Article 10 
1. For the purpose of this Directive, the rates of exchange between the euro and the national currencies of the Member States which have not adopted the euro shall be those in force on the first working day of October and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities ; they shall have effect from 1 January of the following calendar year. 2. Member States which have not adopted the euro may maintain the amounts in force at the time of the annual adjustment made pursuant to paragraph 1 if the conversion of the amounts expressed in euro would result in a change of less than 5 % when expressed in national currencies.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal In 2006, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to draw up a report on a generally applicable, transparent and comprehensible model for assessing the external costs of transport, such as pollution and congestion, to serve as the basis for calculating infrastructure user charges. The Commission was asked to propose a strategy for stepwise implementation of the model for all transport modes, accompanied if appropriate by a proposal for revising Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of infrastructure [1]. More recently, in its resolution of 11 March 2008 on sustainable European transport policy, Parliament urged the Commission to come up with such a model, a strategy for implementing it in all modes, and legislative proposals starting with a review of the Directive. A Communication comprising a model and a strategy is submitted to Parliament and the Council together with this proposal (see COM(2008) 435). The goal is to set transport prices correctly so that they better reflect the costs of the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, but in particular in the road sector given its influence on the transport system and its contributory effect on traffic and emissions. In this sector, this implies greater recourse to tolls which vary according to the distance travelled, the location and the time of use in proportion of the external costs caused by vehicles. The attached proposal contributes to this broader strategy. Its objectives are to encourage Member States to implement differentiated charging to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of road freight transport. It seeks to amend Directive 1999/62/EC to establish a framework which enables Member States to calculate and vary tolls on the basis of the costs of traffic based pollution and of congestion in a way compatible with the internal market. Such charges will encourage transport operators to use cleaner vehicles, to choose less congested routes, to optimise the loading of their vehicles, and ultimately to make more efficient use of infrastructure. 1.2. General context Transport plays a crucial role in the economy and society. But it relies heavily on oil and its use produces costs on society in terms of health costs and loss of production due to air and noise pollution and accidents; time and fuel wasted in congestion; and broader environmental damage such as climate change. Currently these external costs are borne by the rest of society either through general taxation to pay for policing, road management services, and hospital treatment or through the impact of noise, emissions and accidents on people’s health and quality of life. Roughly 90% of these negative impacts is usually attributed to road transport and a quarter to road freight transport. Given the steady growth of road freight transport, in particular international road freight transport, which forecasts see as possibly doubling between 2000 and 2020, these social costs are most likely to increase. As outlined by the 2006 review of the European Transport Policy, a wide range of policy tools at EU and Member State level is required to optimise European logistics chains, make all transport greener and more efficient, and ultimately ensure more sustainable transport. The right policy mix must not only act on the supply of transport, it must address pricing, which in a market economy is an efficient way to better manage transport demand and achieve more efficient use of infrastructure. Current levies on road freight transport reflect a wide variety of approaches between Member States. Some countries rely on a mix of different taxation instruments (fuel and vehicle taxes). In others, the fiscal mix is more diverse and includes road user charges to recover infrastructure costs from hauliers using motorways. User charges take the form of time-based fees (e.g. the Eurovignette [2]), introduced often as a transitional system, or distance-based charges (tolls) levied on individual road sections or the full primary network. In most cases, current levies by Member States fail to send the right price signals. Road users are all treated alike, irrespective of the congestion or pollution they cause. They are not provided with effective incentives to use cleaner vehicles and to adapt their choice of route and mobility behaviour. While a lorry may be charged a toll to use a motorway crossing a rural area, it usually does not pay any user charge when crossing a densely populated area even though its cost in terms of pollution and congestion may typically be five times higher. With the exception of climate change, most of the external costs are borne by the population and the local or national governments of the territory where transport takes place and not where the vehicle is registered, nor where the vehicle is refuelled. These costs vary according to the travelled distance, the environmental performance of vehicle (e.g. Euro emission standards) and different points in time (peak or off peak) and space (densely populated area or not). This is especially the case for the costs of air pollution, of noise and of congestion. The best pricing instruments for assigning these costs to users in a fair and efficient way are tolls. The main reason is that tolls can vary according to the main cost drivers of pollution and congestion. Unlike