered by the CBE Directive, estimates based on information reported 
from some Member States suggest that about 20% of registered road-safety-related traffic offences 
committed with  a foreign  vehicle  fail at  the  investigation  stage because the non-resident offender 
could  not  be identified52. About 70% of the cases where a penalty notice  is  sent  to  the presumed 
offender result in a voluntary payment of the fine. The remaining 30% of penalty notices need to be 
enforced. This is easier said than done.  Information provided by Member States suggest that only 
about 5% of all cases subject to enforcement could be successfully enforced; the remaining 95% are 
not enforced and the offender goes unpunished.  

In 2019, some 14.5 million traffic offences have been detected where the vehicle was registered in 
another Member State and the driver  was  not  identified on the spot. Out of this total,  around 8.2 
million payments for offences were made (8 million voluntarily, some 200,000 following successful 
enforcement). Around 6.3 million offences resulted in the offender not being held accountable. Some 
43%  of  cross-border  offences  were  hence  committed  with  impunity,  which  is  relatively  high,  in 
particular  compared  to  the  (general  level  of)  impunity  for  comparable  offences  (mostly  speeding 
detected by speed cameras) in Member States, which ranges from 5% in the most successful countries 
(NL, SE, PL) to 10-20% on average (LU, LV, IE, ES, EE, HU) 53. 

Figure 3: Fate of CBE offences in 201954 

51   The CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum has been signed by Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Austria. It uses the 
framework established by the CBE Directive  and also includes cooperation in cross-border enforcement of traffic 
offences. (http://www.salzburgforum.org/Treaties_and_Agreement/CBE_Agreement.html) 

52   10% of investigations are estimated to fail due to technical issues and 10% due to legal issues (e.g. investigating the 
address of presumed offender, requiring additional verification of the identity of the offender/driver by exchanging 
evidence – pictures from detection equipment – to compare them with a photo of the vehicle owner/holder which is 
normally  not  available  in  a  vehicle  register,  but  other  registers  such  as  driving  licence  registers  or  passport/ID 
registers, that is subject to cumbersome mutual assistance procedures). 

53   ETCS (2022): How Traffic Law Enforcement Can Contribute To Safer Roads,  PIN Flash Report 42, March 2022 

https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/ETSC_PINFLASH42_v2TH_JC_FINAL_corrected-060522.pdf  

54   Source: Ecorys et al (2022): Impact Assessment support study for the revision of Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating 

cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences. 

14 

20%56%1%23%Fate of CBE offences 2019 (100% = 14.5 million offences) investigation fails (offender not identified)investigation successful; voluntary paymentpayment enforced via Framework Decision2005/214/JHA or via bi- or multilateral agreementspayment not enforced 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Cross-border offences detected, investigated and enforced (in million) 

Number of detected offences 

Number of successfully investigated offences 

Number of voluntary payments 
Number of sanctions that need enforcement (no voluntary payment) 

Number of successfully enforced sanctions 
Number of unsuccessfully enforced sanctions 

Number of failed investigations 

Total number of payments made 
Total number of offences where offender is not held accountable 
Share of offences committed with impunity 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2022), Impact Assessment support study 

2019 

        14.5  
        11.5  
         8.0  
         3.4  
         0.2  
         3.3  
         3.0  
         8.2  
         6.3  
43.3% 

Stakeholders consulted in the targeted consultation concurred that the impunity of the drivers who 
committed road-safety-related traffic offences with vehicles registered abroad is a problem and more 
than half (54%) indicated that drivers in foreign registered vehicles are more likely to commit a traffic 
offence while 25% said they didn’t know or had no opinion, and more than one fifth (21%) disagreed. 
When asked to comment on the reasons behind their opinion, around half of them mentioned a feeling 
of impunity. More than 20% respondents also stated that unawareness of local traffic rules might 
result in drivers unintendedly not complying with the road safety rules.  

Problem 2: Fundamental rights of non-resident offenders are not fully respected 

When the information letter / the penalty notice is sent to the presumed non-resident offender and 
during  subsequent  follow-up  procedures,  certain  fundamental  rights  have  to  be  respected.  Non-
residents cannot be expected to be familiar with the procedures in administrative/criminal matters 
and applicable sanctions for violations of road-safety-related traffic rules of other Member States; 
therefore they should be informed of them.  

Moreover, the information letter and any follow-up communication, until the stage of appeal before 
a  court,  when  Directive  2010/64/EU  on  the  right  to  interpretation  and  translation  in  criminal 
proceedings  applies,  should  be  in  a  language  which  the  presumed  non-resident  offender  can 
understand. Article 5(3) of the CBE Directive requires the Member State in which the offence was 
committed to send the information letter in the language of the registration document of the vehicle 
(if available) or in one of the official languages of the Member State where the vehicle with which 
the offence was committed is registered. It appears that the template of the information letter provided 
in Annex II to the CBE Directive is hardly ever used and, when it is used, that the provided additional 
information is not always (or often only badly) translated. Moreover, the applicable language regime 
is not adhered to in the follow-up procedures. Overall, it is estimated that 15% of all  information 
letters / penalty notices sent abroad do not contain adequate information or are issued in an incorrect 
language. 

For presumed offenders it is often not possible to verify whether an information letter / a penalty 
notice is real or whether it is fake. Especially when these documents are sent by a private party (such 
as a debt collection / recovery company), the presumed offender is often faced with a situation where 
it is not easy to verify the authenticity of the document.  

Issues have also been reported in relation to the delivery of the information letters / penalty notices 
that are linked to the deadlines for their submission to non-resident offenders. In some cases, these 
documents  have  been  received  very  late,  which  didn’t  allow,  inter  alia,  non-resident  offenders  to 
appeal or benefit from possible discounts for early payment of the fine.  

15 

 
 
 
Stakeholders such as road user associations (FIA, EAC and ÖAMTC) indicated in the consultations 
that the content and information presented in information letters should be improved, and that more 
information on local road traffic rules should be actively communicated to (non-domestic) road users. 
Furthermore,  they  were  of  opinion  that  the  deadlines  for  delivery  of  information  letters  (to  non-
resident offenders) should be harmonised across Member States, and more information  should be 
provided on follow-up procedures (such as the start and end of the deadline for appeals). 

As  regards  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights,  public  authorities  considered  that  stricter 
requirements can and should be laid down in the CBE Directive for the content of information letters 
/ penalty notices. However, some stakeholders claimed that most information letters / penalty notices 
are already translated and authenticated, while road user organisations FIA and ADAC indicated that, 
although the situation has been improving over the past years, a lot of these documents are still only 
poorly  translated  (for  example  using  automated  online  translation)  or  not  translated  at  all.  In  the 
public consultations, matters related to the information available to road users on road-safety-related 
traffic rules were judged as being very relevant. Almost 90% of the respondents indicated that they 
find  it  ‘important’  or  ‘very  important’  that  the  driver  has  access  to  relevant  information  in  the 
language that the driver speaks or understands. There seems to be wide support among respondents 
for the right to information on appeal procedures, information on how to pay the fine and concerning 
the language regime of all official notifications. Most respondents agreed that the driver should enjoy 
all these rights. 

The protection of personal data processed under the CBE Directive is  a core element of it. In this 
context, the current Directive refers to Directive 95/46/EC and does not reflect the recent revision 
and expansion of the EU’s data protection rules through the GDPR and the LED55. To take account 
of those changes and to cover the applicable rules in proceedings related to administrative offences 
and in proceedings related to criminal offences, the Directive should be adapted accordingly.  

2.2. 

2.2. 

What are the problem drivers? 

Several drivers could be identified for the relatively low effectiveness of the CBE Directive: 

Problem driver 1: Limited scope of CBE Directive in terms of road-safety-related traffic offences 

The possibility to use EUCARIS which allows accessing the vehicle registers of other Member States 
is strictly limited to the eight road-safety-related traffic offences which fall within the scope of the 
CBE Directive56. Technological developments allow for the remote detection (usually by sensors and 
cameras) of other road-safety-related offences where the offender is not identified on the spot. In case 
the  vehicle  is  registered  in  another  Member  State,  the  competent  authorities  may  still  use  the 
EUCARIS system to identify the vehicle holder/owner, however not under the CBE Directive, but 
rather  under  other  frameworks  such  as  bilateral  or  multilateral  agreements  (such  as  the  CBE 

55   GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation):  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with 
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), 
OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1; 
LED (Law Enforcement Directive): Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the 
processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or 
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data,  and 
repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89. 

56   (1) speeding; (2) failing to use a seat belt; (3) failing to stop at a red traffic light; (4) drink-driving; (5) driving under 
the influence of drugs; (6) failing to wear a safety helmet; (7) the use of a forbidden lane; (8) illegally using a mobile 
telephone or any other communication devices while driving. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
Agreement  of  the  Salzburg  Forum).  This  leads  to  a  fragmentation  of  rules  in  the  EU  with  the 
consequence  that  not  all  EU  citizens  are  treated  in  the  same  way.  In  fact,  offenders  residing  in 
Member States which are not Contracting Parties to such bilateral or multilateral agreements do not 
have to fear any investigation and enforcement of their offences.  

The  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  which  currently  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  CBE 
Directive and which can be detected remotely include several kinds of dangerous driving behaviour 
such as: not keeping sufficient distance from the vehicle in front, dangerous overtaking, dangerous 
parking, crossing solid white lines and driving in the wrong direction. The use of overloaded vehicles 
is  increasingly  detected  by  weigh-in-motion  (WIM)  sensors  placed  under  the  road  surface  (or  by 
measuring  other  parameters  of  vehicles)  and  cameras  with  automatic  number  plate  recognition 
(ANPR) technology which take a picture of the number plate of the  vehicle concerned. The CBE 
Directive already covers the most frequent road-safety-related traffic offences (speeding being the 
most commonly detected offence).  It is estimated that six additional offences – not keeping sufficient 
distance from  the vehicle in  front,  dangerous overtaking,  dangerous parking,  crossing solid white 
lines, driving in the wrong direction and driving  an overloaded vehicle would increase the number 
of detected offences covered by the CBE Directive by around 2%. 

Regarding the scope, the evaluation concluded that the CBE Directive could be made more relevant 
by  including  a  larger  set  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offenses  which  could  benefit  from  the 
instruments  provided  by  it.  Most  public  authorities  also  argued  that  extending  the  scope  of  the 
Directive would provide a mechanism to follow-up on more offences, strengthening the overall cross-
border investigation systems of Member States, and hence lead to a higher level of road safety. 

Most  public  authorities  are  in  favour  of  extending  the  scope  of  the  CBE  Directive,  as  confirmed 
during the expert workshop. They argued that it would provide a mechanism to follow-up on more 
offences, strengthening the overall cross-border investigation systems of Member States, ultimately 
leading to a higher level of road safety. Although some bilateral agreements already have a broader 
scope than the CBE Directive, including these offences under the CBE Directive would allow for the 
exchange of relevant information between Member States more efficiently and consistently than is 
currently the case.  Moreover, Member States in favour of an extension of the scope of the Directive  
argued that it would increase fairness, through equal treatment of residents and non-residents. Road 
user organisations in general welcomed the inclusion of other offences in the scope of the Directive, 
but  were  concerned  about  the  extension  of  the  scope  to  UVAR-related  offences  which  they 
considered  very  time-  and  place-specific,  with  often  different  rules  applied  to  vehicles  registered 
abroad,  such  as  the  need  to  pre-register  the  vehicle.  Research  organisations  were  in  favour  of 
including  all  road  traffic  offences  that  have  a  link  to  road  safety.  More  detailed  overview  of  the 
proposed scope extensions by Member State  and stakeholders is provided in Annex 2. 

Problem driver 2: Incorrect or insufficient information in vehicle registers 

It is estimated that around 20% of all investigations fail because of technical or legal issues. In some 
cases, the requests for data exchange via EUCARIS fail because national vehicle registers  do not 
contain all the necessary information or because they are not up to date. The identification of the 
vehicle owner/holder at the time of the offence may not be possible in case the vehicle holder/owner 
changes and the information on the previous holder/owner is no longer stored in the register. In the 
case of leased vehicles, additional information on the vehicle end user/keeper, the (long-term) lessee 
using  the  vehicle,  is  contained  in  some  national  vehicle  registers  but  not  in  others.  When  such 
information is available, it should be disclosed and used, which is currently not possible under the 
CBE Directive.  

17 

 
 
In the stakeholder workshops, several Member States pointed out that while data exchange amongst 
them in general worked well, there remained some issues, for example in the case where information 
exchanged through EUCARIS did not contain sufficient data and therefore it did not allow the police 
to send out an information letter to the presumed offender. In the Member States’ survey, 65% of 
respondents said that the registries are updated on a day-to-day and automatic basis.  

Problem driver 3: Inadequate cooperation between Member States in investigation of road-safety-
related traffic offences and enforcement of financial penalties for these offences  

It may happen that the address of the vehicle owner/holder in the vehicle register is not correct. In 
such a case it would be useful to launch a specific mutual assistance procedure tailored to remotely 
detected  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  to  investigate  the  actual  address  of  the  vehicle 
owner/holder, something which is currently missing. However, the name and address of the vehicle 
holder/owner is not sufficient to  get hold of an offender in Member States which apply a  “strict” 
driver liability regime, namely Germany and Sweden. In those countries, only the driver can be liable 
for a traffic offence and the vehicle holder/owner cannot be fined for the traffic offence even if he/she 
does not disclose the identity of the driver. The enforcement authorities have to provide evidence that 
the alleged offender was the driver of the vehicle with which the offence was committed. They cannot 
require  the  owner/holder  of  the  vehicle  to  identify  the  driver  because  this  would  contradict  the 
privilege  against self-incrimination  and the right  to  remain silent, foreseen in  national  legislation. 
They need to match the photo from the camera on which the driver is visible with information coming 
from  another  source.  Without  additional  assistance 
that  would  allow  using  other  data 
sources/databases,  such  as  driving  licence  registers  (RESPER),  the  investigation  of  the  detected 
offence will remain difficult. 

In cases where the offender could be identified, an information letter/penalty notice is issued. It is 
estimated that in around 70% of those cases, the penalty is paid voluntarily. In the remaining 30%, 
the  payment  of  the  penalty  needs  to  be  enforced,  e.g.  by  launching  a  mutual  assistance  in 
investigation.  For  such  further  proceedings,  the  CBE  Directive  suggests  in  recital  (15)  the  use  of 
applicable  EU-level  legal  instruments,  including  instruments  on  mutual  assistance  and  on  mutual 
recognition, such as Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle 
of mutual recognition to financial penalties. In such cases, the Member State in which the offender 
of the road traffic offence resides would enforce the financial penalty (and normally also keep the 
related revenues).   

The  scope  of  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  covers  conduct  which  infringes  road  traffic 
regulations.  However, the Framework Decision is  limited to  a final  decision  requiring  a financial 
penalty to be paid where the decision is made by a court in respect of a criminal offence or in case of 
a decision for administrative offences where a judicial review procedure similar to the one applied to 
criminal offences is available to the person concerned. In many Member States road traffic offences 
are qualified as minor administrative offences (not as criminal offences) and are subject to limited 
judicial review, if at all, which is why they cannot be pursued using the Framework Decision. 

Moreover,  Article  7  of  the  Framework  Decision  gives  the  executing  Member  State  a  number  of 
grounds for non-recognition and non-execution. One of the refusal grounds is linked to the size of 
the financial penalty: if it is below EUR 70, the executing Member State may refuse to recognise and 
execute a decision of the Member State where the offence occurred. Many speeding fines are below 
that  threshold.  The  evaluation  found  that  the  application  of  the  Framework  Decision  resulted  in 

18 

 
enforced decisions related to traffic offences in less than 1% of all cases.57 Practice indicates that the 
framework for cross-border enforcement of financial penalties under the Framework Decision is not 
tailored to cope with the huge amount of (largely administrative) road safety traffic offences. 

In the stakeholder consultation, some public authorities called for a simplification of the enforcement 
procedures for financial penalties, arguing that those under the Framework Decision are ‘too strict’ 
when it concerns ‘minor’ traffic offences, while other Member States stressed that the procedural 
rights of presumed offenders should be respected and that the strict procedures under the Framework 
Decision  are  needed.  The  effectiveness  of  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  in  the  mutual 
recognition of financial penalties was perceived as being low by a number of competent authorities 
of Member States which considered a tailored enforcement procedure for financial penalties for road-
safety-related traffic offences appropriate. 

Other  legal  instruments  related  to  the  cross-border  gathering  and  exchange  of  evidence  between 
Member States such as the MLA Convention or the European Investigation Order (EIO) are rarely 
used for the exchange of evidence on road traffic offences, especially when the offence is qualified 
as administrative (as opposed to criminal) in the issuing Member State. The two instruments require 
the appeal procedure for all offences (including administrative ones) to be addressed by a  judicial 
authority. Moreover, various authorities would have to be involved in the use of those instruments 
for road traffic offences which makes their use administratively cumbersome.  

Additional  complications  related  to  the  recognition  of  financial  penalties  of  other  Member  States 
arise in cases where the liability regime differs between the Member State in which the offence was 
committed and the Member State in which the vehicle is registered (the driver who committed the 
offence needs to be identified in Member States which apply a strict driver liability regime while this 
is not necessary in Member States where the vehicle owner/holder can be made liable) and in cases 
where national rules impose strict requirements on the reliability of the detection equipment used58. 

Problem  driver  4:  Different  level  of  fundamental  rights  protection  provided  for  non-resident 
offenders in Member States 

It is estimated that about 15% of all penalty notices sent from abroad do not contain all the necessary 
information or are written in a language which the presumed offender does not understand. According 
to  the  CBE  Directive  the  presumed  offender  has  the  right  to  be  informed  about  the  legal 
consequences,  as  applicable  under  national  law,  and  he/she  also  has  a  right  to  be  addressed  in  a 
language which he/she understands.  

As  regards  the  contents  and  language  of  the  information  letter,  Annex  II  to  the  CBE  Directive 
provides a template in all official languages of the EU of the information letter with all necessary 
elements  to  be  sent  to  the  presumed  offender.  However,  experience  with  the  application  of  the 
Directive  suggests  that  the  template  is  hardly  ever  used.  Member  States  instead  prefer  sending 
translated  versions  of  national  penalty  notices.  National  penalty  notices  do  however  not  always 
contain sufficient information for non-resident offenders who are not familiar with the procedures 

57   It appears that the success rate  of enforced decisions on financial penalties for  road-safety-related traffic offences 
committed in another country is considerably higher under bilateral agreements – or multilateral agreements such as 
the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum laying down cross-border enforcement procedures tailored to fines related 
to road-traffic offences. In the latter case, the success rate is reportedly close to 100%. 

58   For instance, in 2015, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that the reliability of checking equipment used to detect 
traffic offences is verified on a regular basis (ECLI:IT:COST:2015:113). In 2013, a court in Spain annulled a fine (for 
crossing a red traffic light) as it was not accompanied by a document proving the reliability of the detecting equipment 
(https://www.elconfidencial.com/motor/2013-02-20/nuevo-varapalo-judicial-al-ayuntamiento-de-madrid-por-las-
multas-en-los-semaforos_697877/). 

19 

 
                                                 
under  administrative/criminal  proceedings  of  other  Member  States  and  may  therefore  need  more 
information than resident offenders. 

As the investigation of offences committed by non-residents usually takes significantly longer than 
the investigation of offences committed by residents, it may not be appropriate to apply the same 
administrative deadlines. At the same time, there should be deadlines for the issuance of information 
letters/penalty notices, which take the necessary additional time needed for the investigation of cross-
border cases into account. Presumed offenders should receive the information letter no later than a 
reasonable period of time after the offence took place. The deterrence effect (and the likelihood of a 
voluntary payment of the fine) is usually bigger the earlier the penalty notice is sent. 

The presumed offender should be able to verify the authenticity of the penalty notice. It is of particular 
importance in cases where private debt collection companies have been tasked with the enforcement 
of  financial  penalties.  Presumed  offenders  should  not  be  confronted  with  possibly  forged  penalty 
notices without any means of verification.  

The offender also has a right to the protection of his/her personal data. Article 7 of the CBE Directive 
refers to Directive 95/46/EC59 which has meanwhile been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 
2016/679 (GDPR)60.  

Moreover, different data protection regimes apply to personal data processed under the Directive, 
depending  on  whether  the  offence  is  categorised  as  criminal  or  administrative  in  the  law  of  the 
Member States. Principally, if the offence is categorised as criminal, the applicable rules are those 
transposed under Directive (EU) 2016/680 (Law Enforcement Directive, LED)61; if it is categorised 
as administrative, the rules of the GDPR  apply.  While Article 94(2) of the GDPR states that any 
reference to the repealed Directive 95/46/EC shall be construed as references to the GDPR, the LED 
lacks such a provision. The CBE Directive does currently not contain a reference to the LED. 

In the targeted survey, opinions on the issues mentioned above were divided among road users (driver 
associations). Three stakeholders out of nine indicated that the information and evidence was accurate 
and  on  time  but  three  out  of  nine  were  of  the  opposite  opinion:  They  claimed  that  neither  the 
information  nor evidence  was accurate or provided in  a timely manner.  Further information from 
ADAC, based on a review of the documents obtained during legal consultations, showed that in 2019, 
some 4,500 cases related to the issues of translation and insufficient information on how to appeal to 
the penalty notice were found62.  

59   OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. 
60   OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. 
61   OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89. 
62   In  2019,  1,500  legal  consultations  were  provided  concerning  penalty  notices  from  Italy  that  were  not  sufficiently 
translated and/or did not contain sufficient information. In an additional 300 cases, the penalty notices did not contain 
sufficient  information  on  how  the  appeal.  Appeal  procedures  need  to  be  launched  in  Italian.  Moreover,  ADAC 
indicates that its legal department has provided 1,000 legal consultations on penalty notices from the Netherlands 
(issued by CJIB). These consultations mainly referred to not translating the specific offence that was committed. For 
France, ADAC provided consultation for around 700 cases concerning penalty notices sent to its members. Although 
the  initial  penalty  notice  is  usually  translated,  subsequent  communication  is  generally  not  translated,  and  appeal 
procedures should be launched in French. In 2019, some 500 legal consultations were provided on penalty notices 
sent from Spain. These penalty notices were often not translated in German. The same applies for penalty notices sent 
from  the  Czech  Republic,  for  which  400  cases  were  recorded  by  ADAC.  Penalty  notices  sent  from  Hungary  are 
increasingly translated in German. For other Member States, no main issues (among ADAC members) are observed 
and/or the number of cases is very low. 

20 

 
                                                 
Other potential driver considered and falling outside the scope of the impact assessment: 

Driver disqualification: Reducing the impunity of non-resident offenders and thereby inducing a 
behavioural change that would lead to a more prudent driving style and hence to more road safety is 
arguably  even  more  important  in  cases  of  serious  breaches  of  the  of  traffic  code  in  place.  When 
committed  in  the  Member  State  that  issued  the  driving  licence,  such  offences  usually  entail  the 
issuances of penalty or demerit points in Member States which have such systems and to the loss of 
the driving licence (the right to drive) in extreme cases. With the exception of the bilateral agreement 
between  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland,  there  is  currently  no  mutual  recognition  of  driver 
disqualification for offences committed in a country other than the one that issued the driving licence, 
hence no equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders63. Drivers who commit serious traffic 
offences in other Member States should be held accountable for them, in the same way as residents 
of those Member States are. A mutual recognition of driver disqualification would complement the 
CBE Directive. As mentioned in section 1 above, however, for reasons of consistency, it should better 
be addressed in the context of Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences64 which already contains 
provisions concerning the withdrawal of driving licences. Directive 2006/126/EC is being revised in 
parallel to the revision of the CBE Directive and the mutual recognition of driving disqualification is 
one of the issues considered in its revision65. 

2.3. 

2.3. 

How likely are the problems to persist? 

Problem 1: The CBE Directive is not fully effective in removing impunity of drivers who committed 
road-safety-related traffic offences with vehicles registered abroad 

Without further EU level intervention, the impunity of non-resident drivers committing road-safety-
related  traffic  offences  not  covered  by  the  CBE  Directive  will  continue.  They  will  not  have  any 
incentive to change their behaviour and comply with the local law. While the total number of road 
traffic offences is expected to fall in the coming years due to new vehicle technology assisting drivers 
to  comply  with  the  traffic rules in place66,  the projected increase in  road traffic may increase the 
number of offences currently not covered by the Directive which will be detected in the future but 
not  enforced for non-resident offenders. The difference in  treatment  between resident drivers  and 
non-resident drivers is expected to persist.  

Without a revision of the CBE Directive, the relatively poor record of non-resident offenders paying 
the fine in a cross-border context (in less than 60% of all detected cases) is also likely to persist. 
Issues  hindering  the  successful  identification  of  the  presumed  offender  which  exist  today  are  not 
expected to go away. Without more and better data being made available to enforcement authorities 
and/or  without  changes  to  the  legal  liability  regime  in  some  Member  States,  the  rate  of  failed 
investigations  is  not  expected  to  decrease.  The  ‘voluntary  payment  rate’  among  the  successfully 

63   The bilateral agreement between  Ireland and the United Kingdom does not provide for the recognition of demerit 
penalty points; it only provides for the mutual recognition of driver disqualification(s). More information is available 
here: https://www.rsa.ie/services/licensed-drivers/mutual-recognition-of-disqualifications-ireland-and-uk  

64   OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18. 
65   See  the  inception  impact  assessment  for  the  initiative  on  the  revision  of  the  directive  on  driving  licences: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12978-Revision-of-the-Directive-on-
Driving-Licences_en   

66   For instance, in accordance with the general vehicle safety Regulation (EU) 2019/2144, all new vehicle types in the 
EU will from 6 July 2022 (all new vehicles from 7 July 2024) onwards be equipped with an intelligent speed assistance 
system which warns the driver when he or she is driving above the applicable speed limit. This is expected to reduce 
the number of speeding offences – by far the most important CBE offence – and hence increase road safety.  

21 

 
 
                                                 
identified presumed offenders is expected to stay at around 70% at best; it may also decrease due to 
the lack of effective cross-border enforcement. The rather low enforcement rate of financial penalties 
under Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA will likely not change much either without tailoring its 
application to road traffic offences. More promising is the enforcement of such fines under related 
bilateral or multilateral agreements, but no Member State has indicated that it planned to conclude or 
join such agreements in the near future. If everything stays as it is, non-resident offenders will have 
no incentive to change their behaviour. Even contrary, non-resident offenders who currently pay the 
fine on a voluntary basis may no longer do so given the low level of enforcement.  

Problem 2: Fundamental rights of non-resident offenders are not fully respected 

Road user organisations reported that the share of translated information letters has lately improved, 
but that the quality of the translations still leaves much to be desired in many cases (often automatic 
translation  software  /  applications  are  used).  Moreover,  the  content  and  the  authenticity  check  of 
penalty  notices/information  letters  still  differs  a  lot  between  Member  States  (and  often  within 
Member States). It appears therefore that, in the absence of a revision of the CBE Directive, issues 
concerning the protection of fundamental rights of presumed offenders are likely to persist. 

22 

 
 
3.  3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

Title VI (Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) establishes the EU’s 
prerogative to make provisions for the Common Transport Policy. Article 91(1)(c) TFEU provides 
that the Union has competence in the field of transport to lay down measures to improve transport 
safety.  

3.2. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union 
shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by 
the Member States. In the absence of EU action, equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders 
cannot be ensured. Member States have concluded bilateral and multilateral agreements which aim at 
facilitating the cross-border enforcement of road traffic offences. Some of these agreements (e.g. the CBE 
Agreement of the Salzburg Forum) specifically make use of the framework established under the CBE 
Directive.  

Bilateral and multilateral agreements have been found to be more effective than the CBE Directive when 
it  comes  to  the  enforcement  rate.  This  is  mainly  because  they  include  additional  instruments  for  the 
exchange of information and/or related to the recognition and enforcement of final decisions. The CBE 
Agreement of the Salzburg Forum is said to have an enforcement rate of over 90%67. It builds on the CBE 
Directive, but makes greater use of EUCARIS functionalities and it contains specific provisions related 
to the cross-border execution of financial penalty decisions (in addition to provisions on the cross-border 
investigation of traffic offences).  

Without action at EU level, Member States would likely cooperate based on those agreements already in 
place (no new agreements are planned). As mentioned above, the multilateral CBE Agreement of the 
Salzburg Forum builds on the CBE Directive so it wouldn’t function without any EU framework in place. 
The  enforcement  regime  of  that  agreement  is  based  on  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  and 
investigation procedures implicitly (there is no direct reference) cover a modified application of the 
MLA Convention for service of decisions and Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation 
Order to facilitate the exchange of evidence. Its proper functioning is therefore very much dependent 
on action being taken at EU level to address issues related to those legal acts. 

While these bilateral and multilateral agreements generally fulfil their respective purpose, they lead to a 
situation where different rules apply to cross-border offenders from different countries. There is no equal 
treatment of offenders from all EU countries. Without action at EU level, there would be a patchwork of 
rules which would not be as effective in ending the impunity of non-resident offenders and inducing a 
behavioural change leading to improved road safety.  

Under the subsidiarity principle, the application of enforcement practices by Member States in their own 
territory is considered primarily within their own competence. The initiative does not seek to impose 
requirements  for  road  safety  enforcement  methods  as  such.  It  focuses  on  facilitating  cross-border 
enforcement, which Member States cannot achieve on their own in a coherent way. The effectiveness and 
credibility of enforcement is seriously undermined when it does not affect all offenders in the same way. 

67   Source: Ecorys et al. (2022): Impact Assessment support study. 

23 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The added value of the initiative is similar to the EU added value of the existing CBE Directive68. As 
explained above, the existing bilateral and multilateral agreements would be unable to reach the same 
level  of  effectiveness  as  the  Directive  in  both  ending  the  impunity  of  non-resident  offenders  and 
ensuring equal treatment of all road users. Besides, as shown in the evaluation of the  Directive, if 
Member States wanted to achieve the same results as the Directive through the conclusion of bilateral 
agreements, hundreds of these agreements would have to be signed, resulting in huge complexity and 
potential for inconsistencies, and ultimately leading to significant costs for national administrations. 
The added value of EU action can therefore also be seen from the efficiency angle, considering that 
a single framework provides great efficiency gains. 

