Article 1 
This Directive applies to vehicle taxes, tolls and user charges imposed on vehicles as defined in Article 2. This Directive shall not affect vehicles carrying out transport operations exclusively in the non-European territories of the Member States. It shall also not affect vehicles registered in the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla, the Azores or Madeira and carrying out transport operations exclusively in those territories or between those territories and, respectively, mainland Spain and mainland Portugal.
Article 2 
For the purposes of this Directive: (a) ‘trans-European road network’ means the road network defined in Section 2 of Annex I to Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network ( 10 ) as illustrated by maps. The maps refer to the corresponding sections mentioned in the operative part of and/or in Annex II to that Decision; (aa) ‘construction costs’ means the costs related to construction, including, where appropriate, the financing costs, of: — new infrastructure or new infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs), or — infrastructure or infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs) completed no more than 30 years before 10 June 2008, where tolling arrangements are already in place on 10 June 2008, or completed no more than 30 years before the establishment of any new tolling arrangements introduced after 10 June 2008; costs regarding infrastructure or infrastructure improvements completed before these time limits may also be considered as construction costs where: — (i) a Member State has established a tolling system which provides for the recovery of these costs by means of a contract with a tolling system operator, or other legal acts having equivalent effect, which enter into force before 10 June 2008, or (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; (aa) ‘construction costs’ means the costs related to construction, including, where appropriate, the financing costs, of: — new infrastructure or new infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs), or — infrastructure or infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs) completed no more than 30 years before 10 June 2008, where tolling arrangements are already in place on 10 June 2008, or completed no more than 30 years before the establishment of any new tolling arrangements introduced after 10 June 2008; costs regarding infrastructure or infrastructure improvements completed before these time limits may also be considered as construction costs where: — (i) a Member State has established a tolling system which provides for the recovery of these costs by means of a contract with a tolling system operator, or other legal acts having equivalent effect, which enter into force before 10 June 2008, or (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; — infrastructure or infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs) completed no more than 30 years before 10 June 2008, where tolling arrangements are already in place on 10 June 2008, or completed no more than 30 years before the establishment of any new tolling arrangements introduced after 10 June 2008; costs regarding infrastructure or infrastructure improvements completed before these time limits may also be considered as construction costs where: (i) a Member State has established a tolling system which provides for the recovery of these costs by means of a contract with a tolling system operator, or other legal acts having equivalent effect, which enter into force before 10 June 2008, or (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; (ab) ‘financing costs’ means interest on borrowings and/or return on any equity funding contributed by shareholders; (ac) ‘significant structural repairs’ means structural repairs excluding those repairs no longer of any current benefit to road users, e.g. where the repair work has been replaced by further road resurfacing or other construction work; (b) ‘toll’ means a specified amount payable for a vehicle travelling a given distance on the infrastructures referred to in Article 7(1); the amount shall be based on the distance travelled and the type of vehicle; (ba) ‘weighted average toll’ means the total revenue raised through tolls over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on a given network subject to tolling during that period, both the revenue and the vehicle kilometres being calculated for the vehicles to which tolls apply; (c) ‘user charge’ means a specified amount payment of which confers the right for a vehicle to use for a given period the infrastructures referred to in Article 7(1); (d) ‘vehicle’ means a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle combination intended or used exclusively for the carriage by road of goods and having a maximum permissible laden weight of over 3,5 tonnes; e) vehicle of the ‘EURO 0’, ‘EURO I’, ‘EURO II’, ‘EURO III’, ‘EURO IV’, ‘EURO V’, ‘EEV’ category means a vehicle that complies with the emission limits set out in Annex 0; (f) ‘type of vehicle’ means a category into which a vehicle falls according to the number of its axles, its dimensions or weight, or other vehicle classification factors reflecting road damage, e.g. the road damage classification system set out in Annex IV, provided that the classification system used is based on vehicle characteristics which either appear in the vehicle documentation used in all Member States or are visually apparent; (g) ‘concession contract’ means a ‘public works concession’ or a ‘service concession’ as defined in Article 1 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts ( 11 ); (h) ‘concession toll’ means a toll levied by a concessionaire under a concession contract.