fuel taxes, they can vary according to the emission standards of vehicles; contrary to vehicle taxes or time-based user charges (vignettes), they can vary according to the intensity, location and time of use. This allows the tolls to be set at a level which better reflects the real use of vehicles and therefore the external costs that users actually cause. The impact analysis carried out by the Commission suggests that even with a simple degree of differentiation tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution and of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles would yield considerable welfare benefits in terms of saving time, reducing pollution, improving road safety and optimising the use of infrastructure and of the transport system at large. By reducing the consumption of fuel wasted in congestion, it would also reduce emissions of CO2 from road transport. Hence, such tolling schemes would be a welcome contribution to the climate change strategy. It should be stressed that a toll set in a Member State on the basis of the costs of congestion and pollution has a direct relationship with the use of infrastructure. Its key goal is to optimise the transport system and make mobility more sustainable. The toll is a payment for costs to the Member State, to the infrastructure provider and to the local population. In return, this payment gives the right to use the infrastructure and to consume scarce capacity and resources. As envisaged in the attached proposal, its revenue will be used to develop transport alternatives (cleaner vehicles, new infrastructure). Since a toll is payable by all users, irrespective of their Member State of registration (where domestic vehicle taxes are due) or of where the vehicle is refuelled (where domestic fuel taxes are paid), there is no risk that it distorts competition between hauliers from different Member States. As to climate change, the impact of motor vehicles is global. Its cost does not depend on the time and place where the vehicle is used but on fuel consumption. Hence, fuel taxes are usually considered a simple and efficient way of internalising this cost irrespective of any other measures taken to achieve the target agreed at the level of the European Union for reducing CO2. On this issue, the Commission has already proposed invoking Article 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to improve coordination of taxes on motor fuels, partly by raising the minimum Community rate for commercial diesel fuel [3]. The Commission will further review the general energy taxation Directive to ensure that it better reflects the EU's climate change and energy goals. However, if the results achieved are not satisfactory by the end of 2013, the Commission will assess whether to further review the Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles so that it does not prevent Member States to include a CO2 charging element in tolls. Lastly road accidents make up an important part of the social costs. In 2003, the Commission proposed to enable the inclusion of accident costs in the calculation of tolls. But this particular provision was eventually rejected by Parliament and the Council [4]. Accident risks are related not only to the distance travelled but also to complex factors such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or failure to use seat belts, hence instruments like insurance rates might be a more effective tool. This issue will be further reflected upon in the review of the European road safety Action Programme that the Commission intends to carry out until 2010. 1.3. Directive in force Directive 1999/62/EC recognises the “user pays” principle by allowing Member States to levy distance-based charges (tolls) to recover the cost of construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure. The Directive also authorizes time-based charges below a maximum rate. Toll rates may be varied according to vehicle emission standards or congestion levels, but under a condition of revenue neutrality on a biennial basis. However, except in Germany and the Czech Republic this option has hardly been exercised. One of the reasons is the great complexity for infrastructure operators to adjust their charging structure to the demand response in a way that keeps their revenue constant. In 2006, the Directive was amended by Directive 2006/38/EC to set out the rules for calculating chargeable infrastructure costs. It has allowed tolls in mountainous areas, to be marked-up by up to 25% to co-finance alternative infrastructure labelled trans-European network priority projects by Parliament and the Council. This mark-up is currently applied on the Brenner motorway (Austria) to co-finance the Brenner rail base tunnel that forms part of the priority axis from Berlin to Palermo. The amendment also inserted a provision on regulatory charges specifically designed to combat pollution and congestion but has left legal uncertainties about where and how to apply them. This makes Member States reluctant to apply them. The above provisions constitute a step in the right direction to improve the price signal. But they still do not enable Member States to apply optimal pricing. The Directive indeed limits revenues from tolls to what is strictly necessary to recover infrastructure costs, even in areas exposed to traffic-based pollution and congestion costs above the recoverable construction costs. It fails to provide effective incentives to differentiate charges so as to align them with the main cost drivers which are the time periods, the place and the types of vehicles. Moreover, it covers only the use of the trans-European network, which may lead to inconsistent pricing structures between the main corridors and other inter-urban roads used by international transport. 