The shortcomings of the existing CBE Directive – in particular its lack of effectiveness – can only be 
addressed by action at EU level, namely a revision of the Directive. Only an EU instrument can bring 
about consistent and efficient EU-wide cross-border enforcement of road traffic offences, through the 
exchange of relevant information via an electronic system. 

68   See Table 1 in section 1.2.1 above. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.  4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1. 

4.1. 

General objective 

The ultimate objective of this initiative is to improve road safety in the EU through more effective 
enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules across borders. It thus contributes to reaching ‘vision 
zero’, i.e. close to zero fatalities on the EU’s roads by 2050. It also contributes towards sustainable 
development goal #11 “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” 
and  in  particular  to  target  11.2  “By  2030,  provide  access  to  safe,  affordable,  accessible  and 
sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, 
with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with 
disabilities and older persons”. 

4.2. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

This initiative is designed to effectively address the identified problems that reduce the effectiveness 
of the CBE Directive and that create issues related to the protection of fundamental rights of presumed 
non-resident offenders. The relationship between problem drivers and the specific objectives (SO) is 
provided in Figure 4 below. 

Figure 4: Correspondence between the specific objectives and the problem drivers 

SO 1:  Increase compliance of non-resident drivers with additional road-safety-related traffic rules 

This specific objective directly addresses problem driver 1. While the most important road-safety-
related traffic offenses are already covered by the CBE Directive, some are not  yet covered. This 
includes above all several cases of dangerous driving such as not keeping sufficient distance to the 
vehicle in front, dangerous overtaking, dangerous parking, crossing solid white lines, driving in the 
wrong direction and driving an overloaded vehicle. This behaviour has become relatively common 
and urgently needs to be better enforced, including across borders. Technological developments in 
automatic detection equipment allow such offences being recorded. However, if the offender uses a 
vehicle  registered  in  another  Member  State,  he  or  she  cannot  be  identified  using  the  tools  of  the 
Directive. Some bilateral and multilateral agreements between Member States already today allow 
the identification of the presumed offender from another Member State in such cases. There is no 
reason  why  such  offences  should  not  be  covered  by  the  CBE  Directive  and  why  non-resident 
offenders should be left off the hook in such cases. As long as the offences in question have an impact 
on road safety, there should be no doubt as regards the legal basis of the initiative.  

25 

 
 
SO 2: Streamline mutual assistance and recognition procedures between Member States in cross-
border  investigation  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  and  in  cross-border  enforcement  of 
financial penalties for these offences 

This  specific  objective  directly  addresses  problem  drivers  2  and  3.  By  reducing  the  share  of  not 
successfully  investigated  cases  and  the  share  of  unenforced  penalties,  it  aims  at  increasing  the 
effectiveness of the CBE Directive: more offenders will be identified and more of those that have 
been  identified  will  be  sanctioned;  the  resulting  lower  impunity  levels  for  non-resident  offenders 
should improve their behaviour on the roads and hence lead to more road safety. 

The  identification  of  the  non-resident  offenders  still  faces  too  many  hurdles  such  as  incorrect  or 
insufficient  information  provided  in  the  national  vehicle  registers,  application  of  different  legal 
liability regimes (driver liability vs. the vehicle holder/owner liability) and lacking tailored follow-
up  procedures  in  case  the  exchange  of  data  via  EUCARIS  is  not  successful  or  does  not  provide 
adequate results. They should all be addressed in the revision of the CBE Directive. Moreover, the 
Directive  should  also  help  to  improve  the  recognition  and  execution  of  decisions  on  financial 
penalties issued by other Member States. The current successful enforcement rate of only about 5% 
is not sufficiently deterrent to induce a change in behaviour on the side of the foreign offenders. 

SO 3: Strengthen the protection of fundamental rights of non-resident offenders, including alignment 
with new EU rules on personal data protection 

SO 3 directly addresses problem driver 3. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU69 gives EU 
citizens the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8), the right to an effective remedy and to 
a fair trial (Article 47) and the right of defence (Article 48(2)). It also provides for equality before 
the law (Article 20). Member States should protect these rights, also in the case of presumed non-
resident offenders. The right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial implies that a certain amount 
of relevant information is given to the presumed offender within a reasonable timeframe in a language 
which he/she can understand. The information provided should also allow the presumed offender to 
check whether an information letter/penalty notice he/she receives is genuine or not. Data protection 
rules should be aligned with the GDPR and the LED.  

69   OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.  5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1. 

5.1. 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020) is the starting point for the development of the baseline 
scenario for the impact assessment of this initiative. It takes into account the impacts of the COVID-
19  pandemic  on  the  transport  sector70.  Building  on  REF2020,  the  baseline  scenario  for  this  impact 
assessment  has  been  designed  to  include  the  initiatives  of  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  package71.  The  baseline 
assumes that there is no further EU level intervention beyond the current CBE Directive.72 

In the baseline scenario, the number of fatalities is projected to decrease by 23% by 2030 relative to 
2015 and by 30% by 2050 relative to 201573. The number of serious and slight injuries is projected 
to  decrease  only  by 18% between 2015 and 2030 and by 25% for 2015-2050. This  is  despite the 
increase in traffic over time. Relative to 2020, the reduction rates are somewhat lower, reflecting the 
impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (lower  base):  The  number  of  fatalities  and  slight  injuries  is 
projected to  decrease by 3% by  2030 while the  number of serious injuries is  projected to remain 
relatively  stable.  By  2050,  the  number  of  fatalities  would  be  13%  lower  than  in  2020  while  the 
number of serious and light injuries would be lower by 10% and 11% respectively. Thus, the targets 
of the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Next steps towards “Vision Zero”, of reducing 
the number of road deaths and the number of serious injuries by 50% between 2020 and 2030, would 
not be met. In addition, this is still far from the goal of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 
of a close to zero death toll for all modes of transport in the EU by 2050. 

The  number  of  detected  offences  committed  by  foreign  registered  vehicles  without  driver 
identification on the spot is estimated to go down in the baseline from 14.5 million in 2019 to 13.9 
million in 2030 and 13.8 million in 2040 (4% reduction relative to 2019). This decrease is mainly 
due to the impact which the gradual introduction of new safety features in the vehicle fleet74 – in 
particular the intelligent speed assistance system – are expected to have in the years up to 2040. It 
will more than outweigh the expected impact from the assumed increase in traffic. As the effect of 
the gradual introduction of new safety features in the vehicle fleet is expected to peter out by 2040, 
the number of detected offences is projected to increase again post-2040, to 14.7 million by 2050. 
The number of offences where the offender is not held accountable is projected to go down from 6.3 
million in 2019 to 6 million in 2030 and 2040, before going up again to 6.4 million in 2050, driven 
by  the  increase  in  the  number  of  detected  offences  post-2040.  The  share  of  offences  where  the 
offender is not held accountable is projected to remain relatively constant over time, at around 43%. 

The  total  costs  incurred  by  public  authorities  for  the  implementation  of  the  CBE  Directive  are 
estimated to decrease from EUR 105.4 million in 2019 to EUR 77.8 million in 2030 and EUR 57 
million in 2050 (see Table 3), mainly driven by a reduction in the investigation costs due to increased 
digitalisation. In the baseline scenario it has been assumed that the  average time per investigation 
goes down from 15 minutes currently (as reported by Member States) to around 3 minutes by 2050. 
Member States that implement digitised procedures, and adopt vehicle owner/holder liability regime, 
generally have an investigation time of between 1 and 3 minutes.  

70   More detailed information on the preparation process, assumptions and results are included in the Reference scenario 

publication: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/energy-modelling/eu-reference-scenario-2020_en  

71   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3541  
72   More details on the baseline scenario are provided in Annex 4. 
73   Projections refer to injuries in accidents in which a passenger vehicle (car), a light commercial vehicle (van), a bus or 

a truck is involved (accidents with powered two wheelers are not included in the projections). 

74   Due to Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 1). 

27 

 
                                                 
Table 3: Costs for public authorities for implementing the CBE Directive in the baseline scenario (in million EUR) 
2050 
22.1 
34.9 
57.0 

Total investigation costs 
Total mailing costs for successfully investigated offences 
Total costs for public administrations 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2019 
70.9 
34.5 
105.4 

2030 
44.9 
33.0 
77.8 

2040 
30.4 
32.8 
63.3 

5.2. 

5.2. 

Description of the policy options 

As  a  first  step,  a  comprehensive  list  of  possible  policy  measures  was  established  after  extensive 
consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent research and the Commission’s own 
analysis.  This  list  was  subsequently  screened  based  on  the  likely  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
proportionality of the proposed measures in relation to the given objectives, as well as their legal, 
political and technical feasibility.  

As a result of this screening process, a number of policy measures have been discarded either because 
an action to address the issue at EU level will not yield additional results, because the problem was 
not  susceptible  to  a  solution  by  means  of  EU  legislation  or  because  some  of  the  aspects  will  be 
addressed through other EU legislation or soft policy instruments. Further details on the discarded 
policy measures and why they have been discarded are set out in Annex 5.  

The retained policy measures have been grouped in three policy options, PO1, PO2 and PO3, two of 
which (PO2 and PO3) have variants (PO2A and PO3A, respectively). 11 out of the 16 retained policy 
measures are common to all policy options and do not entail a policy choice. Table 4 presents the 
links  of  policy  measures  included  in  the  policy  options  with  the  problem  drivers  and  specific 
objectives. 

Table 4: Overview of policy measures and policy options 

Problem driver 
(PD) and specific 
objective (SO) 
PD1 
SO1 
PD2 
SO2 

PD3 
SO2 

PD4 
SO3 

Policy measure 

PO 
1 

PO 
2 

PO 
2A 

PO 
3 

PO 
3A 

PM1 – Extend the scope of the CBE Directive to other road-safety related 
traffic offences  
PM2  –  Establish  mandatory  minimum  data  content  of  vehicle  registers 
necessary for the investigation of traffic offences 
PM3 – Keep the information on previous owner/holder of a vehicle for a 
specific time and provide/disclose it upon request   

PM4  –  Ensure  access  to  other  data  registers  (other  than  VRD) through  a 
single system  
PM5 – Keep the information on the user of a vehicle in case the vehicle is 
leased and provide/disclose it upon request 
PM6  –  Establish  a  tailored  investigation  mechanism  for  cross-border 
exchange  of  information  of  road  traffic  offences,  aimed  at  better 
identification of the driver/offender 
PM7  –  Establish  mutual  assistance  in  the  investigation  of  road  traffic  
offences by including the duty of the vehicle owner/holder to cooperate with 
authorities in identification of driver/actual offender 
PM8A – Establish a tailored follow-up mechanism for mutual recognition 
of financial penalties issued in relation to CBE road traffic offences 
PM8B – PM8A with limited grounds for refusal 
PM9 – Provide a dedicated list of entities in different Member States that 
are entitled to issue information letters to ensure authenticity of documents 
PM10 – Establish harmonised time limit for sending the information letter 
+ use of registered mail to ensure fair service of documents 
PM11 – Establish mandatory minimum requirements for the information to 
be shared with presumed offender 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 
√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem driver 
(PD) and specific 
objective (SO) 

Policy measure 

PM12  –  Ensure  consistent  and  seamless  language  regime  in  the  follow-up 
communication with presumed offender 
PM13 – Ensure adequate and non-discriminatory access to information of 
citizens  and  business  regarding  cross-border  enforcement  of  road  traffic 
rules 
PM14 – Ensure authenticity and fair service of final decision 
PM15  –  Ensure  that  the  information  exchange  under  the  CBE  Directive 
complies with GDPR and Law Enforcement Directive (LED) 

PO 
1 

PO 
2 

PO 
2A 

PO 
3 

PO 
3A 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 
√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 
√ 

Policy option 1 (PO1) 

PO1 is the basic policy option. It contains 11 of the 16 retained policy measures.  Under PO1, the 
scope of the CBE Directive would be extended to include other road-safety related offences currently 
not covered by the Directive but for which the Directive can be a useful enforcement tool as they are 
detected more and more with automatic detection equipment without identification of the driver on 
the spot. It is suggested to include the six offences mentioned above - not keeping sufficient distance 
from the vehicle in front, dangerous overtaking, dangerous parking, crossing solid white lines, driving 
in the wrong direction and driving an overloaded vehicle. It hence addresses specific objective 1.  

PO1 also addresses the issues related to the protection of fundamental rights (specific objective 3) as 
far as the investigation phase is concerned. It does so by enabling the verification of the authenticity 
of  documents  related  to  the  investigation  of  offences,  by  establishing  harmonised  time  limits  for 
sending the information letter, by establishing mandatory minimum requirements for the information 
to  be  shared  with  a  presumed  offender,  by  ensuring  a  consistent  language  regime  throughout  the 
procedure, by ensuring that citizens receive more information on the cross-border enforcement of 
road-safety-related  traffic  rules  (including  sanctions  and  applicable  appeal  procedures)  and  by 
updating the reference to the current data protection rules while respecting personal data protection 
rules. 

Finally PO1 addresses specific objective 2 (improving the effectiveness of the Directive) by ensuring 
that  the  information  in  the  national  vehicle  register  databases  is  complete,  up-to-date  and 
complemented by relevant information on the previous vehicle holder for a certain period of time and 
on the actual user of a vehicle in case the vehicle has been leased. Under PO1, a single system would 
allow enforcement authorities to effectively access not just the vehicle registration databases of other 
Member States, but also to other databases / registers that may be useful for the identification of a 
presumed offender, such as the national driving licence registers. 

Policy option 2 (PO2) 

PO2  includes  all  elements  of  PO1  and  in  addition  foresees  the  establishment  of  a  tailored 
investigation mechanism, including an IT system which is an interface between national systems, for 
the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences. Where required, it 
would also allow the exchange of additional evidence such as pictures of the vehicle holder/owner to 
facilitate the identification of the offender. 

Policy option 2A (PO2A) 

PO2A supplements the measures already included in PO2 by introducing a duty to cooperate with 
enforcement authorities in the investigation of the identity of the driver of the vehicle with which a 
road-safety-related traffic offence has been committed in another Member State. This duty would 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
apply in Member States with a driver liability regime while in other Member States, the holder/owner 
of the vehicle concerned can directly be fined for the committed road-safety-related traffic offence. 
In  the  case  where  the  vehicle  holder/owner  claims  that  he/she  was  not  the  driver  but  does  not 
cooperate with the enforcement authorities in the identification of the driver, he/she would be asked 
to contribute to the enforcement costs. The vehicle holder/owner would hence not be liable for the 
committed road-safety-related traffic offence (which he/she claims not to have committed anyhow) 
but  for  failing  to  cooperate  with  the  enforcement  authorities.  This  way,  the  rate  of  successful 
investigations  in  Member  States  with  driver  liability  is  expected  to  increase  considerably.  An 
alternative solution would be to impose vehicle holder/owner liability at EU level, but that would be 
disproportionate (see discarded policy measures in Annex 5). As this measure alone is expected to 
have a significant impact on raising the effectiveness of the CBE Directive, it is subject to a separate 
policy option. 

Policy option 3 (PO3) 

PO3 builds on PO2A and, in addition to all measures included in PO2A, it establishes also a tailored 
follow-up mechanism for the mutual recognition of decisions on financial penalties issued in relation 
the offences falling within the scope of the CBE Directive, thus creating a lex specialis for such cases 
that facilitates cross-border enforcement. It hence also contributes to a reduction of the relatively high 
share of offences where the investigation has been successful but where a penalty that has not been 
voluntarily paid has not been enforced. PO3 also includes an additional measure under specific objective 
3 (safeguarding fundamental rights), which provides specific procedural standards and guarantees to be 
met when financial penalties are enforced abroad. 

Policy option 3A (PO3A) 

PO3A is an extended version of PO3, and it also contains a tailored follow-up mechanism for the 
mutual  recognition  of  decisions  on  financial  penalties  as  in  PO3,  however  where  the  number  of 
grounds  for  refusing  to  recognise  and  execute  a  decision  related  to  a  financial  penalty  issued  by 
another Member State, as laid down in Article 7 of Framework Decision 2015/214/JHA, is reduced. 

30 

 
 
 
6.  6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This  section  summarizes  the  main  expected  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  each 
PO75. The proposed measures included in the policy options are assumed to be implemented from 
2025 onwards, so that the assessment has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period, and it refers to 
EU27.  Costs  and  benefits  are  expressed  as  present  value  over  the  2025-2050  period,  using  a  3% 
discount rate. Further details on the methodological approach are provided in Annex 4. 

6.1. 

6.1. 

Economic impacts 

The assessment of the economic impacts includes the costs which the various policy options entail 
for public administrations, the private sector (leasing companies) and road users.  

6.1.1.  Impacts on public administrations 

Enforcement costs for Member States administrations. The impacts on public administrations are 
expected to be twofold: On the one hand, the policy options are expected to result in more cross-
border investigation and enforcement procedures related to the detected offences and in an increase 
of  their  costs  (e.g.  due  to  specific  requirements  that  have  to  be  met  to  ensure  the  protection  of 
fundamental rights of presumed non-resident offenders). On the other hand, by facilitating the cross-
border investigation and enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences, the policy options are 
expected to reduce the impunity of non-resident offenders. As a result, non-residents will adapt their 
driving behaviour. More effective policy options will hence result in fewer offences committed with 
vehicles registered in other Member States relative to the baseline. This reduces enforcement costs 
as fewer offences have to be investigated. Both factors have been considered in the assessment. The 
second type of effect is more significant in the more ambitious option packages (PO2A, PO 3 and 
PO 3A), and thus result in a higher reduction in the investigation costs relative to the baseline. 

The  detailed  impacts  on  costs  by  policy  measure  are  provided  in  Annex  4.  The  impacts  on 
enforcement costs by policy option are not a simple sum of the impacts of individual policy measures, 
since the assessment of the impacts of the policy options also considers the synergies between policy 
measures. Table 5 provides a summary of the enforcement costs for Member States administrations 
in each policy option relative to the baseline for 2030 and 2050. The highest additional enforcement 
costs are projected in  PO1 and PO2  for both  2030 and 2050 (EUR  7.2-7.3 million relative to  the 
baseline in 2030 and EUR 8.4 million in 2050), followed by PO2A (EUR 5.9 million in 2030 and 
EUR 8.3 million in 2050) and PO3 (EUR 3.1 million in 2030 and EUR 6.1 million in 2050), while 
the lowest costs are projected in PO3A (EUR 1.8 million in 2030 and EUR 5 million in 2050).  

The higher enforcement costs for PO1 and PO2 relative to other POs are mainly due to the assumption 
that these two options are not as effective as the other options which is reflected in a slightly lower 
share of successfully investigated offences in all detected offences. Above all, however, their lower 
effectiveness entails a lower reduction in the impunity of non-resident drivers which translates into 
more offences being detected (as more offences are being committed) than in PO2A, PO3 and PO3A. 
This trend in the number of detected offences is then combined with the trend in the investigation 
costs per detected offence (which is going down over time due to efficiency gains from increased 
digitalisation) and the development of mailing costs for all successfully investigated offences. 

75   The  analysis in this section is based on Ecorys et al. (2022),  Impact Assessment support study  for the revision of 
Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, 
and on the analysis of stakeholders' feedback. 

31 

 
                                                 
All  policy  options  are  expected  to  lead  to  a  decrease  in  the  investigation  costs  in  2030  and  2050 
relative to the baseline, at different degrees, while the costs for sending the penalty notices would 
increase. It should however be noted that a very large part of the increase in the costs for sending the 
information letter / penalty notice is linked to the requirement of sending all information letters with 
registered mail (PM10), which is included in all policy options. This increases costs in all cases where 
information letters are currently sent by normal mail (around 50% of all cases). This is also the reason 
why the costs for sending the penalty notices increase in all options relative to the baseline (see Table 
5), despite the decrease in the number of additional penalty notices in PO3 and PO3A (see Table 6).  

Table  5:  Enforcement  costs  for  public  administrations  in  the  POs  relative  to  the  baseline  scenario  (EU27),  in 
million EUR (2020 prices) 

Enforcement costs (in million EUR) 

Investigation costs 

Costs for sending the penalty notice  

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO2A 

PO3 

PO3A 

2030 
7.3 

-1.0 

8.3 

2050 
8.4 

-0.4 

8.8 

2030 
7.2 

-1.3 

8.5 

2050 
8.4 

-0.6 

9.0 

2030 
5.9 

-3.6 

9.5 

2050 
8.3 

-1.7 

10.1 

2030 
3.1 

-4.8 

8.0 

2050 
6.1 

-2.3 

8.5 

2030 
1.8 

-5.4 

7.2 

2050 
5.0 

-2.6 

7.7 

Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

PO1 includes 11 of the 16 retained policy measures. Out of these measures, only those that extend 
the scope of the CBE Directive to six additional offences (PM1), aim to extend the minimum data 
content  of  national  vehicle  registers  beyond  the  elements  listed  in  Annex  I  to  the  CBE  Directive 
(PM2), aim to ensure that the information on the previous owner/holder of a vehicle is held in the 
national vehicle registers for a specific period of time (PM3), ensure access to other data registers 
(other than VRD) through a single system (PM4) and establish a harmonised time limit for sending 
the information letter and also requires authorities to send information letters with registered mail 
(PM10) have a direct impact on the number of offences and the number of penalty notice issued, and 
hence on the costs for sending them (PM10). These measures allow more detected offences to be 
successfully investigated over time (i.e. the share of successfully investigated cases is projected to be 
3.6 percentage points higher relative to the baseline in 2030 and 3.7 p.p. higher in 2050) and would 
also lead to more penalty notices being issued in the first year of implementation.  

However, following the higher number of successfully investigated offences and penalty notices in 
the first year of implementation (2025), the impunity of non-resident offenders is reduced76 and as a 
result they are expected to adapt their driving behaviour afterwards. Consequently, PO1 results in 
around  295,000  fewer  investigations  being  launched  relative  to  the  baseline  in  2030  and  289,000 
fewer in 2050. At the same time, it results in a very limited number of additional issued information 
letters / penalty notices relative to the baseline (around 1,000 in 2030 and 40,000 in 2050). Table 6 
provides the number of launched investigations and issued penalty notices, relative to the baseline. 

Table 6: Number of investigations launched and penalty notices issued in the POs relative to the baseline scenario 
in EU27 (in thousand) 

PO1 

PO2 

PO2A 

PO3 

PO3A 

Difference to the baseline 

Investigations launched 
Penalty notice issued 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 
-295 
1 

2050 
-289 
19 

2030 
-394 
40 

2050 
-394 
60 

2030 
-1,091 
264 

2050 
-1,129 
296 

2030 
-1,463 
-71 

2050 
-1,522 
-57 

2030 
-1,649 
-239 

2050 
-1,718 
-234 

PO2 adds PM6 to PO1. PM6 establishes an investigation mechanism that is tailored to the cross-
border  exchange  of  information  with  the  aim  to  increase  the  success  rate  in  identifying  the 

76   Under PO1, the share of offences committed with impunity would go down from 43% in the baseline to around 39%. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
offender/driver. PM6 would provide two additional elements compared to PM 2, 3 and 4; the follow 
up procedure to  find the actual address  of the offender, and the follow up procedure to  exchange 
additional  evidence  (in  particular  pictures  of  the  vehicle  owner/holder  from  the  passport  or  ID 
registers). These are all additional services that are currently not possible. In case a request of the 
vehicle registration database of another Member State does not result in the exchange of the (correct) 
postal address of the presumed offender, a follow-up question may be exchanged via EUCARIS or, 
in case additional evidence is required, a request could be made via the eDelivery network77 which 
allows for the secure and reliable exchange of data and documents between authorities. The measure 
would lead to more successful investigations in PO2 (i.e. the share of successfully investigated cases 
is projected to be 4.5 p.p. higher in 2030 and 4.6 p.p. higher in 2050 relative to the baseline), while 
the share of offences committed with impunity would go down to 38.6%. PO2 is also estimated to 
result in a higher number of penalty notices issued relative to the baseline (around 40,000 in 2030 
and 60,000 in  2050), and  also relative  to  PO1.  This  measure also  foresees the establishment of  a 
dedicated  IT  portal  for  communication  between  governmental  authorities/organisations  and 
preferably decentralised platform(s)78 to inter-connect national registers/back-end IT services in the 
cross-border exchange of information.  

PO2A adds PM7 to PO2. PM7 introduces a mutual assistance in the investigation of cross-border 
road-safety-related traffic offences by including a duty of the owner/holder of the vehicle with which 
the  traffic  offence  has  been  committed,  to  cooperate  with  the  enforcement  authorities  in  the 
identification of the driver / the actual offender in case the vehicle holder/owner was not the driver. 
This measure addresses in particular the situations where only the driver / the actual offender can be 
held liable for the traffic offence. In case the owner/holder of the vehicle fails to cooperate with the 
enforcement authorities in the identification of the driver / the actual offender, he or she will be asked 
to share the enforcement costs. As the measure is expected to be very effective in increasing the share 
of  successfully  investigated  offences  in  PO2A  (i.e.  the  share  of  successfully  investigated  cases  is 
projected to be 10.9 p.p. higher relative to the baseline in 2030 and 11 p.p. higher in 2050), it should 
lead to higher enforcement costs due to the higher number of penalty notices issued (around 264,000 
in 2030 and 296,000 in 2050, relative to the baseline). Also, the share of offences committed with 
impunity goes down to 33.9% in PO2A.  

PO3 adds PM8A and PM14 to PO2A. PM8A establishes a tailored follow-up mechanism for the 
mutual  recognition  of  financial  penalties.  The  existing  mechanism  for  the  mutual  recognition  of 
financial penalties (Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA) is not suited to dealing with a high number 
of road traffic offences, most of which are administrative offences (and not criminal offences, for 
which the Framework Decision is more suited). A specific mechanism for the recognition of road-
safety-related traffic offences committed with a vehicle registered in  another Member State could 
overcome the shortcomings of the Framework Decision, lower the enforcement costs and allow for a 
more effective and efficient enforcement. In addition, PM14 aims at ensuring authenticity and fair 
service  of  final  administrative  or  judicial  decisions.  This  measure  specifies  the  information  to  be 
shared  with  the  presumed  offender.  PM14  is  not  expected  to  lead  to  additional  costs  beyond  and 
above the baseline.  

77   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/wikis/display/DIGITAL/eDelivery 
78  The  decentralised  nature  of  the  system  means  that  there  will  be  no  data  storage  or  data  processing  by  the  entity 
entrusted with the operational management of the system’s components. Depending on whether an access point to the 
system is operated by an EU institution, agency or body, or at national/international level, and depending on which 
national  authorities  are  processing  personal  data  and  for  what  purpose,  either  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices 
and agencies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39), the GDPR or the LED will apply. 

33 

 
                                                 
PO3 is as effective as PO2A in increasing the share of successfully investigated offences (i.e. the 
share of successfully investigated cases is projected to be 10.9 p.p. higher relative to the baseline in 
2030  and  11  p.p.  higher  in  2050).  Simpler  procedures  more  tailored  to  road  traffic  offences  are 
however expected to help increase the share of enforced decisions on financial penalties. The regime 
applied in the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum could serve as a role model, but not all of its 
aspects are expected to work at the EU level due to the different legal regimes applied in the EU 
countries. The increase in the number of enforced decisions is therefore expected to be rather small. 
While under the baseline, only 5% of enforcement procedures are successful, this rate is expected to 
increase to 15% under PO3 (with limited grounds for refusal by the executing State)79. Overall, PO3 
would result in around 1.46 million fewer investigations launched in 2030 and 1.52 million fewer 
investigations in 2050 relative to the baseline. Also, the share of offences committed with impunity 
goes down to 31.3% in PO3. 

Finally, PO3A adds PM8B and PM14 to PO2A. PM8B is identical to PM8A but it specifically limits 
the  grounds  for  non-recognition  and  non-execution  by  the  authorities  of  the  executing  State  of  a 
decision  taken  by  the  issuing  State,  which  are  contained  in  Article  7  of  Framework  Decision 
2005/214/JHA. One of those grounds applies when the financial penalty is below EUR 70, which is 
often the case in (minor) road traffic offences. PO3A is as effective as PO2A in increasing the share 
of successfully investigated offences (i.e. the share of successfully investigated cases is projected to 
be 10.9 p.p. higher relative to the baseline in 2030 and 11 p.p. higher in 2050). On the other hand the 
enforcement  rate  is  expected  to  increase  to  20%  under  PO3A  as  a  result  of  fewer  requests  for 
recognition and execution of financial penalties being rejected by the executing State. Overall, PO3 
would result in around 1.65 million fewer investigations launched in 2030 and 1.72 million fewer 
investigations in 2050 relative to the baseline. Also, the share of offences committed with impunity 
goes down to 30.1% in PO3A. 

Adjustment costs for Member States administrations. PM2, PM4 and PM11 are expected to result 
in  one-off  adjustment  costs  for  Member  States  administrations  relative  to  the  baseline.  These 
measures are included in all policy options. More details are provided in Annex 4.  

More specifically, PM2 aims to extend the minimum data content of national vehicle registers to be 
exchanged beyond the elements listed in Annex I to the CBE Directive. Data needs to be available in 
the  national  vehicle  registers  and  then  it  also  needs  to  be  included  in  the  international  message 
exchange. The web client that enables enforcement authorities to make requests would also have to 
be adapted. Finally, the vehicle registration authorities would have to adapt their data services that 
make the data available to EUCARIS. All in all, this is expected to generate one-off costs of EUR 
290,000 for the whole EU in 2025 relative to the baseline. 

PM4 aims  to  ensure  effective  access  to  other data registers  for enforcement  purposes  such as the 
European driving licence network RESPER using the EUCARIS system. As RESPER already has 
similar search functionalities, the effort and costs related to this measure are expected to be limited 
and mainly related to the authorisation of users, in particular when different authorities are involved. 
The costs may differ from one Member State to another depending on its internal organisation. The 
one-off costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 50,000 on average per Member State, i.e. 
EUR 1.35 million for the whole EU in 2025. 

PM11 aims at ensuring that a presumed offender receives all the information he/she needs to be able 
to deal with an information letter. It specifies what information should be included in the information 
letter and may require the adaptation of the information letters / penalty notices used by Member 

79   The rate of successfully enforced decisions in the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum is estimated at 90%. 