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 2 ):
For the purposes of this Directive: (a) ‘trans-European road network’ means the road network defined in Section 2 of Annex I to Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network ( 10 ) as illustrated by maps. The maps refer to the corresponding sections mentioned in the operative part of and/or in Annex II to that Decision; (aa) ‘construction costs’ means the costs related to construction, including, where appropriate, the financing costs, of: — new infrastructure or new infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs), or — infrastructure or infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs) completed no more than 30 years before 10 June 2008, where tolling arrangements are already in place on 10 June 2008, or completed no more than 30 years before the establishment of any new tolling arrangements introduced after 10 June 2008; costs regarding infrastructure or infrastructure improvements completed before these time limits may also be considered as construction costs where: — (i) a Member State has established a tolling system which provides for the recovery of these costs by means of a contract with a tolling system operator, or other legal acts having equivalent effect, which enter into force before 10 June 2008, or (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; (aa) ‘construction costs’ means the costs related to construction, including, where appropriate, the financing costs, of: — new infrastructure or new infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs), or — infrastructure or infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs) completed no more than 30 years before 10 June 2008, where tolling arrangements are already in place on 10 June 2008, or completed no more than 30 years before the establishment of any new tolling arrangements introduced after 10 June 2008; costs regarding infrastructure or infrastructure improvements completed before these time limits may also be considered as construction costs where: — (i) a Member State has established a tolling system which provides for the recovery of these costs by means of a contract with a tolling system operator, or other legal acts having equivalent effect, which enter into force before 10 June 2008, or (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; — infrastructure or infrastructure improvements (including significant structural repairs) completed no more than 30 years before 10 June 2008, where tolling arrangements are already in place on 10 June 2008, or completed no more than 30 years before the establishment of any new tolling arrangements introduced after 10 June 2008; costs regarding infrastructure or infrastructure improvements completed before these time limits may also be considered as construction costs where: (i) a Member State has established a tolling system which provides for the recovery of these costs by means of a contract with a tolling system operator, or other legal acts having equivalent effect, which enter into force before 10 June 2008, or (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; (ii) a Member State can demonstrate that the case for building the infrastructure in question depended on its having a design lifetime in excess of 30 years. In any event, the proportion of the construction costs to be taken into account shall not exceed the proportion of the current design lifetime period of infrastructure components still to run on 10 June 2008 or on the date when the new tolling arrangements are introduced, where this is a later date. Costs of infrastructure or infrastructure improvements may include any specific expenditure on infrastructure designed to reduce nuisance related to noise or to improve road safety and actual payments made by the infrastructure operator corresponding to objective environmental elements such as protection against soil contamination; (ab) ‘financing costs’ means interest on borrowings and/or return on any equity funding contributed by shareholders; (ac) ‘significant structural repairs’ means structural repairs excluding those repairs no longer of any current benefit to road users, e.g. where the repair work has been replaced by further road resurfacing or other construction work; (ad) ‘motorway’ means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which: (i) is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means; (ii) does not cross at grade with any road, railway or tramway track, bicycle path or footpath; and (iii) is specifically designated as a motorway; (ad) ‘motorway’ means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which: (i) is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means; (ii) does not cross at grade with any road, railway or tramway track, bicycle path or footpath; and (iii) is specifically designated as a motorway; (b) ‘toll’ means a specified amount payable for a vehicle based on the distance travelled on a given infrastructure and on the type of the vehicle comprising an infrastructure charge and/or an external-cost charge; (ba) ‘infrastructure charge’ means a charge levied for the purpose of recovering the construction, the maintenance, the operation and the development costs related to infrastructure incurred in a Member State; (bb) ‘external-cost charge’ means a charge levied for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred in a Member State related to traffic-based air pollution and/or traffic-based noise pollution; (bc) ‘cost of traffic-based air pollution’ means the cost of the damage caused by the release of particulate matter and of ozone precursors, such as nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds, in the course of the operation of a vehicle; (bd) ‘cost of traffic-based noise pollution’ means the cost of the damage caused by the noise emitted by the vehicles or created by their interaction with the road surface; (be) ‘weighted average infrastructure charge’ means the total revenue of an infrastructure charge over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on the road sections subject to the charge during that period; (bf) ‘weighted average external-cost charge’ means the total revenue of an external-cost charge over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on the road sections subject to the charge during that period; (c) ‘user charge’ means a specified amount payment of which confers the right for a vehicle to use for a given period the infrastructures referred to in Article 7(1); (d) ‘vehicle’ means a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle combination intended or used for the carriage by road of goods and having a maximum permissible laden weight of over 3,5 tonnes; e) vehicle of the ‘EURO 0’, ‘EURO I’, ‘EURO II’, ‘EURO III’, ‘EURO IV’, ‘EURO V’, ‘EEV’ category means a vehicle that complies with the emission limits set out in Annex 0; (f) ‘type of vehicle’ means a category into which a vehicle falls according to the number of its axles, its dimensions or weight, or other vehicle classification factors reflecting road damage, e.g. the road damage classification system set out in Annex IV, provided that the classification system used is based on vehicle characteristics which either appear in the vehicle documentation used in all Member States or are visually apparent; (g) ‘concession contract’ means a ‘public works concession’ or a ‘service concession’ as defined in Article 1 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts ( 11 ); (h) ‘concession toll’ means a toll levied by a concessionaire under a concession contract.