1.4. Unlock more efficient and greener charging Existing road levies have not proved effective enough to internalise external costs of road freight transport. Tolls could be made more effective, but the current Directive blocks it. The Commission has long advocated greater recourse to differentiated infrastructure charges which reflect external costs. It proposed legislative measures as early as 1996 [5] to authorise Member States to integrate in tolls levied on heavy goods vehicles an external cost element. At that time, the Member States considered such a step premature because of uncertainties both about calculating external costs and about the maturity of the required toll technologies. These reasons are no longer valid. Methods of monetising the external costs of pollution, noise and congestion caused by vehicles are now available. Most are in fact already used to various degrees in nearly all Member States to carry out cost/benefit analysis of infrastructure projects. Furthermore the model devised by the Commission following the EP’s initiative (see COM (2008)…) provides reliable methods and a range of unit values which can serve as a basis for the calculation of road user charges. As to tolling technologies, electronic systems combining automatic payment transactions and location of vehicles are already in operation in several Member States and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective. A number of other Member States announced their intention to install them on their main road network by 2011. Full technical and contractual interoperability for users is already provided by Directive 2004/52/EC. Such systems have other advantages; they do not cause local queues and nuisances as do tollbooths where lorries often have to stop. To unlock greener and more efficient road charging, the Commission envisages a stepped approach. The step proposed now is to enable Member States to calculate tolls on the basis of the costs of local pollution and, on congested roads during peak periods, of congestion. It also provides incentives to both differentiate toll rates accordingly and install toll collection systems without tollbooths. The proposed framework leaves it to Member States to decide whether or not to levy tolls based on external costs. There are still uncertainties about the cost/benefit of the required toll systems on some Member States’ lesser-used networks. In these circumstances, a phasing-in approach enabling pilot schemes and encouraging a gradual build-up and sharing of experience is preferable to a binding approach based on mandatory user charges. However, the Commission will review this strategy in 2013 to identify whether a more binding approach towards the internalisation of external costs is conceivable in the light of further likely falls in the cost of technology to enforce tolls. Depending on progress in defining a common fuel tax element related to climate change in the Energy Taxation Directive, the review will also assess whether the cost of CO2 emissions should be allowed to be included in tolls. To ensure that tolls based on external costs are applied homogeneously within the internal market, the attached proposal lays down certain rules akin to those in the current Directive concerning tolls to recover infrastructure costs. These rules prevent any discrimination between domestic hauliers and foreign hauliers. They ensure that tolls neither create disproportionate obstacles to freedom of movement, nor entail controls or checks at the internal borders. In particular, they establish common charging principles and mechanisms to avoid overcharging by infrastructure monopolies. They impose the use of a common and transparent method of calculating chargeable costs. Furthermore, they promote recourse to electronic toll systems which do not create hindrance to the free flow of traffic. Lastly they make sure that a document indicating the amount of the charge is issued to the haulier so that the latter can easily pass on the cost to the shipper. Sustainable transport requires recourse to better pricing instruments but also considerable investment in research and development and infrastructure. Funding is particularly needed to reduce road pollution at source, improve CO2 and energy performance of vehicle and offer a wider choice of realistic alternatives for users. Charging will be more effective when these needs are properly addressed. The current Directive recommends that revenue from infrastructure charges should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system. In the case of the mark-up in mountainous areas, the legislator specified that such a mark-up on tolls paid by users coming from all the EU could be levied but only if revenues were clearly earmarked to specific projects of the trans-European network, hence transport projects with a general Community interest. Inspired by the same principle, the Commission proposes that any additional revenue from the part of a toll which is related to pollution and congestion is used to make transport more sustainable, hence with a Community interest and long-term benefits for transport users at large. On a final note, it should be stressed that failing to enable more efficient and greener road pricing is not an option, neither for sustainable mobility, nor for the internal market. Given the growing environmental impact of transport, time is pressing and efficient pricing is a good way to reduce the negative impact of transport at least cost to the economy. Local governments in areas exposed to high congestion and pollution caused by international transport could be left with no alternative but to take up in an uncoordinated way other sorts of measures, like sectoral traffic bans. This would disrupt supply chains and create disproportionate obstacles to freedom of movement. 1.5. Consistency with the other policies and the objectives of the Union The proposed directive is part of the Commission’s work programme (TREN/2008/073) and of the ‘Greening Transport’ package. From a general point of view, it contributes to both the EU Lisbon agenda and the Sustainable Development Strategy as it enables action to better manage congestion, to curb transport air emissions and as it encourages the development of cleaner transport technologies.