34 

 
                                                 
States  so  they  contain  all  the  necessary  information.  The  one-off  costs  for  the  adaptation  and 
translation of the information letters are estimated to amount to around EUR 110,000 per Member 
State, i.e. EUR 2.97 million for the whole EU in 2025 relative to the baseline. 

Total  costs  for  Member  States  administrations. Overall,  when  considering  both  the  enforcement 
costs, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon, and the one-off adjustment costs in 
2025, PO1 results in the highest costs for the MS public administrations relative to the baseline (EUR 
148.5 million), followed by  PO2  (EUR  147.5 million) and PO2A (EUR  136.8  million). PO3 and 
PO3A result in significantly lower costs (EUR 93.1 million in PO3 and 71.3 million in PO3A), mainly 
due to the lower number of investigations launched.  

Adjustment costs for the European Commission. PM9 and PM13 lead to adjustment costs for the 
European  Commission  relative  to  the  baseline.  Both  measures  are  included  in  all  policy  options. 
More detailed information is provided in Annex 4. PM9 provides for the creation of a dedicated list 
of entities that are entitled to issue information letters in the Member States. Such a list, financed by 
the  Commission,  facilitates  the  verification  of  the  authenticity  of  such  a  letter.  This  measure  is 
expected to generate one-off adjustment costs of about EUR 15,000 per Member State list in 2025, 
i.e. EUR 405,000 for the EU as a whole.  

PM13 foresees the use of the dedicated portal and platform(s) established under PM6 where road 
users (citizens and businesses) can exchange information not just about applicable road traffic rules 
in other Member States, but also about applicable sanction schemes and appeal procedures in other 
Member  States.  The  information  functionality  of  the  portal  builds  on  the  current  Going  Abroad 
website of the Commission and will be more interactive80. PM13 is expected to  result in ongoing 
adjustment costs estimated at EUR 53,000 in 2030 and EUR 69,000 in 2050 relative to the baseline. 
In addition, one-off adjustment costs of EUR 70,000 are foreseen in 2025.  

Overall, when considering both the ongoing adjustment costs, expressed as present value over the 
2025-2050 horizon, and the one-off adjustment costs in 2025, the total costs for the Commission are 
estimated at EUR 1.531 million in all policy options.  

6.1.2.  Impacts on the private sector (leasing companies) 

In  case  of  leased  vehicles,  the  vehicle  holder/owner  is  the  leasing  company.  When  a  road  traffic 
offence has been committed with a leased vehicle, the information letter is often sent to the leasing 
company  which  then  has  to  forward  it  to  the  end  user/keeper  of  the  vehicle.  Although  leasing 
companies usually pass on the cost of such work to their customer (the lessee), and charge a premium 
on top of that, it still is a burden on those companies which can be avoided if the name of the user (of 
the lessee) was available in the vehicle registration database. By requiring the end user / keeper of 
the vehicle  to  be recorded in  the vehicle registration database, in  particular in  cases of long-term 
financial leasing, PM5, which is included in all policy options, allows lowering the costs of leasing 
companies related to the handling of penalty notices.  

The CBE-related offences committed with rented/leased vehicles in Europe are projected at 38,275 
in 2030 and 40,226 in 2050. The administrative cost savings for the private sector are thus estimated 
at EUR 0.435 million in 2030 and EUR 0.275 million for 2050 (see Table 7). The administrative cost 
savings per company are estimated at 202 EUR in 2030 and 128 EUR in 2050. Expressed as present 

80   The possibility of an application of the single digital gateway created pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (OJ L 
295, 21.11.2018, p. 1) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1463 (OJ L 231, 6.9.2022, p. 1) to the 
communication between governmental authorities/organisations, citizens and businesses will be explored.  

35 

 
                                                 
value over 2025-2050 the total administrative costs savings relative to the baseline are estimated at 
EUR 7.037 million in all policy options (or an average of 130.92 EUR per year per company over 
2025-2050). More details are provided in Annex 4.  

Table 7: Impact on the administrative costs savings for the private sector  

Number of offences 
Administrative fee (in EUR) 
Administrative costs savings (in million EUR) 
Number of companies 
Costs savings per company (in EUR) 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

6.1.3.  Impacts on road users 

2030 
38,275 
11.4 
0.435 
2,150 
202 

2040 
37,890 
8.8 
0.334 
2,150 
155 

2050 
40,226 
6.8 
0.275 
2,150 
128 

Road  users  stand  to  benefit  from  the  initiative  as  they  will  receive  more  information  with  the 
information letters / penalty notices, in  a timely  manner and in a language they understand. They 
therefore save on costs and time for collecting the necessary information (e.g. on the authenticity of 
the  documents)  and/or  translating  the  documents  in  question.  It  is  not  possible  to  quantify  the 
reduction in the hassle costs as the information required depends on circumstances and the needs of 
the presumed offender. The impact is however deemed largely similar for all policy options.  

6.1.4.  Impacts on SMEs  

The impacts of this initiative on SMEs are expected to be very limited; however, if anything, these 
impacts are positive. To the extent that leasing companies are not burdened with administrative work 
related to traffic offences committed with vehicles which they own but which are used by others, the 
initiative can be considered to have a positive impact on them.  The related measure (PM5) could 
possibly affect SMEs; however, the vehicle leasing/renting sector is not particularly SME-intensive, 
hence the limited impact. Since PM5 is included in all policy options, there is no difference in this 
regard  between  the  policy  options.  More  generally,  while  it  is  acknowledged  that  this  impact  is 
indirect and marginal, SMEs can be positively affected by the initiative as road users, particularly 
transport  companies.  To  the  extent  that  the  initiative  ensures  fairness  between  all  road  users  and 
tackles difficulties such as lack of translation or unclear penalty payment schemes, which typically 
affect  individuals  and  SMEs  more  than  large  companies,  it  can  be  considered  to  have  a  positive 
impact on SMEs. 

6.1.5.  Impact on the functioning of the internal market and on competition 

The initiative reduces the impunity of drivers committing a road safety traffic offence with a vehicle 
registered in another Member State. It thus creates a level playing field between resident and non-
resident offenders. While there is no direct impact on the functioning of the internal market and on 
competition, a positive indirect impact can be detected.  

6.2. 

6.2. 

 Social impacts 

The social impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on road safety and impacts on the protection of 
fundamental rights. 

6.2.1.  Impacts on road safety 

The impact of policy options on road safety draws on stakeholder input gathered through an online 
survey  and  through  interviews,  complemented  by  desk  research  (e.g.  academic  literature  on 

36 

 
 
behavioural responses to sanctions) and by analysing output from EUCARIS. The ‘impunity model’, 
used to estimate the impact on road safety is explained in Annex 4.  

Table 8 provides the reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries relative to the baseline in 2030 
and 2050, while Table 9 shows the cumulative number of lives saved and injuries avoided relative to 
the baseline over the 2025-2050 horizon. All policy options result in a reduction in the number of 
fatalities  and  injuries  relative  to  the  baseline  scenario.  The  impact  in  2025  (the  first  year  of  the 
assumed application of the revised CBE Directive) is assumed to be zero as the behavioural change 
of an offender is only expected in the year following that of a successfully enforced offence. As the 
number of road victims  in  the baseline is  decreasing over time (mainly due to  the deployment of 
intelligent speed assistance systems), the impact of the revised Directive on the number of prevented 
offences in relation to the baseline also decreases over time.  

PO1 is projected to lead to 7 lives saved in 2030 and 6 lives saved in 2050 relative to the baseline 
and,  at  381  injuries  avoided  in  2030  and  350  in  2050.  In  cumulative  terms,  over  the  2025-2050 
horizon, PO1 is estimated to lead to 165 lives saved and 9,195 injuries avoided. The main measures 
driving this outcome in PO1 are PM1 (extending the scope of the CBE Directive to six additional 
offences), PM2 (aiming to extend the minimum data content of national vehicle registers beyond the 
elements listed in Annex I to the CBE Directive), PM3 (aiming to ensure that the information on the 
previous owner/holder of a vehicle is held in the national vehicle registers for a specific period of 
time), PM4 (ensuring access to other data registers - other than VRD - through a single system) and 
PM9, PM10 and PM11 (that concern the form, timeliness and content of the information letter and 
facilitate the verification of its authenticity81).  

Measures PM2, PM3 and PM4 would lead to an improvement of the successful investigation rate. At 
the same time, due to PM9, PM10 and PM11, the share of voluntarily paid penalty notices is expected 
to increase from 70% to 72% of all successfully investigated offences in PO1. Overall, the share of 
offences committed with impunity would reduce to 39.3% in PO1 relative to 43% in the baseline, 
which results in a decrease in the number of fatalities and injuries. PM1 is estimated to contribute 
around one third of the positive impacts on road safety, while PM2, PM3 and PM4 (together) another 
third. The impact of PM9, PM10 and PM11 together is also estimated at around one third. However, 
as explained in section 6.1.1 the impacts are not purely additive as they take into account the synergies 
between measures; therefore this provides a rough estimate.  

Table 8: Reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries in the POs relative to the baseline, in 2030 and 2050 

Fatalities 

Serious injuries 
Slight injuries 

2030 
7 

66 
315 

2050 
6 

60 
290 

Total fatalities and injuries avoided 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

356 

388 

PO1 

PO2 

Difference to the baseline 
PO2A 

PO3 

2030 
8 

2050 
7 

2030 
16 

77 
368 

453 

69 
338 

414 

154 
734 

904 

2050 
15 

139 
675 

2030 
20 

195 
930 

2050 
18 

176 
855 

PO3A 

2030 
23 

215 
1,028 

2050 
20 

194 
945 

829 

1145 

1049 

1266 

1159 

In  PO2  the  inclusion  of  PM6,  relative  to  PO1,  allows  for  the  exchange  of  additional  data  and 
information between the authorities to enable a successful investigation. As  PM6 only concerns a 
limited number of cases, the additional road safety impact of PO2 relative to PO1 is also limited.  In 

81   All these aspects have a positive impact on the rate of voluntary payments of the fine which in turn is assumed to lead 
to a behavioural change towards a more prudent driving style and hence improving road safety. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
cumulative terms, over the 2025-2050 horizon, PO2 is however still estimated to result in 192 lives 
saved and 10,721 injuries avoided.   

Table 9: Cumulation reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries in the POs relative to the baseline, for 2025-
2050 

Fatalities 

Serious injuries 

Slight injuries 

Total fatalities and injuries avoided 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

PO1 

165 
1,575 

7,620 
9,360 

PO2 

192 
1,837 

8,884 
10,913 

PO2A 

384 
3,667 

17,738 
21,789 

PO3 

486 
4,644 

22,466 
27,596 

PO3A 

538 
5,133 

24,830 
30,501 

PO2A additionally introduces through PM7 a duty of the vehicle owner/holder with which a road-
safety-related  traffic  offence  has  been  committed  abroad,  to  cooperate  with  the  enforcement 
authorities in the identification of the driver / the actual offender. This way the identification of the 
driver / actual offender is facilitated, also in Member States where that information is required. The 
number of successfully investigated offences is hence expected to increase substantially, as explained 
in section 6.1.1. The share of offences committed with impunity goes down to 33.9% in PO2A. As a 
result,  in  cumulative  terms  over  the  2025-2050 horizon,  PO2A is  estimated  to  result  in  384  lives 
saved and 21,405 injuries avoided relative to the baseline. 

In PO3 and PO3A, PM8A and PM8B respectively aim at improving the enforcement of fines linked 
to a traffic offence committed abroad. As explained in section 6.1.1, simpler procedures more tailored 
to  road traffic offences are expected to  help  increase the share of enforced decisions on financial 
penalties. While under the baseline, only 5% of enforcement procedures are successful, this rate is 
expected to increase to 15% under PO3 and to 20% under PO3A (with limited grounds for refusal by 
the executing State)82. The share of offences committed with impunity goes down to 31.3% in PO3 
and to 30.1% in PO3A. In cumulative terms over the 2025-2050 horizon, PO3 is estimated to result 
in 486 lives saved and 27,110 injuries avoided relative to the baseline while PO3A in 538 lives saved 
and 29,963 injuries avoided.  

Although PO3A results in the highest impact in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided, Tables 8 
and 9 also suggest that the highest incremental impact is provided by PO2A through PM7 (duty to 
cooperate with enforcement authorities). Overall, PO2 results in a 0.05% decrease in the number of 
fatalities and injuries relative to the baseline in cumulative terms over 2025-2050, while the impacts 
of PO2A, PO3 and PO3A are estimated at 0.10%, 0.12% and 0.13% respectively. Thus, all policy 
options contribute to some extent towards sustainable development goal #11 “Make cities and human 
settlements  inclusive,  safe,  resilient  and  sustainable”  and  in  particular  to  target  11.2  “By  2030, 
provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving 
road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in 
vulnerable  situations,  women,  children,  persons  with  disabilities  and  older  persons”,  with  the 
contribution of PO3A being the highest.  

Table 9 provides the reduction in the external costs of accidents relative to the baseline, expressed as 
present value over the 2025-2050 horizon, in 2020 prices. The 2019 Handbook on the external costs 
of transport83 has been used to monetise the costs. According to the Handbook, the external cost of a 
fatality in 2020 prices is estimated at around EUR 3.5 million, that of a serious injury at around EUR 
0.5 million and that of a slight injury at around EUR 0.04 million. These values are multiplied by the 

82   The rate of successfully enforced decisions in the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum is estimated at 90%. 
83   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1  

38 

 
 
                                                 
number  of  fatalities,  serious  and  slight  injuries,  respectively,  to  monetise  the  external  costs  of 
accidents in the context of this impact assessment. 

As a result of the positive impacts on lives saved and injuries avoided presented above, PO3A shows 
the highest impact  in  terms  of reduction in  the external  costs of accidents relative to  the baseline 
(expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon), estimated at EUR 3.9 billion. It is followed 
by PO3 with EUR 3.5 billion, PO2A with EUR 2.8 billion, and PO2 and PO1 (EUR 1.4 billion and 
EUR 1.2 billion, respectively).      

Table 10: Reduction in the external costs of  accidents in the POs relative to the baseline, expressed as present 
value over the 2025-2050 horizon, in 2020 prices (million EUR) 

PO1 

PO2 

PO2A 

PO3 

PO3A 

Fatalities 

Serious injuries 
Slight injuries 

401.3 

582.9 
217.5 

Total fatalities and injuries 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

1,201.8 

468.0 

679.7 
253.6 

1,401.3 

934.3 

1,357.0 
506.4 

2,797.7 

1,183.4 

1,718.7 
641.4 

3,543.4 

1,307.9 

1,899.5 
708.9 

3,916.3 

All the assumptions used for estimating the impacts in terms of reduction in fatalities and injuries are 
provided in  Annex 4.  In addition,  to  acknowledge the uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis has been 
performed, assuming 15% and 20% lower value in absolute terms of the elasticity used to derive the 
impacts on road safety. Table 11 shows that even with a lower value of the elasticity all policy options 
are still projected to result in lives saved and injuries avoided, although the positive impacts on safety 
would be lower. 

Table 11: Results of the sensitivity analyis on the reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries over 2025-2050 
relative to the baseline and on the external costs of accidents, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 (in million 
EUR) relative to the baseline 

PO1 

Difference to the baseline 
PO2A 

PO2 

PO3 

PO3A 

Total fatalities and injuries avoided 
Central case 
15% lower elasticity 
20% lower elasticity 
Reduction in external costs of accidents (present 
value 2025-2050, in million EUR) 
Central case 
15% lower elasticity 
20% lower elasticity 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

6.2.2.  Impacts on fundamental rights  

9,360 
7,956 
7,488 

10,913 
9,277 
8,730 

21,789 
18,520 
17,430 

27,596 
23,457 
22,077 

30,501 
25,926 
24,400 

1,201.8 
1,021.5 
961.4 

1,401.3 
1,191.1 
1,121.0 

2,797.7 
2,378.0 
2,238.1 

3,543.4 
3,011.9 
2,834.8 

3,916.3 
3,328.9 
3,133.1 

Non-resident drivers who commit road safety traffic offences should be given procedural safeguards 
that  their  fundamental  rights  are  respected.  The  revision  of  the  CBE  Directive  will  impact 
fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union84 which relate 
to  protection  of  personal  data  and  right  to  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial.  In  addition,  the 
assessment was also made regarding equal treatment, which goes beyond the fundamental right of 
non-discrimination and in the context of the Directive means that non-resident and resident offenders 
should be treated in the same way. All policy options were assessed to determine if they have an 
impact on these fundamental rights and on equal treatment of EU citizens.  

84   OJ C 326 of 26.10.2012 p.2. 

39 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Given  that  the  EU  legislation  regarding  the  protection  of  personal  data  was  changed  since  the 
adoption of the CBE Directive, all policy options include alignment with the latest legislation on the 
protection  of  personal  data  (GDPR  and  LED).  In  addition,  they  set  time  limits  for  storage  and 
retention of personal data and require procedural measures that those time limits are observed, which 
also has a positive impact on the protection of fundamental rights. 

The right to effective remedy and to a fair trial is relevant in the case of the CBE Directive since it 
ensures that all presumed offenders enjoy the same rights. All policy options include policy measures 
which help to identify the authenticity of the authority sending the information letter and its content, 
allow the presumed offender to be informed in due time about the offence in the language he or she 
understands and informs him/her about the follow-up procedure, thereby they lead to the outcome of 
investigation which is fair for the offender.   

As  regards  equal  treatment,  several  policy  measures  contribute  to  improving  equal  treatment  of 
resident and non-resident road safety traffic offenders. Extending the scope so that residents and non-
residents  are  treated  in  the  same  way  leads  to  equal  treatment.  Measures  related  to  improved 
information letters, use of a language the offender understands, as well as better access to information 
on  road  traffic  rules,  sanction  schemes  and  appeal  procedures  all  have  positive  impacts  on  equal 
treatment of offenders. These measures are included under all policy options.  

It  can  be  therefore  concluded  that  all  policy  options  contribute  positively  to  the  protection  of 
fundamental rights and equal treatment of road safety traffic offenders.    

6.3. 

6.3. 

Environmental impacts 

The environmental impact should be a slightly positive one. The removal of impunity of non-resident 
offenders is expected to lead to a more law-abiding behaviour by non-residents which, when it comes 
to speeding (which represents the vast majority of cross-border cases), manifests itself in  a lower 
average speed which in turn lowers fuel consumption and hence pollutant and CO2 emissions when 
conventionally powered vehicles are used. Over time, as the share of zero- or low-emission vehicles 
in  the  fleet  increases,  the  environmental  improvement  from  a  lower  average  speed  is  expected  to 
reduce in significance. Overall, the impact on the environment is not expected to be significant under 
any policy option and has not been quantified. No significant harm is expected on the environment 
in any of the policy options. 

40 

 
 
 
7.  7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

7.1. 

7.1. 

Effectiveness 

The assessment of effectiveness looks at the extent to which the general and specific objectives (SO) 
of the intervention  are  met. Table 12 provides  the link between policy  objectives and  assessment 
criteria. 

Table 2: Link between objectives and assessment criteria 

General objective 

Assessment criteria 

Increase  road  safety  in  the  EU  through  better 
enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules  

Change  in  the  number  of  road  fatalities  and  road  injuries  relative  to  the 
baseline 

Specific objective 

Assessment criteria  

SO1 - Extension of the scope of the Directive to 
other road-safety-related traffic offenses  

Change in the number of cross-border investigations  

SO2 - Streamline mutual assistance and 
recognition procedures between Member States 
in cross-border investigation of road-safety-
related traffic offenses and cross-border 
enforcement of financial penalties for these 
offences 

SO3 – Strengthen the protection of fundamental 
rights of non-resident offenders, including 
alignment with new EU rules on personal data 
protection 

Change in the number of successfully investigated cases 
Improvement in enforcement of the cross-border road safety traffic offences 

Change in the number of penalty notices with appropriate language regime 
Change in the number of penalty notices with adequate information 
Change in the number of citizen’s complaints concerning penalty notices  

All policy options contribute to the general objective of increasing road safety in the EU through 
better  enforcement  of  road-safety-related  traffic  rules.  PO2A,  PO3  and  PO3A  are  however  more 
effective than PO1 and PO2 due to the higher positive impact estimated in terms of lives saved and 
injuries avoided. Only a small decrease in the number of road fatalities and injuries is expected for 
PO1 and PO2 (165 to 192 lives saved and 9,195 to 10,721 injuries avoided), while there is a larger 
positive effect expected with more intervening options PO2A, PO3 and PO3A (384 to 538 lives saved 
and 21,405 to 29,963 injuries avoided). 

Concerning SO1, the problem definition highlights that in case a road traffic offence is not detected, 
it will not have any consequences for the offender and his/her behaviour regarding road safety. Hence 
all policy options extend the scope of the Directive to other road-safety-related traffic offences, such 
as not keeping sufficient distance from the vehicle in front, dangerous overtaking, dangerous parking, 
crossing while line(s), driving in wrong way or emergency lane, and driving an overloaded vehicle. 
By extending the scope to these offences, the number of detected offences is expected to increase by 
2% in 2025 relative to the baseline, and consequently over the entire assessment period. 

Concerning  SO2,  as  highlighted  in  the  problem  definition,  around  20%  of  all  investigations  fail 
because  of  technical  issues,  such  as  availability  and  updates  of  information  in  national  vehicle 
registers, and legal issues, like identification of the offender and liability of the owner or driver of 
the vehicle. All policy options are expected to result in an increased number of investigations that are 
successfully conducted, albeit with different effectiveness. PO1 introduces only policy measures aimed 
at improved vehicle registers’ content and exchange of information, and its effectiveness as regards the 
increase of the share of successfully investigated cases is the lowest; it is estimated to be 3.6 p.p. higher 
relative to the baseline in 2030 and 3.7 p.p. higher in 2050. In addition to these measures, both PO2 
and  PO2A  include  tailored  investigation  procedures  based  on  electronic  exchange  of  information 
(address,  facial  images)  to  better  identify  the  presumed  offender.  PO2A  is  however  much  more 

41 

 
 
effective at successfully investigated cases (increase by 10.9 p.p. relative to the baseline in 2030 and 
11 p.p. in 2050) than PO2 (increase by 4.5 p.p. in 2030 and 4.6 p.p. in 2050 relative to the baseline) 
since it introduces  a  duty  of  the  owner/holder for road safety traffic offences  committed  with their 
vehicle abroad to cooperate with the enforcement authorities in the identification of the driver / the 
actual offender. Since PO3 and PO3A don’t include additional measures aimed at investigation, their 
impact on the share of successfully investigated cases is the same as for PO2A.  

All policy options contribute to improved enforcement, because measures focused on improving the 
investigation  and  identification  of  offenders  will  also  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of 
successfully  investigated  offences  and  hence  higher  enforcement  rates.  However,  the  problem  lies 
mostly in the available legal instruments which are not adapted to road-safety-related traffic offences. 
In  this  respect,  PO3  and  PO3A  are  most  effective  as  they  both  envisage  a  mechanism  for  mutual 
recognition of financial penalties which is tailored to road safety traffic offences and derogates from 
the procedures currently in place (under Framework Directive 2005/214/JHA). PO3 and PO3A increase 
the share of successfully enforced financial penalties by 10 and 15 pp respectively.  

With regard to SO3, the problem lies with penalty notices sent from abroad which do not contain all 
the necessary information for non-resident offenders about the administrative procedures, are written 
in a language which the presumed offender does not understand and the authenticity of which cannot 
always be verified. Measures to improve the rights of the presumed offender such as the predefined 
content  of  the  information  letter,  the  language  regime  in  the  information  letter  and  the  follow-up 
communication and personal data protection are included in all policy options, therefore PO1, PO2, 
PO2A,  PO3  and  PO3A  have  all  an  equal  impact  on  reaching  SO3.  In  addition,  a  policy  measure 
which  specifies  the  information  that  should  be  shared  with  the  presumed  offender  on  the  final 
decision (how it is served to the person, which language should be used and how the written procedure 
is  used),  is  included  in  PO3  and  PO3A.  It  can  be  therefore  concluded  that  all  policy  options  are 
equally effective in reaching SO3. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  proposed  intervention  aims  at  improving  the  cross-border 
enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules on the basis of an already existing intervention, which 
means that the baseline already contains some measures to address the problem. The measures included 
in the policy options are mainly technical and additional to the existing rules, while accepting that the 
harmonisation of national legal systems and procedures underpinning the cross-border investigation of 
road-safety-related traffic offences and the cross-border enforcement of sanctions for such offences, 
which  could  considerably  increase  the  share  of  successful  investigations,  is  not  a  feasible  option. 
Moreover, given that the data could not always be triangulated and was in many instances provided by 
Member States only, conservative assumptions were used to derive the impacts. This means that the 
impacts are likely to be underestimated and the benefits could be higher. 

Due to the foreseen extension of the scope of the CBE Directive, it will be possible to investigate more 
road-safety-related traffic offences, and due to measures that facilitate the cross-border investigation of 
offences, more such investigations will be successfully concluded, with different levels of effectiveness 
across policy options. At the same time, however, by facilitating the cross-border investigation and 
enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences currently in the scope of the Directive, the policy 
options reduce the impunity of non-resident offenders. As a result, non-residents will adapt their driving 
behaviour.  This  means  that,  the  more  effective  the  policy  options  are,  the  fewer  offences  will  be 
committed with vehicles registered in other Member States relative to the baseline. 

The  initiative  will  contribute  to  better  enforcement  by  improving  the  mutual  assistance  between 
enforcement authorities. It means that the investigation procedures would be simplified (better tailored 
to the mass detection of offences qualified as administrative), digitised (creating a specific IT portal 

42 

 
and platforms) and more accurate (improving vehicle registration data exchange, including more data 
to  be  shared  electronically).  The  initiative  is  also  expected  to  result  in  an  increase  in  the  share  of 
successfully investigated cases relative to the baseline.  

The  protection  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  presumed  offenders  will  be  improved  through  a  better 
defined, consistent language regime, the possibility of an authenticity check and a more precise content 
of  information  letters  /  penalty  notices,  as  well  as  by  uniform  rules  for  delivery/service  of  these 
letters/notices. 

To conclude, the main success would be increasing road safety in the EU through better enforcement 
of road-safety-related rules in the case of non-resident offenders who often enough escape enforcement 
measures. 

7.2. 

7.2. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency concerns "the extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given level of resource/at 
least cost". In all policy measures, the benefits outweigh by large the increase in costs, relative to the 
baseline. The costs and benefits are summarised in Table 13. 

Table  3:  Summary  of  costs  and  benefits  of  policy  options  –  net  present  value  for  2025-2050  compared  to  the 
baseline (in million EUR), in 2020 prices 
Net present value 2025-2050 
Costs          
MS administrations 

PO2A 

PO3A 

PO1 

PO3 

PO2 

Enforcement costs 
Adjustment costs (one-off) 

European Commission 

Adjustment costs (including one-off) 

Total costs 
Benefits 
Reduction in external costs of accidents (fatalities, serious and slight injuries) 
Reduction in costs for the private sector 
Reduction in road user (hassle) costs 
Total benefits 
Net benefits 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

148.5 
143.9 
4.6 
1.5 
1.5 
150.0 

147.5 
142.9 
4.6 
1.5 
1.5 
149.1 

136.8 
132.2 
4.6 
1.5 
1.5 
138.4 

93.1 
88.5 
4.6 
1.5 
1.5 
94.6 

71.3 
66.6 
4.6 
1.5 
1.5 
72.8 

7.0 
√ 

1,201.8  1,401.3  2,797.7  3,543.4  3,916.3 
7.0 
√ 
1,208.8  1,408.3  2,804.7  3,550.5  3,923.4 
1,058.8  1,259.2  2,666.4  3,455.8  3,850.6 

7.0 
√ 

7.0 
√ 

7.0 
√ 

The  major  cost  element  of  the  policy  options  is  due  to  enforcement  costs  for  Member  States 
administrations, related to the investigation of road safety traffic offences. The next group of costs is 
represented  by  adjustment  costs  for  Member  States  administrations  for  connecting  databases  and 
technical solutions,  costs for developing templates, and  costs for the Commission  to  develop  and 
maintain a portal for Government-to-Citizens (G2C) and Government-to-Businesses (G2B) (and vice 
versa) communication.  

The adjustment costs are the same in all policy options, so the determining factor is the enforcement 
costs. The enforcement costs decrease when the policy options become more intervening, and the 
number of offences is reduced. Therefore, PO3A shows the lowest cost of all options, at EUR 72.8 
million in addition to the baseline costs, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. This is because 
the more actions are taken to enforce the rules, the larger is impact on impunity, which in turn means 
higher  deterrent  effect,  safer  road  behaviour  and  fewer  offences.  As  the  number  of  committed 
offences  decreases  the  most  in  PO3A,  fewer  investigations  are  launched,  and  enforcement  costs 
decrease relative to the baseline. Along the same arguments, PO1 and PO2 lead to the highest total 
costs among the policy options (EUR 150.0 million and EUR 149.1 million, respectively), as they 

43 

 
have less deterrent effect and consequently  result in a lower reduction in the number of offences. 
PO2A stands in the middle, with additional costs relative to the baseline estimated at EUR  138.4 
million.  

In  terms  of  total  benefits,  PO3A  shows  the  highest  benefits  among  the  policy  options  due  to  the 
highest reduction in the external costs of accidents, due to the prevented number of fatalities, serious 
and  slight  injuries.  These  benefits  are  estimated  at  EUR  3,923.4  million  relative  to  the  baseline, 
expressed as present value over 2025-2050. PO1 and PO2 show much lower total benefits of EUR 
1,208.8  million  and  EUR  1,408.3  million,  respectively.  PO2A  shows  total  benefits  in  the  middle 
ground, at EUR 2,804.7 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. 
In  all  policy  options  measures  to  improve  the  content  of  penalty  notices  and  follow-up 
communication  reduce  hassle  costs  for  road  users.  However  no  robust  data  could  be  gathered  to 
estimate these costs. All policy options also benefit from the reduction of administrative costs for 
rental and leasing companies, which is estimated at around EUR 7 million relative to the baseline, 
expressed as present value over 2025-2050. 