Article 3 
1. The vehicle taxes referred to in Article are as follows: — Belgium : — taxe de circulation sur les véhicules automobiles/ verkeersbelasting op de autovoertuigen, — Belgium : taxe de circulation sur les véhicules automobiles/ verkeersbelasting op de autovoertuigen, — Bulgaria : — данък върху превозните средства, — Bulgaria : данък върху превозните средства, — Czech Republic : — silniční daň, — Czech Republic : silniční daň, — Denmark : — vaegtafgift of motorkeretrajer m.v., — Denmark : vaegtafgift of motorkeretrajer m.v., — Germany : — Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Germany : Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Estonia : — raskeveokimaks, — Estonia : raskeveokimaks, — Greece : — Τέλη κυκλοφορίας, — Greece : Τέλη κυκλοφορίας, — Spain : — (a) impuesto sobre vehiculos de traccion mecanica; (b) impuesto sobre actividades economicas (solely as regards the amount of the levies charged for motor vehicles), — Spain : (a) impuesto sobre vehiculos de traccion mecanica; (b) impuesto sobre actividades economicas (solely as regards the amount of the levies charged for motor vehicles), — France : — (a) taxe spéciale sur certains véhicules routiers; (b) taxe différentielle sur les véhicules a moteur, — France : (a) taxe spéciale sur certains véhicules routiers; (b) taxe différentielle sur les véhicules a moteur, — Ireland : — vehicle excise duty, — Ireland : vehicle excise duty, — Italy : — (a) tassa automobilistica; (b) addizionale del 5 % sulfa tassa automobilistica, — Italy : (a) tassa automobilistica; (b) addizionale del 5 % sulfa tassa automobilistica, — Cyprus : — Τέλη Κυκλοφορίας Οχημάτων, — Cyprus : Τέλη Κυκλοφορίας Οχημάτων, — Latvia : — transportlīdzekļa ikgadējā nodeva, — Latvia : transportlīdzekļa ikgadējā nodeva, — Lithuania : — (a) Transporto priemonių savininkų ar valdytojų naudotojo mokestis; (b) Mokestis už Lietuvoje įregistruotas krovinines transporto priemones, — Lithuania : (a) Transporto priemonių savininkų ar valdytojų naudotojo mokestis; (b) Mokestis už Lietuvoje įregistruotas krovinines transporto priemones, — Luxembourg : — taxe sur les véhicules automoteurs, — Luxembourg : taxe sur les véhicules automoteurs, — Hungary : — gépjárműadó, — Hungary : gépjárműadó, — Malta : — liċenzja tat-triq/road licence fee, — Malta : liċenzja tat-triq/road licence fee, — Netherlands : — motorrijtuigenbelasting, — Netherlands : motorrijtuigenbelasting, — Austria : — Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Austria : Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Poland : — podatek od środków transportowych, — Poland : podatek od środków transportowych, — Portugal : — (a) imposto de camionagem; (b) imposto de circulaçao, — Portugal : (a) imposto de camionagem; (b) imposto de circulaçao, — Romania : — Taxa asupra mijloacelor de transport, — Romania : Taxa asupra mijloacelor de transport, — Slovenia : — letno povračilo za uporabo javnih cest za motorna in priklopna vozila, — Slovenia : letno povračilo za uporabo javnih cest za motorna in priklopna vozila, — Slovakia : — cestná daň, — Slovakia : cestná daň, — Finland : — varsinainen ajoneuvovero/egentlig fordonsskatt, — Finland : varsinainen ajoneuvovero/egentlig fordonsskatt, — Sweden : — fordonsskatt, — Sweden : fordonsskatt, — United Kingdom : — (a) vehicle excise duty; (b) motor vehicles licence. — United Kingdom : (a) vehicle excise duty; (b) motor vehicles licence. 2. Member States which replace any tax listed in paragraph l with another tax of the same kind shall notify the Commission, which shall make the necessary amendments.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal for a Council Directive adapting certain directives in the field of transport policy is necessitated by the upcoming accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union. The Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union[1] was signed by all Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Croatia at Brussels on 9 December 2011. Article 3 (3) of the Treaty of Accession provides that it shall enter into force on 1 July 2013 provided that all the instruments of ratification have been deposited before that date. Article 3(4) of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia enables the institutions of the Union to adopt before accession measures referred to, inter alia, in Article 50 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia[2]. These measures shall enter into force only subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession. Article 50 of the Act of Accession provides that where acts of the institutions adopted prior to accession require adaptation by reason of accession, and the necessary adaptations have not been provided for in this Act or its Annexes, the Council or the Commission (if the original acts were adopted by the Commission) shall adopt the necessary acts. Point 2 of the Final Act[3] refers to the political agreement