Revised version (Article 10 ):
1. For the purpose of this Directive, the rates of exchange between the euro and the national currencies of the Member States which have not adopted the euro shall be those in force on the first working day of October and published in the Official Journal of the European Union ; they shall have effect from 1 January of the following calendar year. 2. Member States which have not adopted the euro may maintain the amounts in force at the time of the annual adjustment made pursuant to paragraph 1 if the conversion of the amounts expressed in euro would result in a change of less than 5 % when expressed in national currencies.
Article 11 
No later than 10 June 2011, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, taking account of developments in technology and the trend in traffic density, including the use of vehicles of more than 3,5 and less than 12 tonnes, and evaluating its impact on the internal market, including on island, landlocked and peripheral regions of the Community, levels of investment in the sector and its contribution to the objectives of a sustainable transport policy. Member States shall forward the necessary information for the report to the Commission no later than 10 December 2010. No later than 10 June 2008, the Commission shall present, after examining all options including environment, noise, congestion and health-related costs, a generally applicable, transparent and comprehensible model for the assessment of all external costs to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges. This model shall be accompanied by an impact analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy for a stepwise implementation of the model for all modes of transport. The report and the model shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals to the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal In 2006, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to draw up a report on a generally applicable, transparent and comprehensible model for assessing the external costs of transport, such as pollution and congestion, to serve as the basis for calculating infrastructure user charges. The Commission was asked to propose a strategy for stepwise implementation of the model for all transport modes, accompanied if appropriate by a proposal for revising Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of infrastructure [1]. More recently, in its resolution of 11 March 2008 on sustainable European transport policy, Parliament urged the Commission to come up with such a model, a strategy for implementing it in all modes, and legislative proposals starting with a review of the Directive. A Communication comprising a model and a strategy is submitted to Parliament and the Council together with this proposal (see COM(2008) 435). The goal is to set transport prices correctly so that they better reflect the costs of the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, but in particular in the road sector given its influence on the transport system and its contributory effect on traffic and emissions. In this sector, this implies greater recourse to tolls which vary according to the distance travelled, the location and the time of use in proportion of the external costs caused by vehicles. The attached proposal contributes to this broader strategy. Its objectives are to encourage Member States to implement differentiated charging to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of road freight transport. It seeks to amend Directive 1999/62/EC to establish a framework which enables Member States to calculate and vary tolls on the basis of the costs of traffic based pollution and of congestion in a way compatible with the internal market. Such charges will encourage transport operators to use cleaner vehicles, to choose less congested routes, to optimise the loading of their vehicles, and ultimately to make more efficient use of infrastructure. 1.2. General context Transport plays a crucial role in the economy and society. But it relies heavily on oil and its use produces costs on society in terms of health costs and loss of production due to air and noise pollution and accidents; time and fuel wasted in congestion; and broader environmental damage such as climate change. Currently these external costs are borne by the rest of society either through general taxation to pay for policing, road management services, and hospital treatment or through the impact of noise, emissions and accidents on people’s health and quality of life. Roughly 90% of these negative impacts is usually attributed to road transport and a quarter to road freight transport. Given the steady growth of road freight transport, in particular international road freight transport, which forecasts see as possibly doubling between 2000 and 2020, these social costs are most likely to increase. As outlined by the 2006 review of the European Transport Policy, a wide range of policy tools at EU and Member State level is required to optimise European logistics chains, make all transport greener and more efficient, and ultimately ensure more sustainable transport. The right policy mix must not only act on the supply of transport, it must address pricing, which in a market economy is an efficient way to better manage transport demand and achieve more efficient use of infrastructure. Current levies on road freight transport reflect a wide variety of approaches between Member States. Some countries rely on a mix of different taxation instruments (fuel and vehicle taxes). In others, the fiscal mix is more diverse and includes road user charges to recover infrastructure costs from hauliers using motorways. User charges take the form of time-based fees (e.g. the Eurovignette [2]), introduced often as a transitional system, or