Overall, all policy options result in net benefits relative to the baseline. The net benefits are lowest in 
PO1, estimated at EUR 1,058.8 million relative to the baseline. PO2 closely follows PO1 (EUR 1,259.2 
million)  while  PO2A  already  presents  considerably  higher  net  benefits,  estimated  at  EUR  2,666.4 
million relative to the baseline. The net benefits are largest in PO3A, estimated at EUR 3,850.6 million 
relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. Also, in terms of benefit to cost 
ratio, PO3A performs the best followed by PO3 and PO2A. The benefit cost ratios of PO1 and PO2 are 
significantly lower.  

Considering  the  sensitivity  analysis  on  the  impacts  of  the  policy  options  on  external  costs  of 
accidents,  provided  in  section  6.2.1,  the  net  benefits  have  been  calculated  for  each  case  and  are 
provided in Table 14. The table shows that even with lower values of the elasticity, all policy options 
would still result in net benefits and the ranking of the policy options would not change.  

Table 14: Results of the sensitivity anaysis on net benefits of policy options (in million EUR) 

Net benefits (in million EUR) 
Central case 
15% lower elasticity 
20% lower elasticity 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

PO1 

1,058.8 
878.5 
818.4 

7.3. 

7.3. 

Coherence 

Difference to the baseline 
PO2A 

PO3 

PO2 

PO3A 

1,259.2 
1,049.1 
979.0 

2,666.4 
2,246.7 
2,106.8 

3,455.8 
2,924.3 
2,747.2 

3,850.6 
3,263.1 
3,067.3 

Internal  coherence  assesses  how  various  elements  of  the  revised  Directive  function  together  to 
achieve the objectives, and how they are in line with other EU policies. The CBE Directive has  a 
strong link to several EU instruments. In relation to follow-up investigation, it has a close link to the 
MLA  Convention,  the  European  Investigation  Order  and  Prüm  Decisions85.  The  Directive  works 
jointly  with  these  instruments  to  remove  impunity  for  road  users  that  commit  road  safety  traffic 
offences abroad. Particularly relevant is the link to Prüm II, which enables the exchange of other data 
categories  (beyond  vehicle  registration  data)  such  as  the  exchange  of  facial  images  between 
authorities responsible for the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences. PO1, PO2 
and PO2A would remain coherent to Prüm Decisions, as the proposed measures under these options 
aimed  at  the  exchange  of  additional  information  are  coherent  with  Prüm.  PO3  and  PO3A  may 

85   See footnotes 27, 28 and 32 respectively 

44 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
however face issues concerning internal coherence due to  the proposed development of a tailored 
mechanism for the enforcement of financial penalties, which would derogate from such procedures 
under the Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA86. Attention has to be paid to the proposed revision as 
it could lead to a complex situation as regards the enforcement of sanctions: the extent of the changes 
could question whether the main objective of the Directive is still road safety, and hence whether the 
legal basis is still the transport-related article of the TFEU (Art. 91(1) TFEU), or the judicial and 
police cooperation legal basis (Art. 82(2) and Art. 87(2) TFEU respectively). 

External coherence concentrates on the compliance of the CBE Directive with national policies and 
international legislation. The investigation procedure under the Directive meets the national criteria 
for  the  majority  of  Member  States  but  it  remains  insufficient  for  some  of  them.  It  is  especially 
considered ineffective for Member States that apply a strict driver legal liability regime. Revising the 
Directive  will  ensure  that  Member  States  are  giving  more  and  better  tools  for  investigation  and 
enforcement of road-safety-related offences. PO1 and PO2 will enable to investigate more offences, 
give more instruments to investigate and make certain requirements regarding penalty notices stricter, 
which is not expected to raise issues regarding external coherence. PO2A, PO3 and PO3A however 
might  lead  to  issues  of  external  coherence,  but  for  different  reasons.  PO2A  introduces  mutual 
assistance in the cross-border investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences, including a duty to 
cooperate with enforcement authorities in the investigation of the identity of the driver of the vehicle 
with which a traffic offence has been committed in another Member State. This would respect the 
constitutional  law  of  those  Member  States  with  driver  liability  regime,  while  incentivising  the 
identification of the offender by the vehicle owner/holder. However, it could create issues with the 
privilege against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent typical for Member States applying 
strict driver liability, such as Germany and Sweden.. A tailored mechanism for the enforcement of 
financial penalties introduced by PO3 and PO3A means a simplification of procedural requirements 
while some Member States have very strict ones for financial penalties. Hence PO3 and PO3A may 
lead to external coherence issues in view of existing national legislation in some Member States.  

7.4. 

7.4. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

Without the intervention at EU level, increasing road safety through better cross-border enforcement 
of road safety rules would likely not be achievable, as a Member State on its own cannot ensure that 
a  national  penalty  decision  or  investigation  of  the  offence  is  recognised  by  other  Member  States. 
Member  States  can  and  do  engage  in  bilateral  and  multilateral  agreements  to  ensure  the  mutual 
recognition,  but  cooperation  remains  fragmented  across  Member  States.  This  does  not  result  in  a 
transparent and harmonised approach, nor does it lead to equal treatment of road users on EU roads. 
As all policy options ensure a harmonisation of the legal framework, the subsidiarity requirement is 
fulfilled.  

In  relation  to  proportionality,  the  proposed  revision  aims  to  improve  road  safety  through  better 
detection, investigation of cross-border road safety traffic offences and enforcement of sanctions for 
these offences. PO1 contributes to this objective by introducing new measures on the detection and 
investigation  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences,  as  well  as  on  the  protection  of  fundamental 
rights. PO2 in addition envisages a tailored investigation mechanism to better identify the offender. 
PO2A builds on PO2 but also introduces a duty of the owner/holder of the vehicle with which an 
offence has been committed  to  cooperate with  enforcement  authorities in  the identification of the 
actual offender. The measures proposed under PO1, PO2 and PO2A are therefore considered to be 
proportionate in view of the revision objective. 

86   See footnote 30 

45 

 
                                                 
PO3 and PO3A establish a simplified enforcement mechanism within the CBE Directive and during 
the  stakeholder  consultations,  the  views  of  Member  States  differed  greatly  regarding  the 
proportionality  of  these  options.  Some  Member  States  considered  that  the  existing  enforcement 
procedures under Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA are sufficient87. They are of the view that the 
most common grounds for refusal of enforcement of financial penalties are due to reasons outside 
the  Framework  Decision,  and  that  the  most  common  reason  for  non-enforcement  of  financial 
penalties is the problem of identification of the offender. On the other hand, some other Member 
States considered establishing the specific rules on mutual recognition of financial penalties under 
the Directive as essential and they would support a tailored approach for the mutual recognition of 
financial penalties88.  

Road safety organisations however were in favour of PO3 and PO3A, as they are the most effective 
regarding enhancing road safety. Given these divergent views and arguments and given that – while 
they would considerably change the legal approach to enforcement of financial penalties for cross-
border offences – they would address the problem of identification of the offender in the same way 
as PO2A, it can be concluded that PO3 and PO3A may be regarded as disproportionate in view of 
the policy approach and objectives that can be achieved by these options. 

87   DE, NL, SE, FI 
88   FR, ES, CZ, IT, RO 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
8.  8. PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1. 

8.1. 

Identification of the preferred policy option and stakeholders views  

All policy options are effective in achieving the general objective of increasing road safety through 
better  cross-border  enforcement  of  road-safety-related  traffic  rules,  as  well  as  in  addressing  the 
specific objectives, but the more intervening options are more successful in doing so. PO2A, PO3 
and  PO3A  are  therefore  considered  more  effective  than  PO1  and  PO2  due  to  the  higher  positive 
impact estimated in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided. Also, regarding effectiveness in terms 
of  increased  numbers  of  successful  investigations,  PO2A,  PO3  and  PO3A  are  regarded  as  more 
effective.  With  regard  to  enforcement,  PO3  and  PO3A  are  considered  most  effective  due  to  a 
mechanism for mutual recognition of financial penalties which is tailored to road safety traffic offences. 

With respect to efficiency, all policy options result in net benefits relative to the baseline. PO1 and 
PO2 have the highest additional costs due to their lower deterrent effect and hence a lower reduction 
in the number of offences, while PO3A shows the lowest cost of all options. In terms of total benefits, 
PO3A shows the highest benefits due to the highest reduction in the external costs of accidents, driven 
by the lower numbers of fatalities, serious and slight injuries, and again PO1 and PO2 show the lowest 
benefits. The least efficient is therefore PO1, closely followed by PO2 while PO2A already presents 
considerably higher net benefits. PO3A presents the largest net benefits and therefore it appears to 
be the most efficient option. 

Concerning internal coherence, PO1, PO2 and PO2A remain coherent with relevant EU legislation 
while  PO3  and  PO3A  could  face  issues  due  the  tailored  mechanism  for  enforcement  of  financial 
penalties, which could create a complex system and problems regarding the legal base of the CBE 
Directive. Concerning external coherence, PO1 and PO2 remain coherent with national and other 
international legislation. In PO2, Member States will be given a more efficient tool to identify the 
offender (through a tailored investigation mechanism) while the procedures adopted at Member State 
level would remain unaffected. Policy options PO2A, PO3 and PO3A might lead to issues of external 
coherence; PO2A due to a duty of the owner/holder to cooperate with enforcement authorities in the 
identification of the actual offender, which may violate the privilege against self-incrimination and 
the  right  to  remain  silent,  and  PO3  and  PO3A  due  to  a  tailored  mechanism  for  enforcement  of 
financial penalties, which may create tensions with national policies. In terms of subsidiarity, all 
options fulfil this principle, and they would all bring about the harmonisation of the legal framework, 
albeit  at  different  levels of ambition. With respect  to the  proportionality,  PO3 and PO3A would 
likely  result  in  issues  of  proportionality,  due  to  the  high  ambition  with  a  simplified  enforcement 
mechanism and Member States views divided on this tool.  

The  analysis  above  points  at  PO2A  as  the  preferred  policy  option,  given  it  was  considered 
effective in reaching the policy objectives and it appears, in view of its coherence with the Member 
States rules and procedures, better politically and legally feasible in comparison to the other, more 
ambitious options. PO2A could significantly facilitate cross-border investigation procedures (and by 
that the cross-border enforcement of financial penalties) that would offset the issues with the external 
coherence and proportionality to which it may lead. This policy option would push the EU legislative 
boundaries  ahead  with  a  moderate  ambition,  paving  the  way  to  a  generally  acceptable  and  very 
effective legal liability regime applicable to road-safety-related traffic offences.  

Measures under PO1 would increase the effectiveness of the current CBE Directive, by improving 
information exchange and addressing the issues related to the protection of fundamental rights in the 
investigation  phase,  which  are  supported  by  all  stakeholder  groups.  Concerning  the  protection  of 
fundamental rights, according to public authorities, stricter requirements can and should be laid down 
in  the  CBE  Directive.  However,  while  Member  States  representatives  in  the  expert  workshop 

47 

 
considered that most information letters are already translated and authenticated, FIA and ADAC, 
the road user organisations indicated that although the situation has been improving over the past 
years,  a  lot  of  penalty  notices  are  still  not  or  poorly  translated  (for  example  using  automated 
translation). 

Regarding information available to road users on road traffic rules, 61 out of 80 respondents in the 
public consultation indicated that they find it ‘important’ or ‘very important’ that the driver has access 
to relevant information in the language that the driver speaks or understands, and only 7 out of 80 
respondents  indicated  to find this  ‘not important’ or ‘slightly important’. When asked on specific 
rights of road users that presumably committed an offence abroad, there was a wide support expressed 
for the right to information on appeal procedures, information on how to pay fine and concerning the 
language regime of all official notifications.  

Regarding the scope, most Member States were in favour of extending the scope of the Directive, 
with the support gathered around the six road-safety-related offences identified under PM1. Member 
States  argued  that  without  the  scope  extension,  residents  and  non-residents  could  be  treated 
differently with regard to offences falling outside the scope. 

Regarding a tailored investigation mechanism for the cross-border exchange of information on road 
traffic offences under PO2, Member States indicated that the existing procedures for the investigation 
of offences are not often applied to road-safety-related traffic offences due to their complexity, and 
they seem to be largely in favour of adopting a simplified mechanism under the CBE Directive. Some 
public authorities indicate that they would like to simplify the procedures, arguing that those under 
the Framework Decision are ‘too strict’ when it concerns ‘minor’ traffic offences. Other Member 
States stressed that the procedural rights of presumed offenders should be respected and that the strict 
procedures under the Framework Decision are needed. 

The  duty  of  the  vehicle  owner/holder  to  cooperate  with  authorities  in  the  identification  of  the 
driver/actual offender, introduced in PO2A, provides a solution for improving the cooperation in the 
investigation of a person liable for the offence, and addresses the situations in Member States which 
apply a driver liability regime (Germany, Sweden). Moreover, it introduces in the CBE Directive a 
solution which is already used by the Member States which are parties to the CBE Agreement of the 
Salzburg Forum89. Such solution was however supported during the consultation expert workshop by 
some other Member States (Austria, Spain, Croatia).The privilege against self-incrimination and the 
right to remain silent notwithstanding, Member States should be able to stipulate the obligation to 
cooperate in cases where the driver was not the vehicle owner/holder or other person covered by this 
fundamental right (e.g. through a picture of an unidentified person which is clearly not one of the 
persons protected by this fundamental right).  

Finally, some Member States indicated a strong preference for more intervening options, and would 
therefore support PO3 or PO3A, which would both provide a tailored follow-up mechanism for the 
mutual  recognition  of  financial  penalties  for  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  which  would  for 
these offences derogate from the provisions of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA and thereby set 
up  a  lex  specialis  to  facilitate  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  road-safety-related  traffic  rules. 
Member  States  arguing  for  such  a  specific  mechanism  under  the  CBE  Directive  regarded  the 
procedures  under  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  too  strict  and  not  adapted  to  road-safety-

89   Cf. Article 1(1)(b) of the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum,  

which currently applies to and in AT, BG, HR and HU. 

48 

 
                                                 
related traffic offences90. Others considered that this mechanism would not solve the problem of non-
enforcement of financial penalties because the reasons are rather related to the inability to track down 
or identify the offender91, or even believe that the proceedings under the Framework Decision work 
well92 and had strong  reservations  regarding a simplified enforcement mechanism under the CBE 
Directive.  In  the  expert  workshops,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  did  not  support  to  include  any 
specific rules on mutual recognition of financial penalties imposed for road traffic offences to the 
revision, as they considered existing rules under the Framework Decision as sufficient, while some 
other Member States (Spain, Czech Republic, France) requested specific rules on mutual recognition 
of  financial  penalties  to  be  included.  According  to  the  information  made  available  during  the 
consultations, such rules would also be welcomed by Italy and Romania. 

Road safety organisations were in favour of PO3 and PO3A, which they considered the most effective 
for  enhancing  road  safety.  ETSC  for  example  indicated  that  they  would  like  the  enforcement 
instrument to be as effective as possible and favoured more intervening options over less intervening 
ones. For ADAC and FIA the most important issue was the content of penalty notices, and as this 
will be improved under all policy options, they have not indicated preference for any option. 

8.2. 

8.2. 

REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

This initiative is part of the Commission Work Programme 2022 under Annex II (REFIT initiatives), 
under the heading ‘A New Push for European Democracy’93.  

The initiative has  an important  REFIT dimension in  terms  of  simplification and alignment of the 
procedures that Member States can use for cross-border road-safety-related traffic offences, thereby 
enhancing the road safety and increasing the protection of  fundamental  rights for road users. The 
main cost burden resulting from the CBE Directive are enforcement costs for Member States related 
to  the  investigation  of  cross-border  offences.  However,  the  measures  aimed  at  improving  the 
exchange  of  information  between  authorities,  access  and  content  of  the  registers,  a  tailored 
investigation mechanism to better identify the offenders and a duty to cooperate with enforcement 
authorities  in  the  case  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  committed  abroad  should  lead  to  a 
decrease of investigation time and costs per offence.  

An  important  part  of  simplification  and  administrative  burden  reduction  will  be  the  reduction  in 
hassle  costs  for  road  users  due  to  improvement  of  the  content  of  penalty  notices  and  follow-up 
communication. Specifically, it will be easier for a road user to check the authenticity of the penalty, 
since the entities in the Member States will be known, the information letters harmonised as regards 
content and language regime, and time limits for sending the letters established. Road users will also 
be able to have access to all information related to the enforcement of the rules in place through the 
dedicated portal.    

The  initiative  will  also  result  in  a  reduction  of  administrative  costs  for  car  leasing  and  rental 
companies, since it will allow the exchange of information on the end user/keeper of the vehicle from 
the vehicle registers in the case where the vehicle is leased or rented. The measure is expected to 
reduce the administrative burden for car leasing and renting companies in cases where the vehicle 

90   FR, CZ, ES, BE 
91   SE, FI 
92   DE, NL 
93   Initiative No 26 in Annex II to COM(2021) 645 final  

49 

 
                                                 
user committed a road traffic offence in a Member State other than the one in which the vehicle is 
registered. 

8.3. 

8.3. 

Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

As  explained  in  section  6.1.2,  the  preferred  policy  option  is  expected  to  result  in  a  reduction  of 
administrative costs for the private sector. It is estimated to result in a cost reduction for car leasing 
and car rental companies estimated at EUR 0.435 million in 2030 and EUR 0.275 million for 2050, 
relative to the baseline. The administrative costs savings per company are estimated at EUR 202 in 
2030  and  EUR  128  in  2050.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the  administrative  costs 
savings relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 7.037 million (or an average of EUR 130.92 per 
year per company over 2025-2050). These costs savings are due to the availability of the information 
on the vehicle end user / keeper in national vehicle registers by default, since administrative activities 
can be partly overcome. 

50 

 
 
 
9.  9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  Commission  will  monitor  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  this  initiative  through  a 
number  of  actions  and  a  set  of  key  performance  indicators  (KPIs)  measuring  progress  towards 
achieving the operational objectives. Five years after the transposition deadline of the legislation, the 
Commission services should carry out an evaluation to verify to what extent the objectives of the 
initiative have been reached. 

Established monitoring instruments (Art. 6 of the CBE Directive) will be used to follow the share of 
successfully investigated offences over time. The reporting will include the number of automated 
outgoing/inbound requests conducted by the Member States in which the road-safety-related traffic 
offence was committed searches conducted by the Member State of the offence and addressed to the 
Member State of registration of the vehicle, together with the type of offences for which the requests 
will be made and the number of failed requests.  

In addition, the information provided by the Member States should include: 

- the total number of registered offences committed by residents and non-residents 

- the number and type (e.g. speed cameras) of automatic checking equipment in operation 

- the share of offences (by type of offence) committed with vehicles registered in another Member 
State 

- the number of voluntarily paid financial penalties issued to resident and non-resident offenders 

- the number of enforced financial penalties for the registered offences committed by non-residents. 

While  Member  States  currently  have  to  report  every  two  years,  the  new  reporting  period  will  be 
extended  to  five  years,  to  align  it  with  the  Commission’s  evaluation  calendar  and  to  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  on  national  authorities.  The  Commission  will  present  the  results  of  the 
monitoring  in  regular  summary  reports,  following  the  reporting  of  the  Member  States.  The  IT 
platform(s) are intended to facilitate the automatic compilation of data by specific reporting features. 

51 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The lead DG is Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE), Unit C2, Road Safety. 

DECIDE reference number: PLAN/2017/2093 

The development of this initiative was announced under item 26 in Annex II (REFIT initiatives) to 
the  Commission  Work  Programme  2022.  The  roadmap  (ex-Inception  Impact  Assessment)  was 
published on 15 March 2019. 

Organisation and timing 

An inter-service steering group (ISG), chaired by the Secretariat-General, with close involvement of 
DG MOVE, was established in 12 December 2018 in view of the preparation of this initiative. The 
ISG  met  four  times  between  January  2019  and  December  2022.  The  ISG  closely  followed  the 
preparation  of  the  IA  support  study,  of  this  SWD  and  of  the  legislative  proposal.  The  following 
Directorates-General (DGs) and other services of the Commission actively participated in the ISG: 
Secretariat-General (SG), DG HOME, DG JUST and DG DIGIT. 

Following  the  2016  evaluation,  the  Commission  published  an  Inception  Impact  Assessment 
(roadmap) on 15 March 2019 outlining the design of a possible revision of the Directive and inviting 
stakeholders to comment. On 27 December 2019, the Commission engaged external consultants  – 
ECORYS  consortium  –  to  carry  out  an  impact  assessment  support  study  (MOVE/C2/SER/2019-
425/SI2.819667).  The  objectives  of  the  study  were  to  develop  and  assess  evidence-based  policy 
options to improve road safety through better cross-border enforcement of road safety-related traffic 
rules.  In  close  cooperation  with  the  Commission,  the  consultants  organised  targeted  consultation 
activities on all key aspects of the revision of the CBE Directive (see annex 2 for more details). 

Consultation of the RSB 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board received the draft version of the present impact assessment report on 
22  June  2022  and,  following  the  Board  meeting  on  19  July  2022,  issued  a  positive  opinion  with 
reservations on 22 July 2022. The reservations of the Board were addressed in the revised IA report 
as follows: 

RSB reservations 

Modification of the IA report 

To the extent that the impact of each option 
could  be  quantified,  a  comparison  of  the 
options is provided in Table  13. Moreover, 
Annex  7  has  been  added  which  contains  a 
table 
elements 
comparing  the  effectiveness of each  policy 
option  towards  achieving the  objectives  of 
this initiative.  

qualitative 

providing 

(1) The report should better compare the options in 
terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence, 
including  by  providing  a  comprehensive  comparison 
summary  table,  synthesising  the  quantitative  and 
qualitative  comparison  elements.  This  comparative 
assessment should be separated from the description 
of the support that the options have received by the 
various  stakeholders,  including  Member  States.  The 
comparison  of  options  should,  in  particular,  better 
bring  out  the  coherence  and  subsidiarity  aspects, 
which seem to play an important role. Based on this 
and the views of stakeholders (that should be more 
clearly  presented),  the  report  should  significantly 

52 

 
strengthen  the  proportionality  assessment  and  the 
justification of why the chosen preferred option is not 
the best performing one in terms of effectiveness and 
efficiency (e.g. benefit-cost ratio and net benefits). 

(2)  The  report  should  present  better  and  more 
comprehensively the evidence of better enforcement 
resulting in better road safety, including from a cross-
border  enforcement  perspective.  It  should  more 
transparently explain the robustness of the evidence 
underpinning  the  identified  problems,  including  on 
repeated offenders. 

(3) Given the relatively modest results this initiative is 
expected  to  deliver  (e.g.  10%  increase  in  successful 
investigations) the report should be clearer up-front 
what  success  would  look  like.  Linked  to  this,  the 
report should be more explicit about why the bilateral 
agreements between Member States and multilateral 
agreements 
lead  to  very  high  enforcement  of 
sanctions and if any resulting lessons could be useful 
to improve the EU system. 

(4)  The  report  should  more  clearly  present  the 
articulation  of  the  initiative  with  other  related  ones 
e.g. Driving Licences Directive. 

The link  between the enforcement of road 
traffic  rules  and  road  safety  has  been 
elaborated  in  the  section  dealing  with  the 
problem definition. 

The  expected  relatively  modest  outcome 
has been explained in more detail in section 
7.1. Section 9 provides information on how 
success may be measured.  

Existing  bilateral  and  multilateral  agree-
ments  (in  particular  the  CBE  Agreement of 
the  Salzburg  Forum)  are  more  effective 
because  they  use  additional  tools.  An  EU-
wide application of some of those tools may 
help  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  CBE 
Directive. This has been elaborated in more 
detail in section 3.2. 

The revision of the driving licence directive 
that  is  being  proposed  together  with  this 
initiative  is  meant  to  cover  the  mutual 
recognition  of  decisions  related  to  driver 
(as  a  result  of  major 
disqualification 
violations  of  traffic  rules).  As  such 
it 
complements  the  CBE  Directive  which  is 
mainly about the cross-border enforcement 
of  financial  penalties  (for  relatively  minor 
violations  of  road-traffic  rules).  Section  1 
has been beefed up. 

(5) The report should present more systematically the 
views  of  the  different  stakeholder  groups  (including 
dissenting  views)  on  the  problem,  options  and 
impacts. 

Where available and relevant, the views of 
the  different  stakeholders  have  been 
presented  in  more  detail  in  the  various 
sections.  

Evidence, sources and quality 

This impact assessment draws on quantitative and qualitative data from the following main sources: 

-  2016 ex-post evaluation of the CBE Directive 
-  Stakeholder consultation activities (see Annex 2) 
-  External support study conducted by an independent consortium led by Ecorys 
-  Commission experience in monitoring and implementing the Directive 
-  CARE database for data related to road accidents 

53 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) 

This  annex  provides  a  summary  of  the  outcomes  of  the  consultation  activities  carried  out  for  the 
review of the CBE Directive, including in the context of the external support study. It notes the range 
of stakeholders consulted, describes the main consultation activities and provides a succinct analysis 
of their views and the main issues they raised. 

The objectives of the consultation activities were the following: 

 

 

to  collect  information  and  opinions  of  stakeholders  on  the  key  problems  and  associated 
drivers,  the  definition  of  relevant  policy  objectives  linked  to  those  problems,  and  the 
identification, definition and screening of policy measures that could be considered in this 
Impact Assessment 
to gather information and opinions on the likely impacts of policy measures and options. 

10.  1. OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

Consultation activities have taken place in 2019-2022, from the publication of the Inception Impact 
Assessment in March 2019 to the Open Public Consultation that closed in May 2022. 

As part of the initial feedback mechanism, interested parties had the possibility to provide feedback 
on the Inception Impact Assessment from 15 March 2019 to 12 April 2019. 

Subsequently, the following targeted consultation activities were carried out: 

  Two rounds of interviews were held; 

o  Exploratory interviews during the inception phase (Q1 and Q2 2020) 
o 

In-depth interviews to plug information gaps and assess the expected impacts of policy 
measures (Q2 and Q3 2021). 

  Two rounds of surveys were carried out; 

o  A  survey  to  substantiate  the  problem  analysis  (Q4  2020).  Four  individual  surveys 

tailored to specific stakeholder groups were launched. 

o  A survey to assess the impact of policy measures (Q2 and Q3 2021). 

  Two expert workshops were held; 

o  On the problems experienced with the current CBE Directive, on 26 June 2020. A first 
draft of policy measures was discussed to collect feedback which was then used to 
refine them. 

o  On  the  possible  measures  and  options  to  address  the  identified  problems,  on  14 
January  2021.  A  polling  exercise  was  conducted,  where  participants  were  asked 
whether they would like to discard or retain the policy measures. It is worth noting 
that the majority of stakeholders wished to ‘retain’ all policy measures, although those 
aimed at streamlining enforcement procedures seemed most controversial. 

Finally,  an  open  public  consultation  was  accessible  on  the  website  “Have  your  Say”  from  25 
February to 20 May 2022. 80 responses were received, including from 36 EU citizens, 18 companies 
and business organisations, 8 NGOs, 5 public authorities, 5 consumer organisations, 1 academic / 
research institution, 1 environmental organisation and 1 non-EU citizen. The most represented MS 
were Poland (16), Germany (14), Belgium (9), France (9) and Austria (7). 

54 

 
11.  2.  STAKEHOLDER GROUPS 

This section provides a short overview of the main types of stakeholders identified and targeted as 
part of the targeted consultation. 

a.  Public Authorities 

This  includes  EU  Member  State  and  regional  authorities  responsible  for  overseeing  the 
implementation of the CBE Directive. The procedures for road traffic enforcement are conducted by 
different public bodies in Member States, and even within a Member State, multiple ministries might 
be involved in the cross-border enforcement sanctions for traffic offences: Ministries of Transport, 
Transport  Authorities,  Police  Authorities,  Ministries  of  Interior,  Ministries  of  Justice,  Justice 
Authorities. 

EUCARIS: EUCARIS plays an important role in the implementation of the Directive. EUCARIS 
provides the technical instrument through which Member States have access to each other’s VRD. 
Therefore, the EUCARIS secretariat was best placed to answer questions about technical issues with 
the exchange of VRD information, and possible solutions. 

CARE: In order to facilitate the assessment of impacts, data was obtained from the CARE database. 
CARE  is  a  Community  database  on  road  accidents  resulting  in  death  or  injury  (no  statistics  on 
damage-only  accidents).  For  many  EU  Member  States,  CARE  also  provides  information  on  the 
number/share of accidents (resulting in injury) in which at least one foreign registered vehicle was 
involved. Two interviews were conducted with an official in charge of CARE to obtain information, 
to ensure that it was rightly interpreted and to obtain insights on the possible limitations of the data. 

Municipal  organisations:  During  the  IA  study,  questions  were  raised  with  regards  to  the 
implementation of road-safety-related UVARs. Municipalities and associations representing multiple 
municipalities  were  contacted  to  gather  more  information  on  the  current  implementation  of  road-
safety-related UVARs and their possible inclusion in the scope of the CBE Directive. Examples of 
these organisations are Polis, Eurocities, the Association of Dutch Municipalities VNG and the City 
of  Antwerp.  To  simplify  the  overview,  they  are  all  included  under  the  stakeholder  group  “public 
authorities”. 

b.   Research organisations 

This group consists of the researchers and research organisation that focus on road safety, for example 
the Belgian VIAS institute, the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), an FERSI/SWOV. The 
information  provided  by  this  stakeholder  group  is  specific,  namely  research  on  road  safety,  data 
collection to develop the baseline, and to test certain assumptions with regards to the analysis and/or 
assessment of impacts of the measures. ETSC was contacted multiple times and asked to distribute 
information requests within their member base. 

c.   Road user organisations and leasing organisations 

This stakeholder category includes organisations that present professional and recreational drivers. 
Examples within this stakeholder group are TLN, FIA, ADAC and Leaseurope. These stakeholders 
were contacted specifically to gather information on the experience of the driver in relation to the 
CBE Directive. This  refers to  experience  with  regards to  receiving penalty/information notices in 
their native language, within a certain time frame and the road users' costs (e.g. time) with regards to 
following up on said penalty/information notice. 

55 

 
The table below summarises the participation of these groups in the consultation activities. 

