COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 127 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 126 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
amending  Directive  (EU)  2015/413  facilitating  cross-border  exchange  of  information  on  of  road-
safety-related traffic offences 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

The  Impact  assessment  found  that  Directive  (EU)  2015/413  facilitating  cross-border  exchange  of 
information  on  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  (“the  CBE  Directive”)  had  a  positive  impact  on 
removing  the  anonymity  of  offenders  who  committed  a  road-safety-related  traffic  offence  abroad  by 
impressively  increasing  the  number  of  investigated  cross-border  cases.  However,  the  Directive  has  also 
proven its limitations since its deterrence effect was not sufficient to remove the offenders’ impunity due 
to  its  limited  scope,  lack  of  cross-border  investigation  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  and  cross-
border  enforcement  of  sanctions  for  these  offences  resulting  in  low  share  of  paid  financial  penalties  by 
non-resident offenders (more than 6 million penalties in cross-border cases are not enforced annually) and 
inadequate protection of fundamental rights of non-residents. 

What should be achieved? 

The general objective of the initiative is improving road safety. This should be brought about through a 
change in the behaviour of non-resident drivers, triggered by a reduction of the impunity that non-resident 
drivers  currently  still  enjoy.  Impunity  would  be  lowered  by  better  cross-border  investigation  of  road-
safety-related  offences  (i.e.  increasing  the  likelihood  that  non-resident  offenders  are  identified  and  the 
financial  penalty is  enforced). At the same time,  non-residents would receive information  letters/penalty 
notices in a language they understand, within reasonable time limit and in a form which authenticity would 
be easily verified. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

In the absence of EU action, cross-border enforcement of road-safety-related traffic rules would have to 
rely on the existing bilateral and multilateral agreements in place. This patchwork of agreements among 
Member States cannot ensure equal treatment of EU citizens and, given the gaps in coverage, it would be 
less  effective  in  removing  impunity  of  non-resident  offenders.  EU  action  would  be  therefore  more 
effective than uncoordinated action at Member States level. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why? 

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). PO1 is the basis for all other policy 
options; it includes 11 of the 16 policy measures covering most of the technical issues and the protection 
of  fundamental  rights.  PO2  covers  all  measures  of  PO1  and  in  addition,  the  establishment  of  specific 
follow-up  procedures  for  cross-  border  investigation  of  road-safety-related  traffic  offences  that  allows 
exchanging  more  information  between  national  authorities  than  just  vehicle  registration  data  (VRD). 
PO2A  which  is  the  preferred  option,  builds  on  PO2  and  includes  a  duty  of  vehicle  holders/owners  to 
cooperate  with  the  enforcement  authorities  in  the  identification  of  the  person  liable  for  the  road-safety-
related traffic offences. PO3 builds on PO2A and in addition establishes a tailored follow-up mechanism – 
a  lex  specialis  –  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  financial  penalties  issued  for  road-safety-related  traffic 
offences covered by the CBE Directive. Finally, PO3A is a more advanced version of PO3 as it reduces 

1 

 
 
the grounds for non-recognition and non-execution of financial penalties issued by other Member States.  

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

There  is  widespread  support  among  stakeholders  as  regards  an  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  CBE 
Directive  to  other  road-safety-related  traffic  offences.  The  views  of  public  authorities  differ  on  how  to 
increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive.  All  of  them  are  in  favour  of  measures  aimed  at  improving 
cross-border  investigation  of  the  offences.  Nevertheless,  some  of  them  are  critical  towards  specific  (i.e. 
less  cumbersome)  rules  for  cross-border  enforcement  of  financial  penalties,  others  would  favour  such 
specific rules namely regarding the mutual recognition of financial penalties for road-safety-related traffic 
offences committed abroad. Road user organisations are very positive on all measures that would help to 
improve the protection of fundamental rights of non-residents.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

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

The preferred option is considered as effective in reaching the intended policy objectives, presenting high 
net benefits, being internally coherent, proportionate as regards the Member States rules and procedures, 
and overall best in terms of political and legal feasibility. Over assessment period 2025-2050, 384 lives are 
estimated to be saved and 21,789 injuries avoided, relative to the baseline scenario that in monetary terms 
amounts to around EUR 2.8 billion, expressed as the reduction in the external costs of accidents. 

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

Additional enforcement costs for Member States authorities are estimated at EUR 136.8 million relative to 
the  baseline  scenario,  expressed  as  present  value  over  the  assessment  period  2025-2050.  This  includes 
one-off adjustment costs of EUR 4.6 million for Member States administrations (e.g. to adapt IT systems).  

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

The impacts on SMEs are expected to be positive but indirect and limited. The proposal should result in a 
reduction  of  hassle  costs  for  road  users  due  to  better  protection  of  fundamental  rights.  Furthermore,  a 
reduction of administrative costs for car leasing and rental companies of around EUR 7 million relative to 
the baseline scenario, expressed as present value over the assessment period 2025-2050 is envisaged. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

The  preferred  policy  option  is  assessed  to  result  in  additional  enforcement  costs  incurred  by  the  more 
effective investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences. These costs are which are estimated at EUR 
132.2 million relative to the baseline scenario expressed as present value over the assessment period 2025-
2050. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

No other significant impacts are expected. 

Proportionality 

The preferred policy option does not go beyond what is needed to achieve the objectives and  address the 
identified problems. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
Member States would send their first report to the Commission on the application of the CBE Directive by 
four years after the date of entry into force of the Directive. The Commission would assess the application 
of the Directive no later than 18 months after receiving the first reports from all Member States. 

2 

 
 
3