distance-based charges (tolls) levied on individual road sections or the full primary network. In most cases, current levies by Member States fail to send the right price signals. Road users are all treated alike, irrespective of the congestion or pollution they cause. They are not provided with effective incentives to use cleaner vehicles and to adapt their choice of route and mobility behaviour. While a lorry may be charged a toll to use a motorway crossing a rural area, it usually does not pay any user charge when crossing a densely populated area even though its cost in terms of pollution and congestion may typically be five times higher. With the exception of climate change, most of the external costs are borne by the population and the local or national governments of the territory where transport takes place and not where the vehicle is registered, nor where the vehicle is refuelled. These costs vary according to the travelled distance, the environmental performance of vehicle (e.g. Euro emission standards) and different points in time (peak or off peak) and space (densely populated area or not). This is especially the case for the costs of air pollution, of noise and of congestion. The best pricing instruments for assigning these costs to users in a fair and efficient way are tolls. The main reason is that tolls can vary according to the main cost drivers of pollution and congestion. Unlike fuel taxes, they can vary according to the emission standards of vehicles; contrary to vehicle taxes or time-based user charges (vignettes), they can vary according to the intensity, location and time of use. This allows the tolls to be set at a level which better reflects the real use of vehicles and therefore the external costs that users actually cause. The impact analysis carried out by the Commission suggests that even with a simple degree of differentiation tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution and of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles would yield considerable welfare benefits in terms of saving time, reducing pollution, improving road safety and optimising the use of infrastructure and of the transport system at large. By reducing the consumption of fuel wasted in congestion, it would also reduce emissions of CO2 from road transport. Hence, such tolling schemes would be a welcome contribution to the climate change strategy. It should be stressed that a toll set in a Member State on the basis of the costs of congestion and pollution has a direct relationship with the use of infrastructure. Its key goal is to optimise the transport system and make mobility more sustainable. The toll is a payment for costs to the Member State, to the infrastructure provider and to the local population. In return, this payment gives the right to use the infrastructure and to consume scarce capacity and resources. As envisaged in the attached proposal, its revenue will be used to develop transport alternatives (cleaner vehicles, new infrastructure). Since a toll is payable by all users, irrespective of their Member State of registration (where domestic vehicle taxes are due) or of where the vehicle is refuelled (where domestic fuel taxes are paid), there is no risk that it distorts competition between hauliers from different Member States. As to climate change, the impact of motor vehicles is global. Its cost does not depend on the time and place where the vehicle is used but on fuel consumption. Hence, fuel taxes are usually considered a simple and efficient way of internalising this cost irrespective of any other measures taken to achieve the target agreed at the level of the European Union for reducing CO2. On this issue, the Commission has already proposed invoking Article 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to improve coordination of taxes on motor fuels, partly by raising the minimum Community rate for commercial diesel fuel [3]. The Commission will further review the general energy taxation Directive to ensure that it better reflects the EU's climate change and energy goals. However, if the results achieved are not satisfactory by the end of 2013, the Commission will assess whether to further review the Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles so that it does not prevent Member States to include a CO2 charging element in tolls. Lastly road accidents make up an important part of the social costs. In 2003, the Commission proposed to enable the inclusion of accident costs in the calculation of tolls. But this particular provision was eventually rejected by Parliament and the Council [4]. Accident risks are related not only to the distance travelled but also to complex factors such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or failure to use seat belts, hence instruments like insurance rates might be a more effective tool. This issue will be further reflected upon in the review of the European road safety Action Programme that the Commission intends to carry out until 2010. 