Total 

Geographical Coverage 

Table 15: Participation in the consultation activities 

Consultation 
channels 

Public 
Authorities 

Research 
organi-
sations 

Road user 
associations 
and leasing 
companies 

Exploratory 
interviews 

Stage 1 – Survey 

4[1] 

0 

4[2] 

8 

69 (36 full) 

23 (8) 

16 (6) 

108 

Stage 1 – legal survey 
Justice 
directed 
at 
Authorities 
and 
Ministry of Justice 

Stage 2 - Survey  

69 (16 full) 

56 (25 full) 

5 (3) 

Targeted Interviews 

8[3] 

1[4] 

9 (5) 

3[5] 

Open 
Consultation 

Public 

First  workshop  (June 
2020) 

Second 
(January 2021) 

workshop 

5 

10 

65 

59 

68 

1 

5 

1 

4 

70 

12 

80 

61 

77 

DE, NL, EU, ES, NL, FR, SI 

AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, 
EL  FI,  FR,  HR,  IE,  LT,  LU, 
NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  SI,  ES, 
SE 

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FI, 
HR, IS, LT, LV, LU, NL, NO, 
PL, SK, ES, SE 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, 
ES,  FI,  FR,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT, 
LV, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, 
SI 

AT, BE, CZ, ES, NL 

PL, DE, BE, FR, AT, IT, CZ, 
NL, PT, SK, ES, DK, HE, IE, 
SE 

AT, BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, 
ES, FR, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, 
MT, NL,NO, PL, PT, RO, SI, 
FI, SE 

AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, DK, DE, 
EL,  ES,  IE,  HR  FR,  CY,  LV, 
LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, NO PL, 
PT, RO, SI, FI, SE 

[1]   BMVI (German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure); TISPOL; Dutch Ministry of Justice and Safety; 

EUCARIS secretariat 

[2]   The  following  organisation  provided  written  responses  to  a  questionnaire  through  Leaseurope;  Arval  Spain,  Fine 

Company BV, FNLV France, Bank Association of Slovenia 

[3]   EUCARIS; CARE; VNG; Salzburg Forum / Austrian Ministry of Interior; Spanish Ministry of Interior; Czech Ministry of 
Justice and Ministry of Transport; Belgian Ministry of Transport & Ministry of Justice; CJIB. Other organisations were 
also contacted, however, unsuccessfully or did not want to participate in an interview, this included: POLIS, German 
public authorities, Polish public authorities. 

[4]   ETSC 
[5]   FIA & ADAC; Leaseurope 

Interests of stakeholder groups 

  Public authorities are responsible for the detection, investigation and enforcement of road 
traffic offences. In general, the majority of this stakeholder group is in favour of implementing 
more effective investigation and enforcement procedures, to increase efficiency. However, 
Member States have diverging views regarding the ways in which this should be achieved, as 
some  seem  to  place  a  lot  of  emphasis  on  procedural  safeguards  in  order  to  protect  the 
fundamental rights of the presumed offender, while others advocate for simplified procedures. 
This stakeholder group is (in general) in favour of extending the scope of the CBE Directive. 

56 

 
  
  
  
  Research organisations are generally in favour of measures that enhance road safety. The 
procedural safeguards that are to be followed are of less interest to this group. In general, they 
are in favour of measures that increase the enforcement of road traffic rules. 

  Road user organisations and leasing organisations are concerned about the consequences 
of  the  CBE  Directive  for  road  users.  Furthermore,  their  main  interest  is  in  enhancing 
information that is available to road users: this includes the content (and authenticity) of the 
penalty notice, as well as the adopted language regime. 

12.  3. FEEDBACK RECEIVED 

During  the  feedback  period,  16  stakeholders  (mainly  road  users  associations,  public  authorities  / 
municipalities and related associations, as well as anonymous contributors) expressed their views on 
the initiative. Most feedback related to widening the scope of the Directive, towards the inclusion of 
parking offences (7 respondents in favour), UVARs (4 respondents in favour) and tolling offences (2 
respondents in favour). These inputs were brought forward by public authorities and companies in 
charge of parking enforcement. 

Road user associations (such as FIA, EAC and ÖAMTC) indicated that the content and information 
presented in information letters should be improved, and that more information on local road traffic 
rules should be actively communicated to (non-domestic) road users. Furthermore, the deadlines for 
delivery  of  information  letters  (to  non-resident  offenders)  should  be  harmonised  across  Member 
States, and more information should be provided on follow-up procedures (such as the start and end 
of the deadline for appeals). 

The German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport (BMVI) provided a position paper in which 
it mentioned that Germany / the BMVI is not in favour of adopting owner liability regimes for road 
traffic offences. Rather, it suggests to develop a streamlined investigation procedure, ensuring that 
the State of residence of the presumed offender cooperates in the investigation procedure. Moreover, 
the BVMI indicated that it experiences no severe issues with the enforcement of financial penalties 
through the application of Framework Directive 2005/214/JHA. It argued that reporting requirements 
should not change, as (according to the BMVI) it will always be hard (if not impossible) to draw 
causal relationships between the CBE Directive and road safety. 

Furthermore, two stakeholders indicated that they would like to see interventions from the EU in the 
area of vehicle register databases (building one EU-wide database), creating one single EU driving 
license (thereby removing driving licenses issued by the different Member States), facial recognition 
software in cameras (to help identify the driver), in the area of navigation services (providing road 
users with correct information on applicable speed limits and other local road traffic rules), ongoing 
digital procedures in police-to-police cooperation (for example concerning the issuance of penalty 
notices and subsequent communication via mobile apps).  

13.  4. OPINIONS RECEIVED IN THE TARGETED AND OPEN CONSULTATION 

a.   Problem definition 

In the targeted consultation, there was a wide consensus on the problem definition and the identified 
drivers to the problem. Similarly, in the OPC, the perception of the problem is shared by a wide range 
of  respondents:  more  than  half  (54%)  of  respondents  indicate  that  drivers  in  foreign  registered 
vehicles are more likely to commit a traffic offence, while 25% say they do not know or have no 
opinion, and one fifth (21%) disagree. Respondents were then asked to comment on the reasons why 
road users with foreign-registered vehicles would commit road traffic offenses. In the free-text area, 

57 

 
around  half  of  them  mentioned  a  feeling  of  impunity.  Moreover,  more  than  20%  stated  that 
unawareness of local traffic rules might result in drivers unintendedly violating traffic rules. 

b.   Scope of the Directive 

Most  public  authorities  are  in  favour  of  extending  the  scope  of  the  CBE  Directive,  as  confirmed 
during the second Expert Workshop. They argue that it would provide a mechanism to follow-up on 
more  offences,  strengthening  the  overall  cross-border  investigation  systems  of  Member  States, 
ultimately leading to a higher level of road safety. Although some bilateral agreements already have 
a broader scope than the CBE Directive, including these offences under the CBE Directive would 
allow  for  the  exchange  of  relevant  information  between  Member  States  more  efficiently  and 
consistently than is currently the case. Moreover, Member States in favour of an extension of the 
scope of the CBE Directive argue that it would increase fairness, through equal treatment of residents 
and non-residents. 

Road  user  organisations  in  general  welcomed  the  inclusion  of  other  offences  in  the  scope  of  the 
Directive, but are very concerned about the inclusion of UVAR-offences in the CBE Directive. They 
argue that imposed UVARs are often very time- and place-specific, and information to road users 
that are not very familiar with the local rules is often scarce. Moreover, rules concerning UVARs are 
often different for vehicles that are registered abroad. For example, certain low emission zones (e.g. 
in  Antwerp)  require  foreign  road  users  to  pre-register  their  vehicle.  Hence,  although  road  user 
associations understand the desire of including these offences in the scope of the offences, they are 
concerned that information on UVAR-rules might not be properly communicated to road users. 

Research organisations indicated to be in favour of including all traffic offences that have a link with 
road safety. 

Table 16 provides an overview of the proposed scope extensions by Member State / stakeholder. Four 
MS find that the current scope is sufficient. Six MS do not have an opinion. Among stakeholders, 
there is no clear agreement as to the type and number of offences to be included. 

In the OPC, respondents indicated that ‘dangerous overtaking, also of cyclists’ and ‘driving in wrong 
way’ would be the most important offences to include in the Directive. The inclusion of offences of 
‘overloaded  vehicles’,  ‘crossing  white  lines’  and  not  keeping  sufficient  distance’  also  seem  to  be 
widely supported by respondents. 

Table 16: Overview of proposed scope extensions by public authorities 

Not 
keeping 
suffi-
cient 
dis-
tance 

Over-
loade
d 
vehicl
es 

X 

Belgium 

Czechia 

Germany 

X 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

X 

Dang
erous 
over-
takin
g 

Danger
ous and 
illegal 
parking 

Fail-
ure  to 
pay 
parki
ng 
fees 

Fail
ure 
to 
pay 
toll 

Failur
e 
to 
pay 
UVA
Rs, 
LEZ 

Oth
er[6] 

Scope 
is 
suffi-
cient 

N/A 

Source 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

58 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

1st Workshop 

Evaluation, 
2nd WS 

1st workshop 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

1st workshop 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Not 
keeping 
suffi-
cient 
dis-
tance 

Over-
loade
d 
vehicl
es 

Dang
erous 
over-
takin
g 

Danger
ous and 
illegal 
parking 

Fail-
ure  to 
pay 
parki
ng 
fees 

Fail
ure 
to 
pay 
toll 

Failur
e 
to 
pay 
UVA
Rs, 
LEZ 

Oth
er[6] 

Scope 
is 
suffi-
cient 

N/A 

Source 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Austria 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

EURO-
CITIES 

City 
Antwerp 

of 

G4 
Netherlands 

ASECAP 

ASFA 

AITF[7] 

GART[8] 

FNMS[9] 

VNG[10] 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

and  2nd 

1st 
workshop 

X 

X 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

X 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

Interview,  2nd 
WS 

Evaluation 

1st workshop 

X 

X 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

X 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

IIA feedback 

IIA feedback 

OPC 

OPC 

OPC 
evaluation 

IIA feedback 

IIA feedback 

IIA feedback 

IIA feedback 

NORPARK 

X 
[6]   E.g. crossing white lane, not respecting forbidden access, driving in the wrong way or emergency lane, braking on the 

IIA feedback 

approach to a railway crossing, illegal manoeuvres … 

[7]   Association des Ingénieurs Territoriaux de France 
[8]   Groupement des Autorités Responsables de Transport 
[9]   Fédération Nationale des Métiers du Stationnement 
[10]   Association of Dutch Municipalities 

59 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Based on the input from stakeholders, it was concluded that an extension of the scope was desired. 
Therefore, policy measures concerning the scope extension are proposed. In terms of offences to be 
covered, the approach taken was that only offences that have a link to road-safety should be included 
in the Directive (considering the legal base of the Directive) and that these road traffic offences could 
be detected without identification of the driver (e.g. by making use of automatic checking equipment) 
in order to ensure that the CBE Directive provides a tool to enforce the road traffic rule. As a result, 
some offences that are brought forward by public authorities are not included in the scope (such as 
failure to pay toll, failure to pay parking fees and violating Low Emission Zones). Other offences 
(such as dangerous parking) are not included in policy measures as defining the offence would be 
problematic. 

c.  Mutual recognition of financial penalties 

Public authorities are differing significantly in the assessed functioning of enforcement procedures 
for  financial  penalties.  Currently,  public  authorities  need  to  make  use  of  enforcement  procedures 
established  under  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA.  Some  public  authorities  indicate  that  they 
would like to  simplify the procedures,  arguing that  those under the Framework Decision are ‘too 
strict’ when it concerns ‘minor’ traffic offences. Other Member States (especially Germany) stress 
that the procedural rights of presumed offenders should be respected and that the strict procedures 
under the Framework Decision are needed. 

The categorization of road traffic offences under criminal or administrative procedures is currently 
under  the  competence  of  Member  States.  In  the  CBE  workshops,  Germany  supported  by  the 
Netherlands refused to include any specific rules on mutual recognition of financial penalties imposed 
for  road  traffic  offences  to  the  revision.  Germany  considers  existing  rules  under  the  Framework 
Decision as sufficient. For Spain however, new rules on mutual recognition of financial penalties are 
the most important issue of the entire revision. Also, other Member States such as France and the 
Czech Republic requested specific rules on mutual recognition of financial penalties to be included. 
According to the information available to the Commission, such rules would also be welcomed by 
Italy and Romania. 

Based  on  the  inputs  from  public  authorities,  and  by  assessing  the  perceived  effectiveness  of  the 
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA in the mutual recognition of financial penalties as being low, 
measures concerning the establishment of a tailored enforcement procedure for financial penalties 
for road traffic offences were developed. Based on legal analysis, the IA support study concluded 
that  these  enforcement  procedures  are  theoretically  possible  within  the  CBE  Directive  (‘Lex 
Specialis’). 

Although it is assessed that the tailored enforcement procedure would make the CBE Directive more 
effective, there are concerns as to what this would mean for the legal basis of the CBE Directive, and 
concerning the external coherence of the measure (also concerning the political resistance). Hence, 
policy options involving a streamlined enforcement procedures are not preferred. 

It is worth noting that 26% of stakeholders wished to discard the policy measure aimed at removing 
grounds for refusal for the mutual recognition of financial penalties (PM8a). However, almost 50% 
was in favour of adopting a streamlined procedure (PM8) for the enforcement of road traffic offences 
(17% wanted to discard this measure and 34% answered ‘I do not know’). An overwhelming majority 
(90%) supported the idea of Austria to require electronic exchange of certificates under Framework 
Decision 2005/214/JHA within the CBE Directive. 

60 

 
 
d.  Other issues: fundamental rights, monitoring, driving disqualifications, information in 

case of rented vehicle 

Concerning  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights,  according  to  public  authorities,  stricter 
requirements  can and should  be laid down in  the CBE Directive. However, representatives in  the 
second workshop claimed that most information letters are already translated and authenticated. It 
should be noted that, during an interview with FIA and ADAC, the road user organisations indicated 
that, although the situation has been improving over the past years, a lot of penalty notices are still 
not or poorly translated (for example using automated translation). 

important’.  Various  ways  of  providing 

In the OPC, matters related to the level of information available to road users on road traffic rules 
were  judged  as  being  very  relevant.  Almost  90%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  they  find  it 
‘important’ or ‘very important’ that the driver has access to relevant information in the language that 
the driver speaks or understands, and only 3% of respondents indicate to find this ‘not important’ or 
‘slightly 
information  were  assessed,  particularly 
navigation/on-board  information  system  (supported  by  87%),  website  of  the  country/municipality 
concerned (supported by 55%) or website of the European Commission (42%). Respondents were 
asked to provide their opinion on specific rights of road users that presumably committed an offence 
abroad. There seems to be wide support for the right to information on appeal procedures, information 
on how to pay fine (e.g. IBAN of the account to be credited) and concerning the language regime of 
all  official  notifications  (which  should  be  translated  in  the  language  of  the  vehicle  registration 
documents  or  the  Member  State  in  which  the  vehicle  is  registered).  Somewhat  lower  support  is 
obtained for the right to receive all notifications by registered mail and the right to not be prosecuted 
if the first official notification is not received in time. Nevertheless, also for these rights, the majority 
of respondents do agree that the driver should enjoy them. Therefore, it seems that respondents are 
of the opinion that the fundamental rights of presumed offenders are important. 

Research organisations indicate that the Commission should have sufficient information to monitor 
and evaluate the functioning of the Directive. They heavily supports measures aimed at extending 
the data that should be submitted to the Commission under Art. 6 of the CBE Directive. 

Furthermore,  research  organisations  seem  to  favour  including  driving  disqualification/non-
financial (administrative) penalties, because of the deterrent effect of those measures. This view is 
supported by France, Spain and Romania. However, the inclusion of driving disqualifications in the 
scope  of  the  Directive  was  assessed  to  be  legally  impossible  without  a  revision  of  the  Directive 
2006/126/EC (‘Driving License Directive’). Hence, although the added value of including mutual 
recognition procedures for driving disqualifications is endorsed, no measures can currently be taken 
within the CBE Directive. 

Road  user  organisations  (Leaseurope)  indicated  the  need  to  allow  VRD-exchange  of  the  actual 
holder/keeper of the vehicle, in case the vehicle is rented. This would significantly reduce the costs 
for  rental  and  leasing  companies,  which  currently  charge  an  administrative  fee  to  the  presumed 
offender (lessee of the vehicle) for investigating  this on behalf of the Member State that issues a 
penalty notice. By making sure that the Member State can address the actual user/keeper directly, 
these costs  can be removed. Based on this, a measure was included to  allow for the exchange of 
VRD-information on the final user/keeper in cases where this information is already included in the 
VRD. 

61 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

14.  1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

Summary of the preferred policy option implementation 

The revision of the CBE Directive aims at improving the level of road safety in the EU through the 
enforcement  of  road-safety-related  traffic  rules.  The  benefits  of  the  preferred  policy  option  are 
expected to fall on all road users, who will enjoy this increased road safety. EU citizens will benefit 
from  equality  and  fairness  between  resident  and  non-resident  drivers,  while  the  strengthening  of 
fundamental rights, on the other hand, will protect the rights of presumed offenders. 

The road safety objective will be achieved by reducing the current levels of impunity of drivers of 
foreign-registered vehicles. This will be done both by increasing the number of road-safety-related 
traffic  offenses  covered  by  the  Directive,  and  by  increasing  the  rate  of  successful  investigations. 
Indeed,  the  preferred  policy  option,  option  2,  extends  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  introduces 
requirements  related to  data content, access  and processes,  and introduces a tailored investigation 
mechanism for the cross-border exchange of information on road traffic offences. 

Fundamental rights  will  also  be strengthened via a series of measures  guaranteeing  fair access  to 
information and harmonisation of processes. 

Implications on road users, businesses and public authorities 

While the revision of the CBE Directive is an initiative benefitting all road users, the costs will be 
essentially borne by Member States’ administrations in charge of implementing it. These costs relate 
to: 

 

Increased  activity  due  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  successfully  investigated 
(compensated  by  the  decrease  in  the  number  of  offences  as  enforcement  and  compliance 
improve) 

  Costs related to the development and use of technical solutions 
  Development of templates for information letters 

The  European  Commission  would  also  incur  some  costs  related  to  the  development  of  technical 
solutions. 

The initiative results in administrative cost savings for the private sector, mainly rental companies, 
which are likely to be affected by measure PM5 consisting in the exchange of information on the 
final user of the vehicle in case an offence was committed with a leased/rented vehicle. Rental/leasing 
companies will not have to forward penalty notices (and related reminders) to the final vehicle user 
anymore, therefore they would benefit from cost savings. The CBE Directive does not include any 
measure that negatively affects the private sector. Indirectly, as road users, some businesses could 
benefit from increased road safety and equality of treatment between resident and non-resident road 
users. 

62 

 
 
 
15.  2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (Policy option PO2A) 
Comments 

Description 

Amount 

Equal  treatment  of  resident  and 
non-resident road users 

Direct benefits 

By improving the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences 
committed with foreign-registered vehicles, the CBE Directive ensures 
that EU citizens are treated fairly and that there is no discrimination 
between resident and non-resident road users. 

Indirect benefits 

in 

Reduction 
the  number  of 
fatalities and injuries relative to the 
baseline  (cumulative  over  2025-
2050) 

384 lives saved 
and 21,405 
injuries avoided 

The  reinforcement  of  the  deterrence  effect  of  the  CBE  Directive  is 
expected to improve the driving behaviour of road users and to result 
in  safer  roads,  with  fewer  accidents  and  therefore  a  reduction  in 
fatalities and injuries. 

Reduction 
in  external  costs  of 
accidents  (fatalities,  serious  and 
slight 
as 
present  value  over  2025-2050, 
relative to the baseline 

expressed 

injuries), 

EUR 2,797.7 
million 

Reduction  in  road  user  (hassle) 
costs 

- 

Indirect to society at large, due to the lives saved and injuries avoided. 
The deterrence effect of the CBE Directive is associated with indirect 
benefits  in  terms  of  road  safety  through  better  enforcement  of  road 
safety-related  traffic  rules.  Avoidance  of  fatalities  and  injuries  is 
reflected in this. 

The preferred policy option is expected to reduce hassle costs for road 
users due to improvement of the content of penalty notices and follow-
up  communication.  However,  it  was  not  possible  to  quantify  the 
reduction in costs. 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 

Reduction  in  costs  for  the  private 
sector,  expressed  as  present  value 
over  2025-2050,  relative  to  the 
baseline 

EUR 7.037 
million 

The preferred policy option is estimated to result in a cost reduction for 
car leasing and car rental companies at the level of EUR 7.037 million 
relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050, due 
to  the  availability  of  the  information  on  the  final  user/keeper  of  the 
vehicle  in  national  vehicle  registers  by  default,  since  administrative 
activities can be partly overcome. The administrative costs savings per 
company  are  estimated  at  202  EUR  in  2030  and  128  EUR  in  2050, 
relative to the baseline.  

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option (Policy option PO2A) 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs,  expressed  as 
present  value  over 
2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

- 

- 

- 

- 

63 

For MS: adjustment costs to 
connect databases and 
technical solutions and to 
develop templates, 
estimated at EUR 4.61 
million. 

For the Commission: costs 
to upgrade a portal for 
Government-to-Citizens 
communication and costs 
for providing a dedicated 
list of entities in different 
Member States that are 
entitled to issue information 

For the 
Commission: 
costs for 
maintaining a 
portal for 
Government-to-
Citizens 
communication, 
estimated at 
EUR 1.056 
million.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct 
enforcement 
costs,  expressed  as 
present  value  over 
2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs  

Indirect 
adjustment 
costs 

Administrativ
e costs (for 
offsetting) 

Total   

Total for MS 
administrations: 
Enforcement 
costs related to 
the investigation 
of road safety 
traffic offences, 
estimated at 
EUR 142.9 
million 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

letters to ensure authenticity 
of documents, estimated at 
EUR 0.475 million 

Total for MS 
administrations and the 
Commission, estimated at 
EUR 5.085 million. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EUR 0.435 
million in 2030 
and EUR 0.275 
million for 
2050, relative 
to the baseline. 
Per company 
they are 
estimated at 
202 EUR in 
2030 and 128 
EUR in 2050. 
Expressed as 
present value 
over 2025-
2050, relative 
to the baseline, 
estimated at 
EUR 7.037 
million (or an 
average of 
130.92 EUR 
per year per 
company over 
2025-2050).  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16.  3. RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option (Policy option PO2A) 
Relevant SDG 

Expected progress towards the Goal 

Comments 

By  improving  the  investigation  of  road-safety-
related  traffic  offences  committed  with  foreign-
registered vehicles, the deterrent effect of the CBE 
Directive will be reinforced. As a result, EU roads 
are expected to become safer for all road users.  

Enforcement  of  legislation  on  behavioural 
risks  is  a  core  element  of  the  Safe  System 
Approach in road safety and a core principle 
of the  2020 UN  “Stockholm  Declaration on 
road safety”94 

It  is  estimated  to  result  in  384  lives  saved  and 
21,405  injuries  avoided  over  the  2025-2050 
horizon, relative to the baseline.  

and 

SDG  # 11 “Make cities and 
human  settlements  inclusive, 
and 
safe, 
resilient 
sustainable” 
in 
particular  to  target  11.2  “By 
2030, provide access to safe, 
affordable,  accessible  and 
sustainable 
transport 
systems  for  all,  improving 
road 
safety,  notably  by 
expanding  public  transport, 
with  special  attention  to  the 
needs  of  those  in  vulnerable 
situations,  women,  children, 
persons with disabilities and 
older persons” 

94   https://www.roadsafetysweden.com/contentassets/b37f0951c837443eb9661668d5be439e/stockholm-declaration-

english.pdf 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1.  Description of the analytical methods used  

The  main  model  used  for  developing  the  baseline  scenario  for  this  initiative  is  the  PRIMES-
TREMOVE transport model by E3Modelling, a specific module of the PRIMES models. The model 
has a successful record of use in the Commission's energy, transport and climate policy assessments. 
In particular, it has been used for the impact assessments underpinning the “Fit for 55” package95, 
the impact assessments accompanying the 2030 Climate Target Plan96 and the Staff Working Docu-
ment accompanying the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy97, the Commission’s proposal for 
a Long Term Strategy98 as well as for the 2020 and 2030 EU’s climate and energy policy framework.  

For the assessment of the impacts of the policy options an excel-based tool has been developed by 
Ecorys in the context of the impact assessment support study99. The tool draws on the Standard Cost 
Model for the assessment of the costs and also includes an assessment of the impacts on road safety. 
The  excel-based  tool  builds  extensively  on  data  from  the  CARE  database,  and  the  analysis  of 
stakeholders' feedback. The proposed measures which involve the amendment of the Directive are 
assumed to be implemented from 2025 onwards, so that the assessment has been undertaken for the 
2025-2050 period and refers to  EU27. Costs and benefits  are expressed as present  value over the 
2022-2050 period, using a 3% discount rate. 

PRIMES-TREMOVE model  

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  projects  the  evolution  of  demand  for  passengers  and 
freight transport, by transport mode, and transport vehicle/technology, following a formulation based 
on microeconomic foundation of decisions of multiple actors. Operation, investment and emission 
costs, various policy measures, utility factors and congestion are among the drivers that influence the 
projections of the model. The projections of activity, equipment (fleet), usage of equipment, energy 
consumption and emissions (and other externalities) constitute the set of model outputs.  

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  can  therefore  provide  the  quantitative  analysis  for  the 
transport sector in the EU, candidate and neighbouring countries covering activity, equipment, energy 
and emissions. The model accounts for each country separately which means that the detailed long-
term outlooks are available both for each country and in aggregate forms (e.g. EU level). 

In the transport field, PRIMES-TREMOVE is suitable for modelling soft measures (e.g. eco-driving, 
labelling);  economic  measures  (e.g.  subsidies  and  taxes  on  fuels,  vehicles,  emissions;  ETS  for 
transport  when  linked  with  PRIMES;  pricing  of  congestion  and  other  externalities  such  as  air 
pollution, accidents and noise; measures supporting R&D); regulatory measures (e.g. CO2 emission 
performance standards for new light duty vehicles and heavy duty vehicles; EURO standards on road 

95   Delivering the European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu) 
96   SWD(2020)176 final. 
97   EUR-Lex - 52020SC0331 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)  
98   Source: 2050 long-term strategy (europa.eu)   
99   The analysis in this section is based on the Ecorys et al. (2022), Impact Assessment support study for the revision of 
Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, and 
on the analysis of stakeholders' feedback. 

66 

 
 
                                                 
transport  vehicles;  technology  standards  for  non-road  transport  technologies,  deployment  of 
Intelligent Transport Systems) and infrastructure policies for alternative fuels (e.g. deployment of 
refuelling/recharging  infrastructure  for  electricity,  hydrogen,  LNG,  CNG).  Used  as  a  module  that 
contributes  to  the  PRIMES  model  energy  system  model,  PRIMES-TREMOVE  can  show  how 
policies  and  trends  in  the  field  of  transport  contribute  to  economy-wide  trends  in  energy  use  and 
emissions.  Using  data  disaggregated  per  Member  State,  the  model  can  show  differentiated  trends 
across Member States.  

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  has  been  developed  and  is  maintained  by  E3Modelling,  based  on,  but 
extending features of, the open source TREMOVE model developed by the TREMOVE100 modelling 
community.  Part  of  the  model  (e.g.  the  utility  nested  tree)  was  built  following  the  TREMOVE 
model.101 Other parts, like the component on fuel consumption and emissions, follow the COPERT 
model. 

Data inputs 

The main inputs to the PRIMES-TREMOVE model, such as for activity and energy consumption, 
come from the EUROSTAT database and from the Statistical Pocketbook "EU transport in figures102. 
Excise taxes are derived from the DG TAXUD excise duty tables. Other data come from different 
sources such as research projects (e.g. TRACCS project) and reports. In the context of this exercise, 
the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  is  calibrated  to  2005,  2010  and  2015  historical  data. 
Available data on 2020 market shares of different powertrain types have also been taken into account. 

‘Impunity model’  

The impact of policy measures on costs and on road safety is identified through a framework that is 
specifically designed for the assessment of road safety within the context of the CBE Directive. The 
model is conceptually built on the rationale behind the CBE Directive.  

The model consists of two stages. In the first stage, the extent to which measures remove impunity 
of non-national offender is estimated in quantitative terms. In the second stage, the removed impunity 
is, via a change in driver behaviour, ‘translated’ into a reduction of accidents.  

Stage I: impact of policy measures on impunity 

In the first stage, the ‘sense of impunity’ for drivers in foreign registered vehicles is estimated. The 
sense  of  impunity  is  indicated  by  the  share/number  of  offences,  committed  by  foreign  drivers,  in 
which drivers do not  face the  consequences  of their actions.  Foreign road users do not  suffer the 
consequences from committing a road traffic offence in the following situations: 

100  Source: https://www.tmleuven.be/en/navigation/TREMOVE    
101  Several model enhancements were made compared to the standard TREMOVE model, as for example: for the number 
of vintages (allowing representation of the choice of second-hand cars); for the technology categories which include 
vehicle types using electricity from the grid and fuel cells. The model also incorporates additional fuel types, such as 
biofuels  (when  they  differ  from  standard  fossil  fuel  technologies),  LPG,  LNG,  hydrogen  and  e-fuels.  In  addition, 
representation  of  infrastructure  for  refuelling  and  recharging  are  among  the  model  refinements,  influencing  fuel 
choices.  A major model enhancement concerns the  inclusion of heterogeneity in the distance of stylised trips; the 
model considers that the trip distances follow a distribution function with different distances and frequencies. The 
inclusion  of  heterogeneity  was  found  to  be  of  significant  influence  in  the  choice  of  vehicle-fuels  especially  for 
vehicles-fuels with range limitations. 

102  Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en 

67 

 
                                                 
a)  The offence is not automatically detected; 

b)  The automatically detected offence does not fall under the scope of the CBE Directive and the 

offence cannot be investigated under the CBE Directive;  

c)  The automatically detected offence is investigated, but the presumed offender does not receive 

a penalty notice; 

d)  The offender does not pay the penalty notice voluntarily; 

e)  The financial penalty is not paid voluntarily and the penalty notice is not enforced.  