on a set of adaptations to be adopted by the institutions which was reached between the Member States and Croatia in the context of the approval of the Treaty of Accession; the High Contracting Parties of the Treaty of Accession invited the Council and the Commission to adopt these adaptations before accession in accordance with Article 50 of the Act of Accession, completed and updated where necessary to take account of the evolution of the law of the Union. The present proposal covers all Council directives as well as European Parliament and Council directives which require technical adaptation by reason of the accession of Croatia in the field of transport policy – corresponding to negotiation chapter 14. This proposal is part of a series of proposals for Council directives by the Commission to the Council which regroup the technical adaptations to Council directives as well as European Parliament and Council directives corresponding to negotiation chapters into separate proposals for different Council directives. This structure is designed to facilitate the transposition of the directives concerned by Member States into their respective legal orders. The package of proposals for legal acts which the Commission has transmitted to the Council is composed of this series of proposals for Council directives on the one hand, as well as of a proposal for a single Council regulation which covers the relevant European Parliament and Council regulations and decisions as well as the relevant Council regulations and decisions on the other hand. This is in line with the approach which was taken in the past in view of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania[4]. It is foreseen that all the legal acts included in this package will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union at the same date. The present proposal and the other proposals included in this package will take into account technical adaptations to the acquis which were published in the Official Journal of the European Union until 1 September 2012. The reasons for this are to provide sufficient time for the legislative processes involved on the one hand, and for the fulfilment of the ensuing transposition and notification obligations by Member States as regards directives on the other hand. Adaptations which may be necessary to the acquis published in the Official Journal of the European Union after 1 September 2012 will be foreseen in the relevant acts themselves or done at a later stage through the appropriate procedure. In addition, the Commission intends to informally provide a list of such legislation to Member States in early July 2013.
Revised version (Article 3 ):
1. The vehicle taxes referred to in Article are as follows: — Belgium : — taxe de circulation sur les véhicules automobiles/ verkeersbelasting op de autovoertuigen, — Belgium : taxe de circulation sur les véhicules automobiles/ verkeersbelasting op de autovoertuigen, — Bulgaria : — данък върху превозните средства, — Bulgaria : данък върху превозните средства, — Czech Republic : — silniční daň, — Czech Republic : silniční daň, — Denmark : — vaegtafgift of motorkeretrajer m.v., — Denmark : vaegtafgift of motorkeretrajer m.v., — Germany : — Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Germany : Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Estonia : — raskeveokimaks, — Estonia : raskeveokimaks, — Greece : — Τέλη κυκλοφορίας, — Greece : Τέλη κυκλοφορίας, — Spain : — (a) impuesto sobre vehiculos de traccion mecanica; (b) impuesto sobre actividades economicas (solely as regards the amount of the levies charged for motor vehicles), — Spain : (a) impuesto sobre vehiculos de traccion mecanica; (b) impuesto sobre actividades economicas (solely as regards the amount of the levies charged for motor vehicles), — France : — (a) taxe spéciale sur certains véhicules routiers; (b) taxe différentielle sur les véhicules a moteur, — France : (a) taxe spéciale sur certains véhicules routiers; (b) taxe différentielle sur les véhicules a moteur, — Croatia : — godišnja naknada za uporabu javnih cesta koja se plaća pri registraciji motornih i priključnih vozila, — Croatia : godišnja naknada za uporabu javnih cesta koja se plaća pri registraciji motornih i priključnih vozila, — Ireland : — vehicle excise duty, — Ireland : vehicle excise duty, — Italy : — (a) tassa automobilistica; (b) addizionale del 5 % sulfa tassa automobilistica, — Italy : (a) tassa automobilistica; (b) addizionale del 5 % sulfa tassa automobilistica, — Cyprus : — Τέλη Κυκλοφορίας Οχημάτων, — Cyprus : Τέλη Κυκλοφορίας Οχημάτων, — Latvia : — transportlīdzekļa ikgadējā nodeva, — Latvia : transportlīdzekļa ikgadējā nodeva, — Lithuania : — (a) Transporto priemonių savininkų ar valdytojų naudotojo mokestis; (b) Mokestis už Lietuvoje įregistruotas krovinines transporto priemones, — Lithuania : (a) Transporto priemonių savininkų ar valdytojų naudotojo mokestis; (b) Mokestis