1.3. Directive in force Directive 1999/62/EC recognises the “user pays” principle by allowing Member States to levy distance-based charges (tolls) to recover the cost of construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure. The Directive also authorizes time-based charges below a maximum rate. Toll rates may be varied according to vehicle emission standards or congestion levels, but under a condition of revenue neutrality on a biennial basis. However, except in Germany and the Czech Republic this option has hardly been exercised. One of the reasons is the great complexity for infrastructure operators to adjust their charging structure to the demand response in a way that keeps their revenue constant. In 2006, the Directive was amended by Directive 2006/38/EC to set out the rules for calculating chargeable infrastructure costs. It has allowed tolls in mountainous areas, to be marked-up by up to 25% to co-finance alternative infrastructure labelled trans-European network priority projects by Parliament and the Council. This mark-up is currently applied on the Brenner motorway (Austria) to co-finance the Brenner rail base tunnel that forms part of the priority axis from Berlin to Palermo. The amendment also inserted a provision on regulatory charges specifically designed to combat pollution and congestion but has left legal uncertainties about where and how to apply them. This makes Member States reluctant to apply them. The above provisions constitute a step in the right direction to improve the price signal. But they still do not enable Member States to apply optimal pricing. The Directive indeed limits revenues from tolls to what is strictly necessary to recover infrastructure costs, even in areas exposed to traffic-based pollution and congestion costs above the recoverable construction costs. It fails to provide effective incentives to differentiate charges so as to align them with the main cost drivers which are the time periods, the place and the types of vehicles. Moreover, it covers only the use of the trans-European network, which may lead to inconsistent pricing structures between the main corridors and other inter-urban roads used by international transport. 1.4. Unlock more efficient and greener charging Existing road levies have not proved effective enough to internalise external costs of road freight transport. Tolls could be made more effective, but the current Directive blocks it. The Commission has long advocated greater recourse to differentiated infrastructure charges which reflect external costs. It proposed legislative measures as early as 1996 [5] to authorise Member States to integrate in tolls levied on heavy goods vehicles an external cost element. At that time, the Member States considered such a step premature because of uncertainties both about calculating external costs and about the maturity of the required toll technologies. These reasons are no longer valid. Methods of monetising the external costs of pollution, noise and congestion caused by vehicles are now available. Most are in fact already used to various degrees in nearly all Member States to carry out cost/benefit analysis of infrastructure projects. Furthermore the model devised by the Commission following the EP’s initiative (see COM (2008)…) provides reliable methods and a range of unit values which can serve as a basis for the calculation of road user charges. As to tolling technologies, electronic systems combining automatic payment transactions and location of vehicles are already in operation in several Member States and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective. A number of other Member States announced their intention to install them on their main road network by 2011. Full technical and contractual interoperability for users is already provided by Directive 2004/52/EC. Such systems have other advantages; they do not cause local queues and nuisances as do tollbooths where lorries often have to stop. To unlock greener and more efficient road charging, the Commission envisages a stepped approach. The step proposed now is to enable Member States to calculate tolls on the basis of the costs of local pollution and, on congested roads during peak periods, of congestion. It also provides incentives to both differentiate toll rates accordingly and install toll collection systems without tollbooths. The proposed framework leaves it to Member States to decide whether or not to levy tolls based on external costs. There are still uncertainties about the cost/benefit of the required toll systems on some Member States’ lesser-used networks. In these circumstances, a phasing-in approach enabling pilot schemes and encouraging a gradual build-up and sharing of experience is preferable to a binding approach based on mandatory user charges. However, the Commission will review this strategy in 2013 to identify whether a more binding approach towards the internalisation of external costs is conceivable in the light of further likely falls in the cost of technology to enforce tolls. Depending on progress in defining a common fuel tax element related to climate change in the Energy Taxation Directive, the review will also assess whether the cost of CO2 emissions should be allowed to be included in tolls. To ensure that tolls based on external costs are applied homogeneously within the internal market, the attached proposal lays down certain rules akin to those in the current Directive concerning tolls to recover infrastructure costs. These rules prevent any discrimination between domestic hauliers and foreign hauliers. They ensure that tolls neither create disproportionate obstacles to freedom of movement, nor entail controls or checks at the internal borders. In particular, they establish common charging principles and mechanisms to avoid overcharging by infrastructure monopolies. They impose the use of a common and transparent method of calculating chargeable costs. Furthermore, they promote recourse to electronic toll systems which do not create hindrance to the free flow of traffic. Lastly they make sure that a document indicating the amount of the charge is issued to the haulier so that the latter can easily pass on the cost to the shipper. Sustainable transport requires recourse to better pricing instruments but also considerable investment in research and development and infrastructure. Funding is particularly needed to reduce road pollution at source, improve CO2 and energy performance of vehicle and offer a wider choice of realistic alternatives for users. Charging will be more effective when these needs are properly addressed. The current Directive