The five situations described above are considered sequentially. The process, between an offender 
committing  an  offence  and  the  sanction  being  enforced,  follows  several  steps  (i.e.  the  detection, 
investigation  and  enforcement  stage).  When  the  impunity  situations  are  brought  together  in  the 
model, the following indicators are included: 

A.  The total number of traffic offences committed per type of offence (speeding, red light, etc); 
B.  The share of these offences that is committed by vehicles with a foreign license plate; 
C.  The total number of offences, committed by vehicles with a foreign license plate; 
D.  The number of detected offences committed by foreign registered vehicles within the scope; 
E.  The number of detected offences committed by foreign registered vehicles outside the scope;  
F.  The number of penalty notices provided; 
G.  The number of offences without a penalty notice being sent;  
H.  The number of voluntarily paid penalty notices; 
I.  The number of penalty notices not paid voluntarily; 
J.  The number of enforced sanctions (e.g. through court cases); 
K.  The number of non-enforced sanctions. 

These indicators are linked together through the following equations: 
C 
C 
D 
F 
I 

A × B 
D + E 
F + G 
H + I 
J + K 

= 
= 
= 
= 
= 

The  five  impunity  situations,  described  above,  enter  the  model  through  indicators  E,  G  and  K. 
Offences that are not included under the scope of the CBE Directive, are included under indicator E 
(impunity situation b)). When the offence is detected, but the penalty notice is not provided to the 
presumed offender, this is included in the model under indicator G (impunity situation c)). Finally, if 
the offender does not pay the financial penalty voluntarily and it cannot be enforced, the offender 
does  not  suffer  the  consequences  for  their  action  under  indicator  K  (impunity  situation  d)  and 
impunity situation e)).  

It should be noted that impunity situation a), concerning the automatic detection of the offence, is not 
directly included in the model. If the number of automatic detection equipment increases, this would 
decrease impunity for drivers in foreign and domestic registered vehicles. This impunity situation 
could be captured under indicator A, but also affects domestic drivers. Hence, this impunity situation 
is broader than the CBE Directive that mainly facilitates the exchange of information  for already 
detected offences and enforcement. The CBE Directive therefore mainly aims to address indicators 
E, G and K. 

68 

 
 
The model shows the breakdown of some indicators into two separate indicators (such as C consisting 
of D and E). By expressing indicators D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K in percentages instead of absolute 
values, the following equations result: 

D = 1 – E 
F = 1 – G 
H = 1 – I 
J = 1 – K 

The added value of these additional equations is that the impunity factors (E, G and K) can be derived 
from other indicators. For example, when there is information that 80% of detected offences result in 
a penalty notice (indicator F), one can conclude that 20% detected offences have not resulted in the 
presumed offender receiving a penalty notice (indicator G). 

Specific policy measures aim to address specific impunity factors. For example, a policy measure 
aimed a better identification of the offender is expected to have an impact on indicator F (the number 
of  investigated  offences,  which  will  increase)  and  consequently  also  on  G  (the  number  of  non-
investigated offences, which will go down).  

Stage II: impact of reduced impunity on road safety 

The results of Stage I is the impact of individual policy measures (and policy options) on the number 
of drivers in foreign registered  vehicles for which the impunity of committing a traffic offence is 
reduced. In Stage II the reduction in impunity is translated in changes in road user behaviour and 
consequently in road safety.  

First, a relationship between the reduced impunity and driving behaviour is established. According 
to the literature103, around 60% of the randomly selected road users indicated that they have adapted 
their driving behaviour after being caught speeding while 40% indicated that this did not have an 
impact on their driving behaviour. This is complemented by a meta-analysis of studies in the UK, 
Singapore, Great-Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada, where it was found that traffic light 
enforcement reduced the number of violations by around 50%104. This suggests that if more offences 
are  detected,  investigated  and  enforced  a  significant  number  of  drivers  will  adapt  their  driving 
behaviour, although a non-negligible share will not.  

In  the  assessment,  it  has  been  assumed  that  in  the  first  year  of  the  implementation  of  the  policy 
measures (2025) driving behaviour will remain unchanged, resulting in more detected offences. In 
the  second  year  of  the  implementation  of  the  policy  measure,  60%  of  drivers  that  committed  an 
offence in the first year adapt their driving behaviour. After that, there are no additional drivers that 
adapt their behaviour, but the drivers that adapted their behaviour in the second year will continue to 
drive more safely over the entire assessment period. 

103  Alonso, F., Esteban, C., Calatayud, C., & Sanmartín, J. (2013). Speed and road accidents: Behaviors, motives, and 
assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  penalties  for  speeding. American  Journal  of  Applied  Psychology,  1(3),  58–64. 
doi:10.12691/ajap-1-3-5. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260790064_Speed_and_road_accidents_behaviors_motives_and_assessm
ent_of_the_effectiveness_of_penalties_for_speeding  

104  Richard A. Retting , Susan A. Ferguson & A. Shalom Hakkert (2003). Effects of Red Light Cameras on Violations 
Injury  Prevention,  4(1),  17-23 

International  Literature,  Traffic 

and  Crashes:  A  Review  of 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14522657/  

the 

69 

 
                                                 
Second, a relationship is established between enforcement and road safety. Data has been obtained 
from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)105 on the number of speeding tickets issued106 
during the period 2010-2017. Data is available for 22 Member States and in addition the UK. Data 
on  the  number  of  road  fatalities  and  injuries  is  available  from  the  CARE  database  and  the  EU 
transport in figures - Statistical Pocketbook107. Over the period 2010-2017, the number of speeding 
tickets issued increased by 33% while the number of road fatalities decreased by 22%108. The reason 
for an inverse relationship is that the total number of speeding offences cannot be observed. Instead, 
only detected (and sanctioned) speeding  offences are observed.  If the number of speeding tickets 
issued  goes  up,  this  could  be  because  more  offences  are  committed  or  because  a  larger  share  of 
committed offences are detected or a combination of both. This inverse relationship is also found by 
ETSC109 and used as assumption in the literature. 

The  estimated  impact  of  traffic  rules  enforcement  draws  on  Elvik  et  al.  (2015)110.  This  study, 
conducted  in  the  framework  of  the  RoadSafetyCube,  found  that  a  1%  increase  in  the  speed 
enforcement level is associated with 0.6% to 0.7% decrease in the number of road accidents. For this 
assessment, the impacts estimated by Elvik et al. (2015) are scaled down for two reasons. On the one 
hand, the impact estimated by Elvik et al. (2015) considers a general increase in speed enforcement 
which is applicable to all road users. It should be noted that the Stage I model only provides results 
on enforcement for road users in foreign registered vehicles. Hence, the output of the Stage I model 
only concerns a subset of road users for which the intensity of enforcement is increased. The second 
adjustment concerns the type of roads, where it is expected that foreign registered vehicles in general 
drive on roads on which fewer accidents happen. The two adjustments are discussed below.  

The CARE database includes information on the number of fatalities and injuries by Member State 
and by year. For many Member States it also provides the number of fatalities in which (at least) one 
vehicle had a foreign licence plate, although this does not necessarily indicate that the driver of this 
vehicle was committing a traffic offence. Data on factors contributing to the accidents is not available 
in the CARE database. The shares of fatal accidents, in which at least one foreign registered vehicle 
was involved, are presented in Table 16.  

Table 4: Percent of fatal accidents in which at least one foreign registered vehicle was involved, all roads 

Member 

State 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EL 

FR 

2016 

17% 

13% 

7% 

10% 

9% 

11% 

5% 

5% 

2017 

19% 

14% 

8% 

10% 

9% 

17% 

3% 

2% 

2018 

Weighted average over 

2016 - 2018 

14% 

14% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

21% 

4% 

3% 

17% 

14% 

8% 

10% 

9% 

16% 

4% 

3% 

105  https://etsc.eu/reducing-speeding-in-europe-pin-flash-36/. 
106  Although the CBE Directive covers more traffic offences than speeding, speeding accounts for the majority of requests 

made through EUCARIS. In 2019, speeding accounted for 96% of the requests made through EUCARIS. 

107  Statistical pocketbook 2021 (europa.eu) 
108  More than 80% of speeding tickets issued were linked to offences detected with fixed automatic or  ‘time/distance’ 

cameras. 

109  https://etsc.eu/reducing-speeding-in-europe-pin-flash-36/  
110  Elvik, R. (2015). Methodological guidelines for developing accident modification functions.  Accident Analysis  & 
Prevention 80(3), 26-36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515001232?via%3Dihub  

70 

 
                                                 
Member 

State 

HR 

HU 

LV 

LU 

MT 

NL 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

2016 

18% 

11% 

15% 

17% 

0% 

7% 

13% 

0% 

15% 

12% 

2017 

13% 

12% 

10% 

33% 

0% 

6% 

11% 

11% 

15% 

15% 

2018 

Weighted average over 

2016 - 2018 

17% 

12% 

8% 

32% 

0% 

9% 

9% 

6% 

23% 

13% 

16% 

12% 

11% 

27% 

0% 

7% 

11% 

6% 

17% 

13% 

Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact Assessment support study 

Based on Table 16, it is assumed that foreign road users are, on average, engaged in 10% of all (fatal) 
road accidents. This means that a change in intensity of enforcement for foreign road users only has 
the potential to affect 10% of all (fatal) accidents. Hence, the impact of enforcement from Elvik et 
al. (2015) is only applied to 10% of all road accidents, as these are road accidents in which (at least) 
one foreign driver is involved.  

The second adjustment concerns the type of roads: most road users in foreign registered vehicles are 
expected to mainly drive on motorways, especially in transit countries. In most Member States, not 
many  accidents  occur  on  motorways.  In  2018,  around  53%  of  road  fatalities  occurred  on  inter-
urban/trunk roads, 38% occurred on urban roads and ‘only’ 9% on motorways111. In the assessment, 
it  has  been  assumed  that  foreign  registered  drivers  are  more  likely  to  drive  on  safer  roads  and 
therefore the shares have been kept constant over time in the baseline scenario. Hence, the impact of 
enforcement on motorways is likely to have a smaller impact than enforcement on other road types.  

The  impact  of  impunity  can  be  ‘translated’  in  a  reduction  of  road  accidents.  Elvik  et  al.  (2015) 
estimates the impact of a 1% increase in speed enforcement to result in a -0.6% to a -0.7% reduction 
in  road  fatalities.  This  effect  is  scaled  down  in  our  assessment,  because  foreign  road  users  only 
account for a subset of the total number of fatalities in EU Member States, and because foreign road 
users usually tend to drive on safer roads (motorways). Therefore, the estimate of Elvik et al. (2015) 
is scaled down to an assumed -0.1% due to the route choice of foreign registered vehicles, and is only 
applied to 10% of all accidents that occur in the baseline that are assumed to involve a non-national 
driver.  

2.  Baseline scenario 

In  order  to  reflect  the  fundamental  socio-economic,  technological  and  policy  developments,  the 
Commission  prepares  periodically  an  EU  Reference  Scenario  on  energy,  transport  and  GHG 
emissions.  The  socio-economic  and  technological  developments  used  for  developing  the  baseline 
scenario for this impact assessment build on the latest “EU Reference 2020 scenario” (REF2020)112. 
The same assumptions have been used in the policy scenarios underpinning the impact assessments 
accompanying the “Fit for 55” package113.   

111  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1004 
112  EU Reference Scenario 2020 (europa.eu) 
113  Policy scenarios for delivering the European Green Deal (europa.eu) 

71 

 
                                                 
Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario 

The main assumptions related to economic development, international energy prices and technologies 
are described below. 

Economic assumptions  

The modelling work is based on socio-economic assumptions describing the expected evolution of 
the European society.  Long-term projections on population  dynamics  and economic activity form 
part of the input to the model and are used to estimate transport activity, particularly relevant for this 
impact assessment. Population projections from Eurostat114 are used to estimate the evolution of the 
European population, which is expected to change little in total number in the coming decades. The 
GDP  growth  projections  are  from  the  Ageing  Report  2021115  by  the  Directorate  General  for 
Economic and Financial Affairs, which are based on the same population growth assumptions. 

Table 18: Projected population and GDP growth per Member State 

Population 

GDP growth 

EU27 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

2020 
447.7 

8.90 

11.51 

6.95 

4.06 

0.89 

10.69 

5.81 

1.33 

5.53 

67.20 

83.14 

10.70 

9.77 

4.97 

60.29 

1.91 

2.79 

0.63 

0.51 

17.40 

37.94 

10.29 

19.28 

5.46 

2.10 

47.32 

10.32 

2025 
449.3 

9.03 

11.66 

6.69 

3.94 

0.93 

10.79 

5.88 

1.32 

5.54 

68.04 

83.48 

10.51 

9.70 

5.27 

60.09 

1.82 

2.71 

0.66 

0.56 

17.75 

37.57 

10.22 

18.51 

5.47 

2.11 

48.31 

10.75 

2030 
449.1 

9.15 

11.76 

6.45 

3.83 

0.96 

10.76 

5.96 

1.31 

5.52 

68.75 

83.45 

10.30 

9.62 

5.50 

59.94 

1.71 

2.58 

0.69 

0.59 

17.97 

37.02 

10.09 

17.81 

5.44 

2.11 

48.75 

11.10 

2020-‘25 
0.9% 

2026-‘30 
1.1% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

1.8% 

2.0% 

0.3% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

2.7% 

0.7% 

2.1% 

0.8% 

2.7% 

1.1% 

2.1% 

0.9% 

1.4% 

1.2% 

0.8% 

1.3% 

0.6% 

1.7% 

2.0% 

1.7% 

2.6% 

1.2% 

1.0% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

2.6% 

1.7% 

0.3% 

1.9% 

1.5% 

2.0% 

4.1% 

0.7% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

3.0% 

1.7% 

2.4% 

1.6% 

2.2% 

114  EUROPOP2019 population projections: Eurostat - Data Explorer (europa.eu)   
115  The  2021  Ageing  Report :  Underlying  assumptions  and  projection  methodologies  The  2021  Ageing  Report: 

Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies | European Commission (europa.eu)   

72 

 
 
  
                                                 
Beyond the update of the population and growth assumptions, an update of the projections on the 
sectoral composition of GDP was also carried out using the GEM-E3 computable general equilibrium 
model.  These  projections  take  into  account  the  potential  medium-  to  long-term  impacts  of  the 
COVID-19 crisis on the structure of the economy, even though there are inherent uncertainties related 
to its eventual impacts. Overall, conservative assumptions were made regarding the medium-term 
impacts  of  the  pandemic  on  the  re-localisation  of  global  value  chains,  teleworking  and 
teleconferencing and global tourism. 

International energy prices assumptions  

Alongside socio-economic projections, transport modelling requires projections of international fuel 
prices.  The  projections  of  the  POLES-JRC  model  –  elaborated  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  and 
derived  from  the  Global  Energy  and  Climate  Outlook  (GECO116)  –  are  used  to  obtain  long-term 
estimates of the international fuel prices. The table below shows the oil prices assumptions of the 
baseline and policy options of this impact assessment.  

Table 19: Oil prices assumptions  

in $'15 per boe 
in €'15 per boe 

2015 
52.3 
47.2 

2020 
39.8 
35.8 

2030 
80.1 
72.2 

2040 
97.4 
87.8 

2050 
117.9 
106.3 

Source: Derived from JRC, POLES-JRC model, Global Energy and Climate Outlook (GECO) 

Technology assumptions 

Modelling scenarios are highly dependent on the assumptions on the development of technologies - 
both  in  terms  of performance and  costs. For the  purpose of the impact  assessments  related to  the 
“Climate Target Plan” and the “Fit for 55” policy package, these assumptions have been updated 
based on a rigorous literature review carried out  by external  consultants in  collaboration with  the 
JRC. Continuing the approach adopted in the long-term strategy in 2018, the Commission consulted 
on the technology assumption with stakeholders in 2019. In particular, the technology database of 
the  PRIMES  and  PRIMES-TREMOVE  models  (together  with  GAINS,  GLOBIOM,  and  CAPRI) 
benefited from a dedicated consultation workshop held on 11th November 2019. EU Member States 
representatives also had the opportunity to comment on the costs elements during a workshop held 
on 25th November 2019. The updated technology assumptions are published together with the EU 
Reference  Scenario  2020117.  The  same  assumptions  have  been  used  in  the  context  of  this  impact 
assessment. 

Policies in the Baseline scenario  

Building on the EU Reference scenario 2020, the baseline scenario for this impact assessment has 
been  designed  to  include  the  initiatives  of  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  package118.  It  also  assumes  the 
implementation  of  the  General  Safety  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  2019/2144).  The  Baseline 
scenario assumes no further EU level intervention beyond the current CBE Directive.  

116  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/geco 
117  EU Reference Scenario 2020 (europa.eu) 
118  Delivering the European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu) 

73 

 
                                                 
 
Baseline scenario results 

Evolution of the number of fatalities and injuries. In the baseline scenario, the number of fatalities 
is projected to decrease by 23% by 2030 relative to 2015 and by 30% by 2050 relative to 2015119. 
The number of serious and slight injuries is projected to decrease at lower rate (by 18% between 2015 
and 2030 and by 25% for 2015-2050). This is despite the increase in traffic over time. Relative to 
2020, that reflects the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of fatalities and slight injuries 
is projected to decrease by 3% by 2030 while the number of serious injuries is projected to remain 
relatively stable. By 2050, the number of fatalities would be 13% lower relative to 2020 while the 
number of serious injuries would be 10% lower and that of slight injuries 11% lower. Thus, the targets 
of the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Next steps towards “Vision Zero”, of reducing 
the number of road deaths by 50% between 2020 and 2030 as well as reducing the number of serious 
injuries by 50% in the same period, would not be met. In addition, this is still far from the goal of the 
Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy of close to zero death toll for all modes of transport in the 
EU by 2050. 

Evolution  of  the  number  of  detected  offences.  In  the  assessment  a  distinction  is  made  between 
offences that are already detected on a large scale (without identification of the driver) by Member 
States120, such as speeding and failure to stop at a red light, and offences for which this is currently 
not the case, such as drink-driving or the use of a mobile phone behind the wheel.  

The evolution of the number of speeding detected offences depends on four factors: 

  The number of kilometres driven. If the number of kilometres driven increases, it is assumed that 

(proportionally) more offences are detected. 

  Technological innovations within vehicles (such as Intelligent Speed Assist). If in-car technology 
is able to reduce (unintentional) speeding, the number of detected offences is expected to decrease. 

  Awareness of local traffic rules. The more familiar drivers are with local traffic rules, the more 

likely it is that they will not commit offences (unintentionally). 

  Number of automatic checking equipment. The more checking equipment is installed, the larger 

the number of detected offences is expected to be (and the higher the deterrence effect is). 

In the baseline scenario, the number of kilometres driven in the EU is projected to increase by 0.6% 
per year on average between 2015 and 2050.  

Concerning technological innovations, the General Safety Regulation (GSR) requires all new motor 
vehicles to be equipped with Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA) from 2022. Intelligent Speed Assist will 
likely  reduce  ‘unintentional  speeding’  as  it  provides  the  driver  with  a  warning  if  a  speed  limit  is 
exceeded, although the system can be overridden if a driver chooses to driver faster. Although it is 
difficult to estimate the impact of ISA on the number of speed violations, SWOV (2015)121 estimates 
the mean speed on roads to decrease by 2 to 7 km/h. Linking this to the speed levels observed in 
Member States (ranging from 50 km/h to 130 km/h), it implies that the mean speed decreases by 2% 
to 15%. In the analysis, it is assumed that a decrease of the mean speed by 15% is associated to a 

119  Projections refer to injuries in which a passenger vehicle,  a light commercial vehicle, a bus or a truck is involved 

(power two wheelers are not included in the projections). 

120  Based on Member States input during surveys and interviews, speeding and failure to stop at a red light are detected 

on a large scale by Member States. 

121  SWOV (2015). Fact sheet on Intelligent Speed Assist. https://swov.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/gearchiveerde-

factsheet/uk/fs_isa_uk_archived.pdf  

74 

 
                                                 
similar  decrease  in  the  number  of  speeding  offences  committed.  This  is  considered  to  be  a 
conservative approach for the assessment of the policy options, as it leads to the steepest decline in 
the number of speeding offences detected in the baseline.  

However, the penetration rate of ISA in the EU vehicle fleet only gradually increases over time, as a 
result of the implementation of the General Safety Regulation. The uptake of ISA, all else equal, is 
estimated to result in a reduction of the number of speeding offences by 1% per year. By 2037 it is 
projected that the EU fleet would be renewed and all vehicles would be fitted with ISA-systems122. 
Hence, no further reduction in the number of speeding offences due to ISA is assumed post-2037. It 
should be noted however that in-car technology will mainly affect speeding offences, since it is not 
used to prevent e.g. an offence of failure to stop at a red light.  

Considering the awareness of local traffic rules, with the implementation of ISA-systems (in which 
vehicles are able to ‘read’ the traffic signs) and the increased usage of navigation software that include 
local speed limits (such as hardware devices from TomTom or mobile apps such as Google Maps 
and Waze) the difference between domestic and foreign drivers is likely to be negligible. Therefore, 
in the baseline scenario it is assumed that the number of detected offences is not affected by a change 
in awareness of local traffic rules. Even if the implementation of ISA affects the awareness of local 
traffic rules, the effect of ISA on the number of speeding offences is already captured under the ‘in-
car technology’ factor. 

The last factor that is considered concerns the checking equipment installed. Although Member States 
indicated in the context of stakeholders’ consultation that the number of checking equipment may 
increase over time, it is unclear to what extent the number of cameras will increase in the baseline 
scenario.  As  no  quantitative  estimate  is  available,  a  conservative  assumption  is  used  where  the 
number of cameras remains constant in the baseline scenario. This assumption is considered to be 
conservative, as an increase in the number of checking equipment would imply an increase in the 
number of detected offences and further need to revise the CBE Directive.  

For other types of offences, in the baseline scenario it has been assumed that the number of detected 
offences  would  increase  in  line  with  the  number  of  kilometres  driven.  This  is  a  conservative 
assumption,  as  it  is  likely  that  more  offences  will  also  be  detected  as  a  result  of  an  increased 
availability of sophisticated checking equipment. However, such impact was not possible to quantify.  

Drawing on the assumptions explained above, the number of detected offences committed by foreign 
registered vehicles without driver identification on the spot is estimated to reduce in the baseline by 
2040, from  14.5 million in  2019 to 13.9 million  in 2030 and 13.8 million in  2040  (4% reduction 
relative to 2019). Post-2040, the number of detected offences is projected to increase again, to 14.7 
million  by  2050,  as  the  increase  in  traffic  outweighs  the  positive  impacts  of  the  new  vehicle 
technology  assisting  drivers,  driven  by  the  General  Safety  Regulation123.  Around  98%  of  these 
detected offences fall in the scope of the CBE Directive. The number of offences where the offender 
is not held accountable is also projected to reduce over time by 2040, from 6.3 million in 2019 to 6 
million in 2030 and 2040. By 2050, the number of offences where the offender is not held accountable 
would go up to 6.4 million, driven by the increase in the number of detected offences. The share of 
offences where the offender is not held accountable is projected to remain relatively constant over 
time, at around 43%. 

122  This  assumption  is  consistent  with  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  the  General  Safety 

Regulation (SWD(2018) 190 final).  

123  Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 

75 

 
                                                 
Table 20: Projected evolution of impunity under the baseline scenario (in millions) 

Number of detected offences 

Number of successfully investigated offences 

Number of voluntary payments 
Number of sanctions that need enforcement (no voluntary 
payment) 

Number of successfully enforced sanctions 
Number of unsuccessfully enforced sanctions 

Number of failed investigations 

Total number of payments made 
Total number of offences where offender is not held accountable 
Share of offences committed with impunity 

Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact Assessment support study 

2019 
        14.5  
        11.5  
         8.0  

2030 
        13.9  
        11.0  
         7.7  

2040 
        13.8  
        10.9  
         7.7  

2050 
        14.7  
        11.6  
         8.1  

         3.4  

         3.3  

         3.3  

         3.5  

         0.2  
         3.3  
         3.0  
         8.2  
         6.3  
43.3% 

         0.2  
         3.1  
         2.9  
         7.9  
         6.0  
43.4% 

         0.2  
         3.1  
         2.9  
         7.8  
         6.0  
43.5% 

         0.2  
         3.3  
         3.1  
         8.3  
         6.4  
43.5% 

Costs  for  public  authorities.  The  total  costs  for  public  authorities  for  implementing  the  CBE 
Directive are estimated to decrease from EUR 105.4 million in 2019 to EUR 77.8 million in 2030 
and EUR 57 million in 2050 (see Table 20), mainly driven by the reduction in the detected offences 
and thus of the investigation costs. More details are provided below.  

Table 21: Costs for  public  authorities for  implementing the CBE Directive in the  baseline  scenario (in  million 
EUR) 

Total investigations costs 

Total mailing costs for successfully investigated offences 

Total costs for public administrations 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2019 
70.9 

34.5 

105.4 

2030 
44.9 

33.0 

77.8 

2040 
30.4 

32.8 

63.3 

2050 
22.1 

34.9 

57.0 

Investigation costs. Based on stakeholders’ consultation, the investigation time per foreign registered 
offence is currently around 15 minutes. Investigation time however differs by Member State, likely 
depending on the legal liability regime adopted and the degree to which the process is automated. 
Based on information from Eurostat (2021)124, the annual labour costs for administrative and support 
services was around EUR 20 per hour in 2019. Thus, investigation costs at EU level are estimated at 
EUR 5 per detected offence in 2019.  

The time spent on investigation depends to a large extent on whether the process is automated or not. 
Member States that adopt an automated system, and adopt an owner/holder liability regime, generally 
have  an  investigation  time  between  1  and  3  minutes.  In  the  baseline  scenario,  a  decrease  in  the 
investigation time of 5% per year has been assumed. The investigation time is thereby estimated at 
15 minutes in 2019, 8.5 minutes in 2030, 5.1 minutes in 2040 and 3.1 minutes in 2050. Implicitly, 
this assumes that all Member States would have some form of automated process to investigate traffic 
offences (e.g. read the license plate, make a request in EUCARIS and submit the penalty notice) by 
2050. At the same time, the labour costs for conducting investigations has been assumed to increase 
in line with the GDP projections. This means that the labour costs would go up to EUR 23.2 per hour 
in 2030 and EUR 30.2 per hour by 2050. Thus, the investigation costs per detected offence would 
decrease from EUR 5 in 2019 to EUR 3.3 in 2030 and EUR 1.5 in 2050.  

Mailing  costs  for  successfully  investigated  offences.  The  postal  charges  for  sending  regular  mail 
within EU are estimated to be between EUR 1 and 2, and the postal charges for registered mail are 

124  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/LC_LCI_LEV__custom_1125792/default/table?lang=en 

76 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
estimated  at  EUR  4  to  5  125,126,127,128,129.  Based  on  desk  research  in  the  context  of  the  impact 
assessment support study, it was found that Germany130, the Netherlands131, Belgium132 and France133 
generally use ‘standard’ mail for sending penalty notices, and that Italy134 and Spain135 require the 
information letter to be sent via registered mail136. In the baseline scenario, it has thus been assumed 
that 50% of the letters are sent via registered mail and 50% via standard mail. Thus, the mailing cost 
per penalty notice sent abroad within EU was estimated at EUR 3. 

In  the  baseline  scenario,  it  is  assumed  that  penalty  notices  would  still  need  to  be  send  via  postal 
services. The degree to which digital submission of penalty notice is implemented at the EU level is 
very  limited.  Moreover,  a  digitised  procedure  also  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  non-
residents are able to access the database, and that these non-residents are informed on this practice. 
Since there is currently no development in such direction, it has been assumed that penalty notices 
still need to be provided to presumed offenders in the form of a hardcopy mail.  

Concerning the translation of documents, the analysis in the context of the impact assessment support 
study (based on interviews with Member States) indicates that many public authorities have templates 
for  sending  information  letters  abroad  (which  are  translated  in  the  EU  languages).  Therefore,  no 
additional costs for translating the information letters are assumed in the baseline scenario.  

3.  Impacts by policy measure on costs 

This  section  explains  the  inputs  used  and  provides  the  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  policy 
measures included in the policy options on costs.  

PM1 – Extend the scope of the CBE Directive to other road-safety related traffic offences 

This measure has an impact on the costs for public authorities. PM1 increases the number of offences 
that will be covered by the Directive. By including other offences in the scope of the Directive, the 
number of detected offences is projected to increase by 2% relative to the baseline over 2025-2050 
period. The additional number of launched investigations is expected to result in additional enforce-
ment costs for the public authorities relative to the baseline. They are estimated at EUR 724,000 in 
2030, EUR 685,000 in 2040 and EUR 617,000 in 2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, 
the enforcement costs for public authorities relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 14 million. 

125  https://www.deutschepost.de/de/p/portoberater.html#/Brief/International/Rechteckig/bis_235_x_125_mm/bis_20_g/ 

Guenstig 

126  https://www.postnl.nl/versturen/brief-of-kaart-versturen/brief-of-kaart-buitenland/ 
127  https://www.bpost.be/nl/tarieven 
128  https://www.poste.it/gamma/lettera.html 
129  https://cennik.poczta-polska.pl/usluga,zagraniczny_przesylka_listowa.html 
130  https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/bussgeldbescheid/per-einschreiben/ 
131  https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004581/2021-01-01 
132  https://www.verkeerszaken.be/artikel/a/97/Wat-u-moet-weten-over-www-verkeersboeten-be 
133  https://www.comparateur-stagespermis.com/infractions-et-amendes 
134  https://quifinanza.it/info-utili/notifica-multa-quando-avviene/316997/ 
135  https://motor.elpais.com/conducir/no-sabes-si-te-han-puesto-una-multa-aqui-puedes-enterarte/ 
136  It should be noted that some Member States, such as Belgium and France, do sent letters via registered mail if no 

payment is made after the first letter has been sent via ordinary mail. 

77 

 
 
 
                                                 
PM2  –  Establish  mandatory  minimum  data  content  of  vehicle  registers  necessary  for  the 
investigation of traffic offences 

This measure has an impact on the costs for public authorities. PM2 aims to extend the minimum 
data content of vehicle registers in Annex I of the CBE Directive. For EUCARIS several steps have 
to be taken for the provision of new data, which lead to one-off adjustment costs for public authorities: 

  First, it needs to be ensured that the information is available in the registers of the Member States 
that have to provide it137. If the focus is on information that is available in the national registries, 
the data has to be included in the international message exchange provided for by EUCARIS. For 
EUCARIS, the development, testing and deployment of some additional optional fields would be 
a minor adaptation and is estimated to take around 100 man-hours, or around EUR 10,000 at the 
EU level assuming a cost per man-hour of EUR 100 for specialised support. Since the costs would 
be shared by the 27 Member States, the costs per Member State are estimated at EUR 370. These 
represent one-off adjustment costs for the public authorities.    