už Lietuvoje įregistruotas krovinines transporto priemones, — Luxembourg : — taxe sur les véhicules automoteurs, — Luxembourg : taxe sur les véhicules automoteurs, — Hungary : — gépjárműadó, — Hungary : gépjárműadó, — Malta : — liċenzja tat-triq/road licence fee, — Malta : liċenzja tat-triq/road licence fee, — Netherlands : — motorrijtuigenbelasting, — Netherlands : motorrijtuigenbelasting, — Austria : — Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Austria : Kraftfahrzeugsteuer, — Poland : — podatek od środków transportowych, — Poland : podatek od środków transportowych, — Portugal : — (a) imposto de camionagem; (b) imposto de circulaçao, — Portugal : (a) imposto de camionagem; (b) imposto de circulaçao, — Romania : — Taxa asupra mijloacelor de transport, — Romania : Taxa asupra mijloacelor de transport, — Slovenia : — letno povračilo za uporabo javnih cest za motorna in priklopna vozila, — Slovenia : letno povračilo za uporabo javnih cest za motorna in priklopna vozila, — Slovakia : — cestná daň, — Slovakia : cestná daň, — Finland : — varsinainen ajoneuvovero/egentlig fordonsskatt, — Finland : varsinainen ajoneuvovero/egentlig fordonsskatt, — Sweden : — fordonsskatt, — Sweden : fordonsskatt, — United Kingdom : — (a) vehicle excise duty; (b) motor vehicles licence. — United Kingdom : (a) vehicle excise duty; (b) motor vehicles licence. 2. Member States which replace any tax listed in paragraph l with another tax of the same kind shall notify the Commission, which shall make the necessary amendments.
Article 4 
Procedures for levying and collecting the taxes referred to in Article 3 shall be determined by each Member State.
Article 5 
As regards vehicles registered in the Member States, the taxes referred to in Article 3 shall be charged solely by the Member State of registration.
Article 6 
1. Whatever the structure of the taxes referred to in Article 3, Member States shall set the rates so as to ensure that the tax rate for each vehicle category or subcategory referred to in Annex I is not lower than the minimum laid down in that Annex. Until two years after entry into force of the Directive, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain shall be authorised to apply rates that are lower than, but not less than, 65 % of the minima laid down in Annex I. 2. Member States may apply reduced rates or exemptions for: (a) vehicles used for national or civil defence purposes, by fire and other emergency services and by the police, and vehicles used for road maintenance; (b) vehicles which travel only occasionally on the public roads of the Member State of registration and are used by natural or legal persons whose main occupation is not the carriage of goods, provided that the transport operations carried out by these vehicles do not cause distortions of competition, and subject to the Commission's agreement. (a) The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise a Member State to maintain further exemptions from or reductions in taxes on vehicles on the grounds of specific policies of a socio-economic nature or linked to that State's infrastructure. Such exemptions or reductions may apply only to vehicles registered in that Member State which carry out transport operations exclusively inside a well-defined part of its territory. (b) Any Member State wishing to maintain such an exemption or reduction shall inform the Commission thereof and shall also forward to it all necessary information. The Commission shall inform the other Member States of the proposed exemption or reduction within one month. The Council shall be deemed to have authorised maintenance of the proposed exemption or reduction if, within a period of two months from the date on which the other Member States were informed in accordance with the first subparagraph, neither the Commission nor any Member State has requested that the matter be examined by the Council. (b) Any Member State wishing to maintain such an exemption or reduction shall inform the Commission thereof and shall also forward to it all necessary information. The Commission shall inform the other Member States of the proposed exemption or reduction within one month. The Council shall be deemed to have authorised maintenance of the proposed exemption or reduction if, within a period of two months from the date on which the other Member States were informed in accordance with the first subparagraph, neither the Commission nor any Member State has requested that the matter be examined by the Council. 4. Without prejudice to the second subparagraph of paragraph l and to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article or to Article 6 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States ( 12 ), Member States may not grant any exemption from, or any reduction in, the taxes referred to in Article 3 which would render the chargeable tax lower than the minimum referred to in paragraph l of this Article.