recommends that revenue from infrastructure charges should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system. In the case of the mark-up in mountainous areas, the legislator specified that such a mark-up on tolls paid by users coming from all the EU could be levied but only if revenues were clearly earmarked to specific projects of the trans-European network, hence transport projects with a general Community interest. Inspired by the same principle, the Commission proposes that any additional revenue from the part of a toll which is related to pollution and congestion is used to make transport more sustainable, hence with a Community interest and long-term benefits for transport users at large. On a final note, it should be stressed that failing to enable more efficient and greener road pricing is not an option, neither for sustainable mobility, nor for the internal market. Given the growing environmental impact of transport, time is pressing and efficient pricing is a good way to reduce the negative impact of transport at least cost to the economy. Local governments in areas exposed to high congestion and pollution caused by international transport could be left with no alternative but to take up in an uncoordinated way other sorts of measures, like sectoral traffic bans. This would disrupt supply chains and create disproportionate obstacles to freedom of movement. 1.5. Consistency with the other policies and the objectives of the Union The proposed directive is part of the Commission’s work programme (TREN/2008/073) and of the ‘Greening Transport’ package. From a general point of view, it contributes to both the EU Lisbon agenda and the Sustainable Development Strategy as it enables action to better manage congestion, to curb transport air emissions and as it encourages the development of cleaner transport technologies.
Revised version (Article 11 ):
1. By 16 October 2014, and every four years thereafter, Member States which levy an external-cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge shall draw up a report on tolls, including concession tolls, levied on their territory and shall forward it to the Commission which shall make it available to the other Member States. That report may exclude tolling arrangements that were already in place on 10 June 2008 and which do not include external-cost charges, as long as those arrangements remain in force and provided that they are not substantially amended. That report shall comprise information on: (a) the weighted average external-cost charge and the specific amounts levied for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and period of time; (b) the variation of infrastructure charges according to the type of vehicles and time; (c) the weighted average infrastructure cost charge and total revenue raised through the infrastructure charge; (d) the total revenue raised through external cost charges; and (e) the actions taken pursuant to Article 9(2). 2. By 16 October 2015, the Commission, assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 9c, shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, in particular as regards the effectiveness of the provisions on the recovery of the costs related to traffic-based pollution, and on the inclusion of vehicles of more than 3,5 and less than 12 tonnes. The report shall also analyse, based on continuous monitoring, and assess, amongst others: (a) the effectiveness of the measures foreseen in this Directive in order to tackle negative impacts caused by road transport taking also into account, in particular, the impact on geographically isolated and peripheral Member States; (b) the effect of the implementation of this Directive to direct users toward the most environmentally friendly and efficient transport solutions and shall include information on the introduction of distance-based charges; (c) the implementation and effect of the variation of infrastructure charges as referred to in Article 7g on the reduction of local air pollution and congestion. The report shall also evaluate whether the maximum variation and peak period as referred to in Article 7g are sufficient to enable a proper functioning of the variation mechanism; (d) scientific progress in estimating external costs of transport for the purpose of internalising them; and (e) progress towards applying charges to road users and ways of gradually harmonising the charging systems that are applied to commercial vehicles. The report shall also evaluate the use of electronic systems to levy and collect infrastructure and external-cost charges and their degree of interoperability pursuant to Directive 2004/52/EC. 3. The report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive. 4. By 16 October 2012, the Commission shall present a report that summarises the other measures, such as regulatory policies, taken to internalise or reduce the external costs related to environment, noise and health from all transport modes, including the legal basis and maximum values used. In order to ensure fair intermodal competition while gradually charging the external costs of all transport modes, it shall include a timetable of the measures which remain to be taken to address other modes or vehicles and/or the external-cost elements not taken into account yet, taking into account progress in revising Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity ( 18 ).
Article 12 
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by l July 2000. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt such measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such a reference shall be adopted by Member States. 2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.
Article 13 
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
Article 14 
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.