  Second, the web client for EUCARIS would need to be adapted to enable enforcement authorities 
to make requests and to see the responses. This is estimated by EUCARIS at an additional 370 
EUR per Member State, which corresponds to EUR 10,000 at the EU level (100 man-hours at a 
cost  per  man-hour  of  EUR  100).  These  represent  one-off  adjustment  costs  for  the  public 
authorities. 

  Third,  all  vehicle  registration  authorities  have  to  adapt  their  data  services  that  make  the  data 
available  to  EUCARIS.  The  costs  depend  on  what  local  system  is  used,  on  the  development 
methods and the local tariff. EUCARIS estimates that as data services are not shared, the costs 
would  roughly  amount  to  EUR  10,000  per  Member  State  in  2025.  These  represent  one-off 
adjustment costs for the public authorities, taking place in 2025.  

The total one-off adjustment costs for public authorities are thus estimated at EUR 290,000 in 2025, 
on average EUR 10,740 per Member State relative to the baseline.  

In addition, the measure results in larger number of detected offences being successfully investigated 
and therefore more penalty notices being issued. This however represents the joint impact of PM2, 
PM3 and PM4 as it was not possible to assess the impact of each of these measures individually. The 
impact on enforcement costs for public authorities, is estimated at EUR 284,000 in 2030, relative to 
the baseline, EUR 244,000 in 2040 and EUR 279,000 in 2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050 the enforcement costs for public authorities relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 5.720 
million.  

PM3  –  Keep  the  information  on  previous  owner/holder  of  a  vehicle  for  a  specific  time  and 
provide/disclose it upon request   

PM3  aims  to  ensure  that  the  information  on  the  previous  owner/holder  of  a  vehicle  is  held  for  a 
specific time in the national VRDs, to be able to provide/disclose these upon request. Although the 
information of previous owners/holders may have been exchanged through EUCARIS, the system 
does  not  store  any  exchanged  information  or  data,  from  any  period.  It  acts  only  as  a  platform  to 
exchange data between the Member States. Thus, under this measure public administrations should 
(upon request) have this information available for investigation purposes. 

137  The  information  on  the  vehicle  type  is  already  required  per  Council  Directive  1999/37/EC  on  the  registration 

documents for vehicles. 

78 

 
                                                 
This requires the increase of storage size of Member States’ VRDs. From a technological perspective, 
the type of information to be held for a specific time period is in text format, meaning that the size 
per entry would not exceed more than a couple of megabytes138. Some Member States will have more 
data to store than others (depending on entries that Member States include in their VRD). However, 
even for these countries the storage size would be small, which have a negligible cost from an IT 
perspective.  Hence,  it  is  assessed  that  the  adjustment  costs  for  public  authorities  of  PM3  are 
negligible.  

On  the  other  hand,  due  to  PM3  a  larger  number  of  detected  offences  would  be  successfully 
investigated  and  therefore  more  penalty  notices  would  be  issued.  As  already  explained,  the  joint 
impact of PM2, PM3 and PM4 has been assessed as it was not possible to assess the impact of each 
of these measures individually. 

PM4 – Ensure access to other data registers (other than VRD) through a single system 

There are two elements of this measure, which aims to ensure access to data registers other than the 
VRDs through the EUCARIS system: 

  Providing access to SIS to check for stolen vehicles could be done through EUCARIS, provided 
a  legal  base  and  permission  to  retrieve  that  information.  The  check  could  also  be  carried  out 
through the information provided by Member States and be included in the CBE message by the 
national data services, which is however much more expensive; 

  Access to RESPER for the sole purpose of enforcement could be made possible for the user group 

that has access to CBE EUCARIS. 

For access to RESPER, the use cases could be: 

  Police officers checking the driving licence details, or looking up the actual address of a person 
who was stopped because of an observed offence. The search could be made by driving licence 
number or by name and date of birth; 

  Debt  collection/recovery  companies  that  want  to  verify  the  address  of  the  owner/holder  of  the 
vehicle, via a search by name and date of birth (through a national contact point). In some countries 
the  driving  licence  registry  might  contain  more  actual  address  data  than  the  vehicle  registry. 
However, this should be checked at the Member State level; 

  On-board equipment is likely to give access in the future to the identity of the actual driver of a 

vehicle, which may solve the liability dispute;  

  RESPER might be useful for enforcement purposes and already has a legal base in the Driving 
Licence Directive. From a technical perspective the services already exist (i.e. both the search by 
driving  licence  number  and  the  search  by  name).  The  effort  and  costs  for  EUCARIS  and  the 
information provided by registration authorities would be very limited and mainly have to do with 
user authorization. An issue could however be that in some countries the Driving licence registry 
and Vehicle registry are not at the same authority. There is also a difference between the automated 
and manual identification of an offender, i.e. done by a camera or a police officer stop. A search 
via  the  name  of  the  offender  may  bring  up  multiple  hits  on  the  address  (i.e.  owner/holder 
information or driving licence-affiliated information). At the moment, the driving licence address 
is  not  yet  available  within  the  CBE  Directive,  and  the  penalty  notice  is  sent  according  to  the 
information found in the national VRD.  

138  To illustrate, the storage of images and videos are much heavier in size, therefore may lead to a necessity to increase 

the storage space of the VRDs which is not the case for this policy measure. 

79 

 
                                                 
The costs for interoperability  of the  systems  are to  be covered at  both  levels: EUCARIS and  MS 
public authorities. There are no fees for the exchange of information, only for the development of the 
software and a basic fee per connection, for overall IT tasks (e.g. monitoring of the system) and to 
support Member States in keeping the system up and running. The costs may also differ depending 
on the organisation at national level: if the driving licence information is at another authority and no 
connection exists, then the costs may be higher at national level. There is the possibility to create a 
new interface between the systems (the man-hours and software development may add up  around 
EUR 50,000). 

It should be noted however, that overall, these costs are likely not to be substantial. In the assessment, 
a  conservative  assumption  has  been  made  in  which  all  Member  States  are  faced  with  one-off 
adjustment costs of EUR 50,000 relative to the baseline, bringing the total one-off costs for the EU27 
at EUR 1.350 million in 2025.  

As a result of PM4, more offences are expected to be successfully investigated. As already explained, 
the joint impact of PM2, PM3 and PM4 has been assessed as it was not possible to assess the impact 
of each of these measures individually. 

PM5  –  Keep  the  information  on  the  user  of  a  vehicle  in  case  the  vehicle  is  leased  and 
provide/disclose it upon request 

This measure has an impact in terms of costs savings for the businesses. PM5 will likely result in a 
cost reduction for car leasing and rental companies, if information on the final keeper/holder of the 
vehicle is included in the VRD. Currently, the car rental/leasing companies are often requested to 
identify the owner/holder of the vehicle, or are held accountable when an offence is committed in 
their vehicle (owner/holder liability) and then need to reimburse the penalty with the lessee/renter. 
Two  separate  interviews  were  held  with  Leaseurope  to  assess  the  impact,  and  Leaseurope  has 
requested their members to provide information on whether this data is included in the VRD.  

The costs for car rental/leasing companies are estimated through an administrative fee. Based on desk 
research  in  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  support  study,  it  was  found  that  rental/leasing 
companies often charge an administrative fee of 5 to 25139 EUR if an offence is committed in their 
vehicle (besides the financial payment that needs to be made by the presumed offender). This range 
for the administrative fee has been validated by Leaseurope. The fact that an administrative fee is 
charged, indicates that road users ultimately bear the costs of the administrative activities conducted 
by businesses. 

Based  on  the  survey  carried  out  by  Leaseurope  among  its  members,  it  was  found  that  (at  least) 
Portugal, Sweden, Germany and Luxembourg include information on the final holder/keeper of the 
vehicle in the VRD. This indicates that, for car rental/leasing companies registered in these countries, 
this measure would result in a cost reduction. 

Leaseurope estimates that some 60 million offences are committed with rented/leased vehicles a year. 
These also include offences that are not included in the scope of the CBE Directive, such as parking 
offences. It is hard to assess the share of offences committed abroad, as the final holder/keeper of the 
vehicle often has a different nationality than that of the Member State in which the license plate is 

139  Depending on the characteristics of the Member State (e.g. the amount of effort and time needed to ‘pass on’ the 

penalty notice to the final holder/keeper). 

80 

 
 
 
                                                 
registered.  This  indicates  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  provide  the  number  of  cases  for  which  the 
measure has an impact.  For this  reason, it has been  conservatively  assumed that for 0.07% of all 
offences  committed  with  rented/leased  vehicles  in  Europe140  (38,275  offences  in  2030,  37,890 
offences in 2040 and 40,226 offences in 2050), this measure would fully remove administrative costs 
for the private sector.  

The administrative costs savings for businesses are thus estimated at EUR 0.435 million in 2030, 
EUR 0.334 million in 2040 and EUR 0.275 million for 2050 (see Table 21). Expressed as present 
value  over  2025-2050  the  administrative  costs  savings  for  businesses  relative  to  the  baseline  are 
estimated at EUR 7.037 million. 

In  2019,  Leaseurope  represented  some  1,950  leasing/rental  companies.  Furthermore,  Leaseurope 
estimates that it represents 90% of the market. Based on this estimate, there should be around 2,150 
leasing/rental  companies  in  the  EU.  In  the  assessment  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  number  of 
leasing/rental  companies  will  remain  constant  over  the  assessment  period.  Consequently,  the 
administrative costs savings per company are estimated at 202 EUR in 2030, 155 EUR in 2040 and 
128 EUR in 2050 (or an average of 130.92 EUR per year per company over 2025-2050, expressed as 
present value).  

Table 22: Impact on the administrative costs savings for the private sector  

Number of offences 
Administrative fee (in EUR) 
Administrative costs savings (in million EUR) 
Number of companies 
Costs savings per company (in EUR) 
Source: Ecorys (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 
38,275 
11.4 
0.435 
2,150 
202 

2040 
37,890 
8.8 
0.334 
2,150 
155 

2050 
40,226 
6.8 
0.275 
2,150 
128 

PM6 – Establish a tailored investigation mechanism for cross-border exchange of information of 
road traffic offences, aimed at better identification of the driver/offender 

PM6 aims to establish a tailored investigation mechanism for cross-border exchange of information 
aimed  at  the  better  identification  of  the  offender/driver.  There  are  two  elements  related  to  this 
measure: 

  The follow-up procedure to find the actual address of the offender; 
  The follow-up procedure to exchange additional evidence (particularly facial images). 

In relation to the follow-up procedure to find the actual address of the offender, it is recommended 
to make use of the existing system for the exchange of information (i.e. EUCARIS) for the purposes 
of the CBE Directive. When a Member States enters the information of the offending vehicle in the 
EUCARIS system, it automatically searches the most recent data of the counterpart Member State’s 
VRD. However, it may be possible that the address of the result is not correct. For this reason, as the 
PM3  requires  that  all  Member  States  keep  information  on  previous  vehicle  owners/holders  for  a 
specific period of time, a follow-up question may be exchanged between the Member States that aim 
to  find  an  offender’s  address.  This  will  imply  allowing  the  system  to  search  the  archives  of  the 
national VRDs. There are no additional costs related to this measure, other than the generic fee to be 

140  This would be CBE-related offences, committed in rental vehicles registered in Germany, Portugal, Luxembourg and 

Sweden that are committed in other EU Member States. 

81 

 
 
 
                                                 
paid to EUCARIS per connection (i.e. the EUCARIS CBE connection in this case), which is around 
EUR 35,000 per year as of 2021 and part of the baseline. 

To  facilitate  the  identification  of  the  offender/driver,  an  additional  follow-up  procedure  may  be 
necessary to exchange additional evidence, e.g., pictures of the vehicle owner/holder retrieved from 
identification registers. Ideally, this is also addressed through EUCARIS. An additional service may 
need  to  be  developed  by  EUCARIS,  which  involves  a  one-off  development  cost  of  around  EUR 
2,000-4,000 per service. Alternatively, the Member States could make use of eDelivery, which is a 
set of standards and protocols that enable secure and reliable communication between Member States. 
eDelivery provides a machine-to-machine communication interface without human interaction, i.e., 
the Member States would have to agree to link their national VRDs and other registers/databases to 
the  central  portal  via  a  network  of  eDelivery  Access  Points,  in  order  to  allow  the  instantaneous 
exchange of documents. From a technological point of view, an eDelivery Access Point would have 
to be set up by every party and connected to the national registers. The Access Point can package, 
encrypt and send documents and data to another Access Point (e.g. to the Access Point of another 
register  or  the  portal)  which  then  unpacks  and  decrypts  the  documents/data,  as  well  as  sends  an 
acknowledgement to the sender party using the AS4 protocol. AS4 is a secure protocol, with strong 
encryption,  and  provides  a  secure  connection.  The  one-off  cost  of  an  eDelivery  Access  Point  is 
estimated  at  EUR  34,000141.  Under  this  setting,  the  European  Commission  could  also  rely  on  its 
existing corporate IT service based on eDelivery. 

Considering  the  use  of  EUCARIS  for  the  assessment  of  PM6,  the  adjustment  costs  for  public 
authorities  would  be  negligible  relative  to  the  baseline.  However,  PM6  would  result  in  more 
successful investigations. The impact on enforcement costs for public authorities, is estimated at EUR 
145,000 in 2030, relative to the baseline, EUR 144,000 in 2040 and EUR 152,000 in 2050. Expressed 
as present value over 2025-2050 the enforcement costs for public authorities relative to the baseline 
are estimated at EUR 2.903 million. 

PM7 – Establish mutual assistance in the investigation of road traffic  offences by including the 
duty  of  the  vehicle  owner/holder  to  cooperate  with  authorities  in  identification  of  driver/actual 
offender 

In  PM7,  as  the  number  of  successfully  investigated  offences  increases,  the  enforcement  costs  for 
public authorities related to mailing go up. The impact on enforcement costs for public authorities, is 
estimated at EUR 1.020 million in 2030, relative to the baseline, EUR 1.012 million in 2040 and 
EUR 1.075 million in 2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the enforcement costs for 
public authorities relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 20.824 million. 

PM8A and PM8B – Establish tailored follow-up mechanism for mutual recognition of financial 
penalties issued in relation to CBE road traffic offences (with limited grounds for refusal in PM8B) 

The  impact  on  costs  of  PM8A  and  PM8B  could  not  be  quantified.  This  is  because  the  existing 
procedures under the Framework Decision are complex, especially when the offence is registered as 
administrative (which is the case for most ‘small’ speed violations). When a tailored solution will be 
developed, it is expected that enforcement procedures will be more effective and efficient. PM8A 
and PM8B  respectively  aim at  improving the  enforcement  of  a traffic offence committed abroad. 
Simpler procedures more tailored to road traffic offences are expected to help increase the share of 

141 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/2021/01/21/The+cost+of+setting+up+an+eDelivery+Acc
ess+Point?reload=true. 

82 

 
                                                 
enforced decisions on financial penalties. The regime applied in the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg 
Forum could serve as a model, but not all of its aspects are expected to work at the EU level due to 
the  different  legal  regimes  applied  in  the  EU  countries.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  enforced 
decisions is therefore expected to be rather small. While under the baseline, only 5% of enforcement 
procedures are successful, this rate is expected to increase to 15% under PM8A and to 20% under 
PM8B (with limited grounds for refusal by the executing State)142. 

PM9  –  Provide  a  dedicated  list  of  entities  in  different  Member  States  that  are  entitled  to  issue 
information letters to ensure authenticity of documents 

PM9 has a two-fold fold objective: 

  Provide a list of authorities/entities entitled to issue information letters/notices, also including 

the list of national contact points (NCP); 

  Provide samples of these letters/notices to ensure authenticity. 

These may be achieved via the CBE portal. As concerns the first point, a list of authorities can be 
created  based  on  a  study  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission  that  would  draw  on  desk 
research  and  potential  stakeholders’  consultations.  The 
the 
authorities’/entities’ official name in the local language and general contact information (website, 
address, telephone, email). This is expected to represent a one-off cost, as the responsible authorities 
to send information letters/notices are not expected to change. Around 20 person-days are estimated 
to be needed for a list for a Member State (including all iterations and time span for Member States’ 
validation), relative to the baseline, at an average cost of 500 EUR per person per working day. Thus, 
the one-off adjustment costs for the European Commission for a list for a Member State are estimated 
at  EUR  10,000  relative  to  the  baseline.  The  list  of  authorities/entities  would  be  made  publicly 
available for consultation on a dedicated CBE portal. 

inventory  should 

include 

As concerns samples of letters/notices, the exact samples should not be made public, because of the 
risk of fraud. Nevertheless, it is possible to provide a code/security mark that citizens may check on 
the letters and postage they have received, to ensure their authenticity. This may also include points 
that would never be mentioned in an official letter. To take an example, the government of the United 
Kingdom  (Revenue  &  Customs)  has  official  websites  where  citizens  can  check  whether  a 
letter/email/phone call/text message is genuine.143  

Specifically,  for  letters,  the  below  information  is publicly  available  that  may  help  citizens  ensure 
authenticity: 

  Publication of known fraudulent addresses and genuine contact details (office addresses, telephone 

numbers); 

  Explanation of payment methods, including contact details to discuss potential late payment or 

other problems; 

  List of verified governmental bank accounts; 
  How to report a suspected phishing attempt (email and phone number). 

142  For comparison, the rate of successfully enforced decisions in the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum is estimated 
at 90%. This illustrates the benefits of common rules specific to the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences 
which are included in the CBE Agreement of the Salzburg Forum. It should be noted though that the four countries 
that apply this Agreement have very similar legal liability frameworks. 

143  https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/check-a-list-of-genuine-hmrc-contacts. 

83 

 
 
 
                                                 
On the European Commission portal (linked to PM13) it would therefore be possible to also include 
links  to  the  official  governmental  websites  that  may  have  such  an  explanation,  and  call  upon  the 
Member States that have not yet implemented such good practice. The inclusion of these websites 
would therefore require the extension of the inventory above. It is estimated that such research and 
consultation exercise, would require, at the highest end, an additional ten-person days (at an average 
of  500  EUR  per  day)  thereby  bringing  the  total  one-off  adjustment  costs  for  the  European 
Commission at EUR 15,000 per Member State list.  

The total one-off adjustment costs for the European Commission are estimated at EUR 405,000 in 
2025.  

PM10 – Establish harmonised time limit for sending the information letter to ensure fair service 
of documents 

PM10 covers two elements. On the one hand, it prescribes a time limit for sending a penalty notice. 
This element does not lead to additional administrative costs. However, PM10 also requires to send 
the penalty notice through registered mail.  

In the baseline scenario, it is assumed that about 50% of financial penalties will be sent via registered 
mail. The cost difference between the registered email and ‘normal’ mail is estimated to be 3 EUR 
144, 145, 146, 147, 148. Thus, an additional cost of 1.50 EUR per penalty notice is assumed, as 50% of all 
penalty notices are affected (the other 50% is already sent via registered mail). 

As a result of PM10, the enforcement costs for Member States public authorities increase relative to 
the baseline. They are estimated at EUR 8.275 million in 2030, relative to the baseline, EUR 8.212 
million  in  2040  and  EUR  8.718  million  in  2050.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the 
enforcement costs for public authorities relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 153.059 million. 

PM11  –  Establish  mandatory  minimum  requirements  for  the  information  to  be  shared  with 
presumed offender 

PM11  further  specifies  what  information  should  be  included  in  the  information  letter.  It  is  thus 
expected that all Member States will need to  adapt the content of their information letter to some 
extent,  leading  to  adjustment  costs.  All  Member  States  interviewed  indicated  that  they  develop 
information letters in a template that is translated to all official EU languages. When the information 
letter is adapted, the new template should be translated again. 

Because the number and content of information letters greatly differs between Member States149, it 
was not possible to make a detailed estimate on what information is missing per Member State and 
the time needed to reflect the changes. It has been therefore assumed that each Member State needs 
to  spend  40  hours  on  adapting  the  information  letters/penalty  notices  for  the  different  offences. 
Hence, a total of 1,080 hours would be spent at EU level (assuming that this information letter/penalty 

144  https://www.deutschepost.de/de/p/portoberater.html#/Brief/International/Rechteckig/bis_235_x_125_mm/bis_20_g/ 

Guenstig 

145  https://www.postnl.nl/versturen/brief-of-kaart-versturen/brief-of-kaart-buitenland/ 
146  https://www.bpost.be/nl/tarieven 
147  https://www.poste.it/gamma/lettera.html 
148  https://cennik.poczta-polska.pl/usluga,zagraniczny_przesylka_listowa.html  
149  Sometimes even within Member States, as municipalities sometimes adopt different templates than on the national 

level. 

84 

 
 
                                                 
notice can also be used by local or regional authorities). Based on information from Eurostat150, it 
was estimated that the annual labour costs for administrative and support services is equal to about € 
20 per hour. 

After  the  new  template  is  developed,  translations  are  also  needed.  For  the  translation  costs, 
information from Belgium, Spain and Poland has been obtained. The costs for translating penalty 
notices into one language are estimated to be between EUR 2,500 and EUR 7,500. Considering that 
there are 23 official languages, the translation costs of penalty notices are estimated at EUR 110,000 
per Member State.  

The total one-off adjustment costs for the  MS public administrations  are estimated  at  EUR 2.970 
million in 2025.  

PM12 – Ensure consistent and seamless language regime in the follow-up communication with 
presumed offender 

PM12  aims  to  regulate  the  language  regime  in  follow-up  communication  with  the  offender  (for 
example regarding a second notification or if the presumed offender requests additional information). 
Specific  communication  with  the  presumed  offender  is  required  in  a  non-significant  share  of  the 
cases. Poland indicated that in rare cases, translation costs of about 90 EUR per offence are incurred 
for specific communication. Germany indicated that in these rare cases, translation costs of 30 to 40 
EUR are incurred. Germany indicated that these costs are incurred in approximately 17 cases per 
year. 

It is estimated that Germany detects some 2.25 million offences with foreign registered drivers a year, 
and issues some 1.8 million penalty notices (80% of detected offences). Thus, this represents less 
than 0.001% of the total number of penalty notices. Extrapolating at EU level this would result in 
some  115  cases  in  which  follow-up  communication  (before  court  proceedings  start)  with  the 
presumed  offender  is  to  be  translated.  No  information  has  been  obtained  during  stakeholders 
consultation on costs for translating documents that result from court proceedings. These costs are 
not  often  observed,  as  the  number  of  cross-border  enforcement  cases  (via  Framework  Decision 
2005/214/JHA) is assessed to be negligible. Thus, it can be concluded that the costs related to PM12 
are negligible.  

PM13 – Ensure adequate and non-discriminatory access to information of citizens and business 
regarding cross-border enforcement of road traffic rules 

PM13  aims  to  ensure  an  adequate  and  non-discriminatory  access  to  information  for  citizens  and 
businesses  regarding  cross-border  enforcement  of  traffic  rules.  It  aims  to  create  a  dedicated  CBE 
portal, which has a two-fold use: 

Information portal; 

i) 
ii)  Interactive portal. 

It is further complemented by PM9 and PM6, which elaborate on specific G2G functionalities of the 
portal. 

150  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/LC_LCI_LEV__custom_1125792/default/table?lang=en  

85 

 
                                                 
The current Going Abroad151 website (and mobile application) serves as an information portal. It was 
created to abide by the provision that requires the Commission to make available a summary of the 
rules in force covered by the CBE Directive in  all Member States, and in all EU languages. This 
measure looks into two alternatives: a revamp of the Going Abroad website or a replacement of the 
website.  In  the  case  of  a  revamp,  all  existing  code  of  the  website  as  well  as  back-end  (server, 
application, database) may be reused and expanded upon. In the replacement possibility, the previous 
structure  will  not  be  considered  to  avoid  time  spent  on  understanding  the  existing  back-end 
components. 

According to the ICT Impact Assessment Guidelines152, there are several categories of activities (and 
therefore  costs)  that  should  be  analysed.  The  relevant  ones  for  the  development  of  a  portal  are: 
infrastructure, development, and maintenance and support.  

Infrastructure 

The setting up of a website starts with its infrastructure, which remains an ongoing activity and cost 
throughout the lifetime of the website. The infrastructure comprises the hardware and the software 
that are required “to develop, support, operate and maintain the online collection system”153. 

In the case of the (revamped/replaced) CBE portal, the hosting of the website will be done on the 
europa.eu domain, as an official website of the European Union. An advantage of using the europa.eu 
domain is the Europa Web Guide154, made available by the European Commission, which details the 
editorial, legal, technical, visual and contractual necessities, rules, and guidelines that websites under 
the  domain  should  respect.  The  web  content  management  system,  which  enables  to  easily  make 
changes to the website in the future, may be developed using free and open source software such as 
WordPress or Drupal. Though the system is free, the cost of a professional web designer may add up 
to the costs. 

The  infrastructure  mainly  concerns  the  back-end  development  of  a  website.  Assuming  that  the 
professional  web  designer’s  rates  are  around  500  EUR  per  day,  and  that  gathering  the  necessary 
information  and  conceptualising  the  website  requires  around  10  working  days,  the  final  cost  is 
estimated at 5,000 EUR for the first step. Following the initial one-off cost, ongoing costs need to be 
foreseen  to  further  develop,  support,  operate  and  maintain  the  database.  Ongoing  costs  for  the 
infrastructure phase is estimated at 0.5 full time equivalent per year, i.e., EUR 50,000, relative to the 
baseline. 

Development 

The development of a website represents a one-off cost, where the back-end mechanism is further 
refined and the front-end of the website is finalised for the users to access. Both options of revamp 
and replace must take the points below into consideration. 

At the moment, the Going Abroad website displays information received from a database. It must be 
decided  whether  this  structure  is  to  change  to,  for  example,  cloud  or  local  server  premises.  The 
development  and  further  refining  the  decisions  about  the  general  objective  of  the  website  must 
include, among others, determining the primary choices of the European Commission, stakeholder 

151  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm. 
152  https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/default/files/ict_impact_assessment_guidelines.pdf. 
153  https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/default/files/ict_impact_assessment_guidelines.pdf (p. 17). 
154  https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/WEBGUIDE/Europa+Web+Guide. 

86 

 
                                                 
consultations, and deciding on an outcome. This phase is estimated at 20 working days. Then, the 
content definition should be further developed. This  phase includes determining which content to 
duplicate and add on to the existing Going Abroad website. The CBE portal may be revised in terms 
of  user-friendliness,  as  well  as  expanded  with  supplementary  information  about  compliance 
checks/enforcement controls, sanctions, appeal procedures, and payment schemes. Further parts of a 
website to take into consideration for an enhanced user experience are the possibility to have an FAQ 
section,  country  knowledge  with  relevant  links  to  national  associations,  links  to  European 
Commission documents and further resources, ad hoc newsletter sign up (e.g., to promote updates of 
the website and call attention to changes in legislations), etc. The content definition may also require 
connecting the website with a membership. Users may be asked to create a member profile through 
EU Login. Given the granularity and importance of the content definition of the CBE portal, it is 
estimated that 60 working days will be required for this phase. 

For the design phase, the Europa Web Guide can also be relied upon. It details the guidelines to apply 
for Commission-branded websites. In addition to those guidelines, the CBE portal should be designed 
in a user-centric manner: accessible, effective colour scheme, clean design. As a good practice, it is 
also important to repeat information and links on every page, given the short timespan spent per page 
by the average user. To give an example, for the recently developed reopen.europa.eu155, based on a 
similarly  functioning  database  as  the  Going  Abroad  website,  the  average  visit  lasts  less  than  2 
minutes, with less than 3 clicks to pages included on the website156. To best understand the needed 
requirements an estimated 20 working days will be necessary. 

The content writing and assembly represents the construction of the website. The developers would 
need  to  consider  the  particularity  of  the  CBE  portal:  the  flexibility  and  easy  modification  to  add 
and/or delete content as there may be updates to national legislation, policies, recommendations, etc. 
This phase adds up to 30 working days. 

Finally, the testing, review, and launch phase includes ensuring that once the website is uploaded to 
the server, all links are functioning. Users may be called upon to test the website as well as to give 
feedback. The final phase amounts to 10 working days. 

Overall, the development phase is estimated at 140 working days, which at an average rate of 500 
EUR per day would result in costs of EUR 70,000 relative to the baseline. 

Maintenance and support 

The final step, maintenance and support, is an ongoing expenditure for a website, to keep it up to date 
with information as well as address bugs and requests. The effort for updating the website relies on 
the input received from the Member States/associations/citizens and outsourced to developers or the 
responsible IT team. This process may also require  patching to the back-end infrastructure which 
may be also outsourced.  

The price of the ongoing maintenance and support for the European Commission, as calculated under 
the infrastructure  category, is  EUR  50,000 per  year,  relative to the baseline and it is  projected to 
increase to EUR 53,000 in 2030, EUR 60,000 in 2040 and EUR 69,000 in 2050. Expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050 the adjustment costs for the European Commission relative to the baseline are 

155  https://reopen.europa.eu/. 
156  https://www.similarweb.com/fr/website/reopen.europa.eu/#overview. 

87 

 
                                                 
estimated  at  EUR  1.056  million.  In  addition,  the  one-off  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 
70,000 (development costs) relative to the baseline in 2025.  

PM14 – Ensure authenticity and fair service of final decision 

PM14 specifies the information that needs to be shared with the presumed offender on the final legal 
decision (resulting from a court case). The difference between penalty notices/information letters and 
notifications of the final legal decision, is that no (standardised) templates can be developed for the 
latter as they have to be drawn up on a case-by-case basis.  

Nevertheless,  communication  to  the  offender  on  the  final  decision  resulting  from  court  cases  is 
already  covered  by  Directive  2010/64/EU.  As  a  condition  for  the  cross-border  enforcement  of 
financial  penalties,  through  the  Framework  Decision  imposed  for  criminal  and  administrative 
offences, these shall be grounded on decisions subject to a judicial review under a procedure similar 
to criminal proceedings157.  

If the CBE Directive would include a tailored mechanism for the enforcement of financial penalties, 
the communication of the final decision to the offender could rely on the same procedures (e.g. by 
following  Directive  2010/64/EU).  Thereby,  PM14  would  not  lead  to  additional  costs,  as 
communication towards the offender, in both PM14 and the baseline scenario, would follow the same 
legal procedures. 

PM15 – Ensure that the information exchange under the CBE Directive complies with GDPR and 
LED 

PM15 would not lead to additional costs relative to the baseline.  

157  See ECJ, Judgement in Case C-60/12, Baláž. 

88 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 5: DISCARDED MEASURES  

Description 

Justification for discarding 

Extending the scope to non-safety 
related traffic offences 

Extend  the  scope  of  the  CBE 
Directive  to  other  road-safety 
related  offences  and  violations  of 
road-safety-related 
Urban 
Vehicle  Access  Restrictions 
(UVARs)  

Recommend/harmonise  methods 
of use and technical specifications 
for detection equipment 

Establish  a  single  legal  liability 
regime at EU level for road traffic 
offences committed with a vehicle 
registered abroad 

The legal analysis concluded that including non-safety related road 
traffic offences would significantly alter the consistency of the 
Directive, given the objectives stated in Article 1 which have been 
at the core of the Directive since its origins. 

Some stakeholders (some Member States and other public bodies) 
suggested  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  CBE  Directive  to  UVARs. 
Because the CBE Directive is an instrument to enhance road safety, 
only specific UVARs related to road safety could be added to the 
scope.  Moreover,  the  inclusion  of  the  road-safety-related  UVARs 
would require an accurate information to the non-resident road users 
on  the  applicable  rules  in  place  and  in  addition  also  exchange  of 
information  on  specific  characteristics  of  vehicles  to  prevent 
unequal treatment/discrimination of drivers. Due to issues related to 
technical feasibility and difficulties with defining exactly the road-
safety-related UVARs and delineation between the UVARs related 
to  emissions  and  congestions,  the  measure  was  considered  not 
proportionate and feasible and was hence discarded. 

There is no EU law harmonizing minimum technical requirements/ 
specifications  for  detection  equipment  (e.g.  ANPR  functionality, 
picture resolution and/or measurement accuracy) nor is the detection 
equipment  subject  to  CE  marking,  which  certifies  the  conformity 
with EU health, safety and environmental standards. The methods 
of use and technical specifications may play an important role in the 
investigation  of  offences  and  in  appeal  procedures.  Nonetheless 
these cause impacts at national level only and should be addressed 
at that level. It was discarded for subsidiarity reasons. The measure 
was also considered disproportionate, given that the CBE Directive 
addresses  only  cross-border  offences,  while  the  methods  and 
specifications  and  related  adjustments  of  detection  equipment 
would apply to all road traffic offences, including those committed 
by residents.  

This measure would establish a single legal liability regime at the 
EU level, for road traffic offences committed by drivers in foreign 
vehicles. The vehicle owner/holder of the vehicle could in 
principle be held liable for the offence committed with their 
vehicle, which means that only a “soft” driver liability regime or 
“indirect” vehicle owner/holder legal liability regime would be 
applied. In a number of EU countries that adopt a strict driver 
liability regime, only the actual vehicle driver can be held 
accountable for the offence. These Member States, which apply a 
strict driver liability regime, cannot require the owner of the 
vehicle to identify the driver because this would contradict the 
privilege against self-incrimination foreseen by their national 
legislation. 

Such a uniform legal liability regime would therefore not be 
legally feasible due to constitutional prerogatives applied in some 
Member States.  

89 

 
 
Further  harmonize  the  format  of 
Member  States'  license  plates  to 
improve  the  detection  of  road 
traffic offences (ANPR) 

Harmonize the time limits for the 
re-registration of vehicles 

Include  further  information  in 
national  vehicle  registers  e.g.  the 
picture 
vehicle 
owner/holder,  vehicle  insurance 
information,  the  information  on 
the owners' all other vehicles 

the 

of 

Regularly  update 
the  CBE 
Directive  and  other  relevant 
legislation  to  keep  track  with  the 
changing  vehicle  technology  and 
increasing  availability  of  in-car 
data. 

Apply  "Once  only  principle"  for 
sharing 
information  between 
administrations (local and central 
government registers) at national 
level 

The  format  of  license  plates  falls  outside  the  scope  of  the  CBE 
Directive.  Rather,  it  seems  that  other  applicable  European 
legislation  on  this  matter  (such  as  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2411/98)  would  be  a  better  place  to  introduces  the  change. 
Moreover, the effectiveness of this option in addressing the problem 
drivers is doubtful, as there are no clear signs that the readability of 
license  plates  is  a  problem.  Therefore,  the  measure  is  discarded 
because of legal considerations and a lack of effectiveness. 

This  measure  aims  to  solve  outdated/erroneous  VRDs  on  vehicle 
data.  VRDs  are  regulated  by  Directive  1999/37/EC  concerning 
vehicle  data,  and  by  the  CBE  Directive  concerning  enforcement 
tools. Since this is more of an issue related to vehicle  registration 
data, it is advised to include this measure in a possible revision of 
this Directive, and especially of art. 5(2) of Directive 1999/37/EC. 

There  are  serious  concerns  regarding  the  political  feasibility, 
proportionality, and legal feasibility, in particular regarding privacy 
and data  protection issues. Moreover, it is expected that the costs 
involved  would  be  very  high,  and  that  the  benefits  in  terms  of 
information available to investigate offences would be rather small. 

This  measure  is  discarded,  as  it  is  not  certain  what  legal  grounds 
would exist for possible revisions. Also, since this measure is quite 
intervening,  there  are  concerns  regarding  proportionality.  For 
example, sharing in-car data with police authorities raises concerns 
on privacy, data protection issues. 

This  measure  is  discarded  as  it  goes  far  beyond  the  scope  of  a 
revision of the CBE Directive, as it states that national governments 
should organize their system in such a way that data in one register 
is 
if  data 
is  automatically  updated 
updated/changed. Although it might improve the functioning of the 
CBE Directive (in terms of IT issues), the implications are assessed 
to be too large. 

in  another 

register 

Ensure that all offences under the 
CBE Directive fall under criminal 
law to establish uniform follow-up 

This  measure  is  discarded  as  there  is  a  subsidiarity  issue.  The 
classification of offences (e.g. under criminal or administrative law) 
is up to Member States as laid down in the Treaties. 

the 

procedures 

Incentivize Member States to use 
of 
under 
Framework 
Decision 
2005/214/JHA  by  sharing  costs 
and benefits  

This measure aims to stimulate a fair accrual of monies (Art. 13 of 
the  FD).  However,  according  to  Art.  13,  Member  States  already 
have  the  ability  to  agree  on  how  the  revenues  stemming  from 
financial payments should be divided between issuing and executing 
State.  Hence,  the  added  value  of  this  measure  is  questionable. 
Moreover, PM8 is expected to be more effective in achieving the 
use  of  procedures  to  enforce  financial  penalties  for  road-traffic 
offences under the CBE Directive abroad. 

90 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: RETAINED POLICY MEASURES  

Policy measure 

Short description of the measure 

Link to 
problem driver 
and specific 
objective 

PD1: 
Inadequate 
detection 
road-safety-
related 
offenses 

of 

traffic 

PM 1 – Extend 
the scope of the 
CBE Directive to 
other road-safety 
related traffic 
offences  

This measure extends the scope of the CBE Directive to cover 
in addition the following road-safety-related traffic offences: 
not keeping sufficient distance from the vehicle in front, 
dangerous overtaking, dangerous parking, crossing white 
line(s), driving in wrong way or emergency lane158 and using an 
overloaded vehicle. 

SO1: Improve 
compliance 
control with 
road-safety-
related traffic 
rules in place, 
including 
extension of the 
initiative scope 
to other road-
safety-related 
traffic offenses  

PD2: Incorrect 
or insufficient 
information in 
vehicle registers 

SO2: Streamline 
mutual 
assistance and 
recognition 
procedures 
between 
Member States 
in cross-border 
investigation of 
road-safety-
related traffic 
offenses and 
cross-border 
enforcement of 
financial 

PM 2 – Establish 
mandatory 
minimum data 
content of vehicle 
registers 
necessary for the 
investigation of 
traffic offences 

PM 3 – Keep the 
information on 
previous 
owner/holder of a 
vehicle for a 
specific time and 
provide/disclose it 
upon request   

PM 4 – Keep the 
information on 
the user of a 
vehicle in case the 
vehicle is leased 
and 

This measure extends the data content as laid down in Annex I 
of the CBE Directive (e.g. to cover vehicle categories) and 
specifies minimum mandatory data to be exchanged which is 
necessary for successful investigation of road traffic offences. 

This measure improves the quality of the investigation of the 
offences, by harmonizing the time limit for retention/storage 
(and review) of the personal data on the previous vehicle 
owner/holder in national vehicle registers. This limit also 
depends on harmonized deadlines for the submission/service of 
information letters/penalty notices to non-residents (see also 
measure PM 10) 

This measure allows the exchange of information on the final 
user/keeper of the vehicle, but only if this information is 
available in VRD by default (normally it covers long term 
leasing of vehicles). Currently, rental companies often receive 
the information letter and are requested to identify the final 
user/keeper at the time that the offence was committed. Rental 

158  Driving  in  emergency  lane  is  already  covered  by  the  CBE  Directive,  however  ROADPOL  asked  to 
establish harmonized EU rules concerning the creation (e.g. zipper merge) and use of emergency lanes.  

91 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Link to 
problem driver 
and specific 
objective 
penalties for 
these offences 

Policy measure 

Short description of the measure 

provide/disclose it 
upon request 

and (long-term) leasing companies will benefit from this 
measure, since administrative activities (identifying the 
holder/keeper of the vehicle at the time that the offence was 
committed) can be partly overcome. 

The measure does not aim to mandate Member States to include 
this information in the national VRD. Only the exchange of 
information, in case this information is available in VRDs, 
under the CBE Directive is made possible. Currently, sharing 
this type of information is not possible under the CBE 
Directive. 

PM 5 – Ensure 
access to other 
data registers 
(other than VRD) 
through a single 
system  

This measure increases the access to available information to 
investigate detected road traffic offences included in the scope 
of the revised CBE Directive. This measure ensures that if other 
databases (e.g. driving licence or driver registers) are 
interconnected, they should be accessible for enforcement 
purposes via one system (EUCARIS).  

PM 6 – Establish 
a tailored 
investigation 
mechanism for 
cross-border 
exchange of 
information of 
road traffic 
offences, aimed at 
better 
identification of 
the 
driver/offender 

It should be noted that EUCARIS already provides access to 
these databases (e.g. via RESPER), but the information cannot 
be requested according to existing CBE Directive. 

This measure proposes:  

 

 

specific digitised follow-up procedure to find actual 
address of presumed offender, if the address or other 
information in vehicle register is not correct; and  

in case of executing countries with a strict-driver liability 
system, a specific digitised follow-up procedure needed to 
exchange additional evidence (e.g. pictures of the vehicle 
owner/holder retrieved from passport or ID registers) to 
facilitate the identification the offender/driver.  

An IT platform, including a portal is developed to facilitate 
both procedures. It is intended to support ‘police-to-police’ 
cooperation as much as possible, while using functionalities 
under the revised Prüm framework (Prüm II). 

92 

 
 
 
Policy measure 

Short description of the measure 

Link to 
problem driver 
and specific 
objective 

PM 7 – Establish 
mutual  assistance 
in the 
investigation of 
road traffic  
offences by 
including the duty 
of the vehicle 
owner/holder to 
cooperate with 
authorities in 
identification of 
driver/actual 
offender  

PM 8A – 
Establish tailored 
follow-up 
mechanism for 
mutual 
recognition of 
financial penalties 
issued in relation 
to CBE road 
traffic offences 

This measure introduces the duty of the vehicle owner/holder to 
cooperate with enforcement authorities in the investigation of the 
identity of the driver of the vehicle with which a traffic offence 
has been committed in another Member State. This duty would 
apply  in countries  with a  strict driver liability regime  while in 
other countries, the holder/owner of the vehicle concerned can 
directly be  fined  for the committed traffic offence. In case the 
holder/owner of the vehicle in question claims he or she was not 
the  driver  but  does  not  cooperate  with  the  enforcement 
authorities  in  the  identification  of  the  driver,  he/she  would  be 
asked to contribute to the enforcement costs. The holder/owner 
of the vehicle would hence not be liable for the committed traffic 
offence  but  for  failing  to  cooperate  with  the  enforcement 
authorities.  As  the  vehicle  holder/owner  has  an  incentive  to 
cooperate with the authorities in the identification of the driver, 
more  non-resident  drivers  can  be  identified  and  fined  which 
reduces  their  impunity  and  therefore  is  expected  to  lead  to  a 
change in behavior that improves road safety. 

This measure proposes digitised follow-up procedures related 
to cross-border enforcement of sanctions for the offences 
covered by the CBE Directive. Possible areas of derogation 
from existing FD 2005/214 rules and new elements or 
modifications to be added are as follows: 

 

Introducing clarifications for the ‘minimum’ procedural 
guarantees which all authorities, including administrative 
authorities, have to comply with. Where a decision 
requiring payment of a financial penalty has been notified 
in accordance with the national legislation of issuing 
Member State, also indicating the right to contest the case 
and the time limit for such a legal remedy, the authority of 
executing Member State may not refuse to recognise and 
execute that decision provided that the person concerned 
has had sufficient time to contest that decision. This would 
ensure higher procedural protection, also for administrative 
offences; 

  Establishing fair accrual of monies from financial penalties 
between the issuing and executing Member State (specific 
distribution keys could be established according to the 
incurred costs or just fifty-fifty accrual could be applied). 
This would ensure that the issuing Member State is 
motivated to start the procedure, as currently all resources 
from cross-border execution of financial sanctions are (in 
general) kept by the executing Member State; 

  Applying the provision of FD 2005/214 to administrative 

road traffic offences, that allows the competent authority of 
the executing Member State to give the offender/driver the 
opportunity to pay the financial penalty to the issuing 
Member State before continuing with the proceedings;  

93 

PD3: Lack of 
mutual 
assistance in 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
financial 
penalties 

SO2: 
Streamline 
mutual 
assistance and 
recognition 
procedures 
between 
Member States 
in cross-border 
investigation of 
road-safety-
related traffic 
offenses and 
cross-border 
enforcement of 
financial 
penalties for 
these offences 

 
 
 
 
Policy measure 

Short description of the measure 

Link to 
problem driver 
and specific 
objective 

PM 8B =PM8A 
with limited 
grounds for 
refusal 

PM 9 – Provide a 
dedicated list of 
entities in 
different Member 
States that are 
entitled to issue 
information letters 
to ensure 
authenticity of 
documents 

PD4: Different 
level of 
fundamental 
rights protection 
in Member 
States 

SO3: Improve 
protection of 
fundamental 
rights of non-
resident 
offenders, 
including 

 

Introducing standardised digital forms - translated in all 
official EU languages - would simplify their exchange (see 
Article 14 and Annex of FD 2005/214 and approved 
Standardised Forms). This modification ensures a more 
cost-effective process, which is especially relevant for road 
traffic offences that result in a small pecuniary sanction.  

This measure builds further on PM 8A, and also limits the 
grounds for non-recognition that are included in the Framework 
Decision. 

Based on a legal analysis, only the following grounds for non-
recognition will be retained in the specifically designed follow-
up mechanism: 

 

Incomplete or incorrect certificate (Article 7(1) of FD); 

  Decision against the sentenced person in respect of the same 

acts delivered in the executing State or delivered and 
executed in any other State (Art. 7(2)(a) of FD); 

  Statute barred decision according to the law of the executing 

State (Art. 7(2)(c) of FD); 

  The person concerned (i) in case of a written procedure was 

not, in accordance with the law of the issuing State, 
informed personally or via a representative, competent 
according to national law, of his right to contest the case 
and of time limits of such a legal remedy (unless the 
certificate states: that the person was informed personally, 
or via a representative, competent according to national law, 
of the proceedings in accordance with the law of the issuing 
State), or (ii) did not appear personally (unless the person 
has indicated that he or she does not contest the case) (Art. 
7(2)(g) of FD). 

Effectively, this follow-up mechanism would therefore be made 
similar to the enforcement procedure that is adopted under the 
CBE Agreement in the Salzburg Forum 

This measure ensures that for each Member State, a National 
contact point (NCP) would be established through which the 
authenticity of information letters would be verified. Member 
States may provide a list of authorities/entities entitled to issue 
the information letters (according the CBE Directive) and other 
letters/notices serviced to presumed offender, until the stage of 
appeal before a court, and the samples of these notifications on 
dedicated cross-border enforcement/CBE portal (G2G). This 
allows Member States authorities to share the information for 
verification purposes in a secure way (if the information is 
made public, the letters can be even more easily subject to a 
fraud). The portal would also contain the list of national contact 
points (NCPs) responsible for police-to-police or legal 
cooperation (such as NCPs established under the existing CBE 
Directive), and in future other relevant information facilitating 
Member States authorities’ cooperation in investigation (see 

94 

 
 
 
Link to 
problem driver 
and specific 
objective 
alignment with 
new EU rules on 
personal data 
protection 

Policy measure 

Short description of the measure 

PM 10 – 
Establish 
harmonised time 
limit for sending 
the information 
letter to ensure 
fair service of 
documents 

PM 11 – 
Establish 
mandatory 
minimum 
requirements for 
the information to 
be shared with 
presumed 
offender 

PM 12 – Ensure 
consistent and 
seamless language 
regime in the 
follow-up 
communication 
with presumed 
offender 

PM 13 – Ensure 
adequate and non-
discriminatory 
access to 
information of 
citizens and 

also PM 6). The letters/notices would be legally defined, that is 
currently missing, and properly authenticated. 

This measure sets out EU-wide harmonized time limit for 
sending out the information letter (after registration of the 
offence). The limit should not be longer than the time limits for 
the retention/storage time of the personal data on the previous 
vehicle owner/holder in national vehicle registers limit and for 
re-registration of the vehicle. The measure also includes the 
harmonisation of the means of information letter delivery (e.g. 
obligatory use of registered mail) to ensure lawfulness. 

This measure provides an obligatory structure of the 
information letter for non-residents/foreigners with the 
obligatory content as already laid down in Article 5 of the 
Directive and complemented by new elements, as follows: 

1.  Provision of information on deducted demerit/penalty points 

and driving disqualifications; 

2.  Provision of information on appeal procedure i.e. where and 
how to lodge an appeal, details of ‘in absentia procedures’ - 
particularly whether these procedures are applicable or not, 
if yes, how they are applicable and especially whether there 
is an obligation to have a representative/counsel; 

3.  The presumed non-resident/foreign offender must be given 
sufficient time after the receipt of the information letter to 
appeal (time limit/rules to be specified); 

4.  Provision of evidence on the committed road traffic offence 

upon the request of presumed offender; 

5.  Provision of IBAN account number and the name and 

address of the authority where the financial penalty can be 
settled. 

Another obligatory element may be added from non-mandatory 
template of the information letter presented in Annex II of the 
Directive which only very few Member States use now in 
practice. 

This measure clarifies the use of languages in the 
communication with presumed offender (before and after 
receipt of the information letter) until the stage of appeal before 
a court when Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to 
interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings applies. It 
has to be ensured that the language regime is clearly defined, 
not only in the case where a national authority communicates 
with the presumed offender, but also in the case where the 
presumed offender communicates with a national authority.  

Under this measure, a dedicated portal (G2B, G2C) is created, 
replacing the Going abroad website. The portal should be 
compatible with the interface established under Single Digital 
Gateway Regulation, thus strengthening citizens’ rights to free 
movement and non-discriminatory access to information. 

95 

 
 
 
Policy measure 

Short description of the measure 

Link to 
problem driver 
and specific 
objective 

business 
regarding cross-
border 
enforcement of 
road traffic rules 

PM 14 – Ensure 
authenticity and 
fair service of 
final decision 

Through the portal and specific IT platforms (e.g. using the 
functionality of eDelivery network solutions if it concerns the 
exchange of sensitive information between authorities and 
businesses), Member States authorities can share or exchange 
information in secure way with citizens and businesses. 
Possible links can be established with other portals, especially 
e-Justice portal.  

There are various websites and apps in Member States allowing 
payment of fines and monitoring procedural stages. This 
measure supports the use of eIDAS (or other trusted services), 
as the access to these websites and apps often requires 
registration via national ID cards microchips of 
residents/nationals, excluding non-residents/foreigners from the 
use of these digitised solutions. 

This measure safeguards the protection of fundamental rights of 
presumed non-resident offenders, in case of non-payment of a 
financial penalty, including appeal, by specifying the 
requirements (e.g. on authenticity, language regime) regarding 
the service of a final decision on the imposed financial penalty 
of a court of issuing Member State to the presumed offenders. 
Debt collection/recovery agencies or other private entities 
involved in enforcement of financial penalties cannot claim the 
penalties unless the final decision is mutually recognised by 
relevant Member States. 

PM 15 – Ensure 
that the 
information 
exchange under 
the CBE Directive 
complies with 
GDPR and LED 

This measure specifies how the regime of personal data 
protection under the GDPR and the LED will be applied in the 
context of the CBE Directive. 

The references to the data protection provisions of the Prüm 
Decisions will be replaced by appropriate references to the 
LED. The Directive is aligned with the LED on the following 
points: 

 

 

an explicit reference to the applicability of the LED is 
introduced where road-safety-related traffic offences are 
qualified as criminal; 

the obligation to send information letter to the 
owner/holder of the vehicle, or otherwise identified person 
suspected of committing road-safety-related traffic offence, 
on initiating the investigation or prosecution and granting 
them access to specific information is without prejudice to 
the right to information under Article 13 of the LED. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS  

Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

 

Strongly 
positive 

PO 1 

PO 2 

PO 2A 

PO 3 

PO 3A 

General objective: Increase road safety in the EU through better enforcement of road-safety-related 
traffic rules  

Lower 
number of 
road fatalities 
and injuries 
relative to 
the baseline 

Positive effect 
expected on 
the number of 
road injuries: it 
is estimated 
that PO1 
prevents 7 
fatalities, 66 
serious injuries 
and 315 slight 
injuries in 
2030.  

Positive effect 
is expected on 
the number of 
road injuries: it 
is estimated 
that PO2 
prevents 8 
fatalities, 77 
serious injuries 
and 368 slight 
injuries in 
2030. 

Positive effect 
is expected on 
the number of 
road injuries: it 
is estimated 
that PO2A 
prevents 16 
fatalities, 154 
serious injuries 
and 734 slight 
injuries in 
2030. 

Over the 
assessment 
period (2025 – 
2050), PO1 is 
estimated to 
prevent 165 
fatalities, 
1,575 serious 
injuries and 
7,620 slight 
injuries. 

Over the 
assessment 
period (2025 – 
2050), PO2 is 
estimated to 
prevent 192 
fatalities, 
1,837 serious 
injuries and 
8,884 slight 
injuries. 

Over the 
assessment 
period (2025 – 
2050), PO2A 
is estimated to 
prevent 384 
fatalities, 3,667 
serious injuries 
and 17,738 
slight injuries. 

Strongly 
positive effect 
is expected on 
the number of 
road injuries: it 
is estimated 
that PO3 
prevents 20 
fatalities, 195 
serious injuries 
and 930 slight 
injuries in 
2030. 

Strongly 
positive effect 
is expected on 
the number of 
road injuries: it 
is estimated 
that PO3A 
prevents 23 
fatalities, 215 
serious injuries 
and 1,028 
slight injuries 
in 2030. 

Over the 
assessment 
period (2025 – 
2050), PO3 is 
estimated to 
prevent 486 
fatalities, 
4,644 serious 
injuries and 
22,466 slight 
injuries. 

Over the 
assessment 
period (2025 – 
2050), PO3A 
is estimated to 
prevent 538 
fatalities, 5,133 
serious injuries 
and 24,830 
slight injuries. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

 

Strongly 
positive 

PO 1 

PO 2 

PO 2A 

PO 3 

PO 3A 

Specific policy objective 1: Increase compliance of non-resident drivers with additional road-safety-
related offences  

to 

Change in the 
number 
of 
cross-border 
investigation
s 
due 
additional 
road-safety-
related 
offences, 
relative to the 
baseline159  

Small increase 
in the number 
of investiga-
tions due to ca. 
285,000 more 
road-safety-
related offen-
ces, relative to 
the baseline in 
2030 and 
321,000 in 
2050, with 
small positive 
impacts on the 
number of 
fatalities and 
injuries 
avoided. 

Small increase 
in the number 
of investiga-
tions due to ca. 
281,000 more 
road-safety-
related offen-
ces, relative to 
the baseline in 
2030 and 
317,000 in 
2050, with 
small positive 
impacts on the 
number of 
fatalities and 
injuries 
avoided. 

Small increase 
in the number 
of investiga-
tions due to ca. 
258,000 more 
road-safety-
related offen-
ces, relative to 
the baseline in 
2030 and 
291,000 in 
2050, with 
small positive 
impacts on the 
number of 
fatalities and 
injuries 
avoided. 

Small increase 
in the number 
of investiga-
tions due to ca. 
246,000 more 
road-safety-
related offen-
ces, relative to 
the baseline in 
2030 and 
277,000 in 
2050, with 
small positive 
impacts on the 
number of 
fatalities and 
injuries 
avoided. 

Small increase 
in the number 
of investiga-
tions due to ca. 
239,000 more 
road-safety-
related offen-
ces, relative to 
the baseline in 
2030 and 
270,000 in 
2050, with 
small positive 
impacts on the 
number of 
fatalities and 
injuries 
avoided. 

Specific  policy  objective  2  –  Streamline  mutual  assistance  and  recognition  procedures  between 
Member  States  in  cross-border  investigation  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  and  cross-
border enforcement of financial penalties for these offences 

Higher share 
of successful 
cross-border 
investigation
s relative to 
the baseline 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
successful 
investigations, 
estimated to be 
3.6 percentage 
points higher 
relative to the 
baseline in 
2030 and 3.7 
p.p. higher in 
2050. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
successful 
investigations, 
estimated to be 
4.5 percentage 
points higher 
relative to the 
baseline in 
2030 and 4.6 
p.p. higher in 
2050. 

Strongly 
positive effect 
on the share of 
successful 
investigations, 
estimated to be 
10.9 p.p. 
higher relative 
to the baseline 
in 2030 and 11 
p.p. higher in 
2050. 

Strongly 
positive effect 
on the share of 
successful 
investigations, 
estimated to be 
10.9 p.p. 
higher relative 
to the baseline 
in 2030 and 11 
p.p. higher in 
2050. 

Strongly 
positive effect 
on the share of 
successful 
investigations, 
estimated to be 
10.9 p.p. 
higher relative 
to the baseline 
in 2030 and 11 
p.p. higher in 
2050. 

159  While  the  number  of  investigations  due  to  additional  road-safety-related  offences  included  in  the  scope  of  the 
Directive is projected to increase relative to the baseline, the total number of investigations (including those already 
in  the  scope  of  the  Directive)  is  projected  to  decrease  relative  to  the  baseline.  As  explained  in  section  6.1.1,  by 
facilitating the cross-border investigation and enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences, the policy options 
reduce the impunity of non-resident offenders. As a result, non-residents will adapt their driving behaviour. This 
means that, the more effective the policy options are, the fewer offences will be committed with vehicles registered 
in other Member States relative to the baseline.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

 

Strongly 
positive 

PO 1 

PO 2 

PO 2A 

PO 3 

PO 3A 

Higher  share 
of 
successfully 
enforced 
financial 
penalties 
relative to the 
baseline 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
successfully 
enforced 
financial 
penalties, 
estimated at 10 
p.p. higher 
relative to the 
baseline. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
successfully 
enforced 
financial 
penalties, 
estimated at 15 
p.p. higher 
relative to the 
baseline. 

Specific  policy  objective  3:  Strenghten  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  of  non-resident 
offenders, includig alignement with new EU rules on personal data protection  

Higher share 
of penal-ty 
notices with 
appropriate 
language 
regime 

Higher share 
of penalty 
notices with 
adequate 
information 

Lower 
number of 
citizens’ 
complaints 
concerning 
penalty 
notices 

Degree to 
which the 
Directive is 
made 
consistent 
with LED 
and GDPR 

Positive effect 
on the 
language 
regime of 
penalty 
notices. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
penalty notices 
that contain 
sufficient 
adequate 
information. 

Positive effect; 
fewer citizens’ 
complaints due 
to improved 
communicatio
n 

Positive effect 
on the 
language 
regime of 
penalty 
notices. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
penalty notices 
that contain 
sufficient 
adequate 
information. 

Positive effect; 
fewer citizens’ 
complaints due 
to improved 
communicatio
n 

Positive effect 
on the 
language 
regime of 
penalty 
notices. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
penalty notices 
that contain 
sufficient 
adequate 
information. 

Positive effect; 
fewer citizens’ 
complaints due 
to improved 
communicatio
n 

Positive effect 
on the 
language 
regime of 
penalty 
notices. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
penalty notices 
that contain 
sufficient 
adequate 
information. 

Positive effect; 
fewer citizens’ 
complaints due 
to improved 
communicatio
n 

Positive effect 
on the 
language 
regime of 
penalty 
notices. 

Positive effect 
on the share of 
penalty notices 
that contain 
sufficient 
adequate 
information. 

Positive effect; 
fewer citizens’ 
complaints due 
to improved 
communicatio
n 

Strongly 
positive  effect: 
by  making  the 
Directive 
consistent  with 
and 
LED 
GDPR, 
a 
positive impact 
is expected. 

Strongly 
positive  effect: 
by  making  the 
Directive 
consistent  with 
and 
LED 
GDPR, 
a 
positive impact 
is expected. 

Strongly 
positive  effect: 
by  making  the 
Directive 
consistent  with 
and 
LED 
GDPR, 
a 
positive  impact 
is expected. 

Strongly 
positive  effect: 
by  making  the 
Directive 
consistent  with 
and 
LED 
GDPR, 
a 
positive impact 
is expected. 

Strongly 
positive  effect: 
by  making  the 
Directive 
consistent  with 
and 
LED 
GDPR, 
a 
positive  impact 
is expected. 

99