Article 7 
Member States may maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges on the trans-European road network, or on parts of that network, only under the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 12. This shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States, in compliance with the Treaty, to apply tolls and/or user charges on roads not included in the trans-European road network, inter alia on parallel roads to which traffic may be diverted from the trans-European road network and/or which are in direct competition with certain parts of that network, or to other types of motor vehicle not covered by the definition of ‘vehicle’ on the trans-European road network, provided that the imposition of tolls and/or user charges on such roads does not discriminate against international traffic and does not result in distortions of competition between operators. 1a. Where a Member State decides to maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges on only parts of the trans-European road network, the resulting exemptions for the other parts (for reasons such as their isolation or low levels of congestion or pollution or where essential for the introduction of a new tolling arrangement) shall not result in any discrimination against international traffic. (a) A Member State may choose to maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges applicable only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes. Where a Member State chooses to apply tolls and/or user charges to vehicles below this weight limit, the provisions of this Directive shall apply. (b) Tolls and/or user charges shall be applied to all vehicles from 2012. (c) A Member State may derogate from the requirement set out in point (b) where it considers that the extension of tolling to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would: — create significant adverse effects on the free flow of traffic, the environment, noise levels, congestion or health, or — involve administrative costs which would be more than 30 % of additional revenue generated. (c) A Member State may derogate from the requirement set out in point (b) where it considers that the extension of tolling to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would: — create significant adverse effects on the free flow of traffic, the environment, noise levels, congestion or health, or — involve administrative costs which would be more than 30 % of additional revenue generated. 3. Tolls and user charges may not both be imposed at the same time on any given category of vehicle for the use of a single road section. However, Member States may also impose tolls on networks where user charges are levied for the use of bridges, tunnels and mountain passes. 4. Tolls and user charges may not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of nationality of the haulier, the country or place of establishment of the haulier or of registration of the vehicle, or the origin or destination of the transport operation. 4a. Member States may provide for reduced toll rates or user charges or exemptions from the obligation to pay tolls or user charges for vehicles exempted from the requirement to install and use recording equipment under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport ( 13 ), and in the cases covered by, and subject to the conditions contained in, Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of this Directive. 4b. As charging structures involving discounts or reductions in tolls for frequent users may lead to actual savings in administrative costs for the infrastructure operator, Member States may provide for such discounts or reductions on condition that: — they fulfil the conditions set out in paragraph 10(a), — they comply with the Treaty, in particular Articles 12, 49, 86 and 87 thereof, — they do not distort competition in the internal market, — the resulting charging structure is linear, proportionate, available to all users on equal terms and does not lead to additional costs being passed on to other users in the form of higher tolls. Such discounts or reductions shall in no case exceed 13 % of the toll paid by equivalent vehicles not eligible for the discount or reduction. 4c. All discount and reduction schemes shall be communicated to the Commission, which shall verify compliance with the conditions set out in paragraphs 4a and 4b and shall approve them in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9c(2). 5. Tolls and user charges shall be applied and collected and their payment monitored in such a way as to cause as little hindrance as possible to the free flow of traffic and avoid any mandatory controls or checks at the Community's internal borders. To this end, Member States shall cooperate in establishing methods for enabling hauliers to pay user charges 24 hours a day, at least at the major sales outlets, using all common means of payment, inside and outside the Member States in which they are applied. Member States shall provide adequate facilities at the points of payment for tolls and user charges so as to maintain normal road-safety standards. The arrangements for the collection of tolls and/or user charges shall not, financially or otherwise, place non-regular users of the road network at an unjustified disadvantage. In particular, where a Member State collects tolls and/or user charges exclusively by means of a system that requires the use of a vehicle on-board unit, it shall make available the appropriate on-board units under reasonable administrative and economic arrangements. 7. User charges, including administrative costs, for all vehicle categories shall be set by the Member State concerned at a level which is not higher than the maximum rates laid down in Annex II. 8. User-charge rates shall be in proportion to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure. A Member State may apply only annual rates for vehicles registered in that State. Tolls shall be based on the principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs only. Specifically the weighted average tolls shall be related to the construction costs and the costs of operating, maintaining and developing the infrastructure network concerned. The weighted average tolls may also include a return on capital or profit margin based on market conditions. (a) Without prejudice to the weighted average tolls referred to in paragraph 9, Member States may vary the toll rates for purposes such as combating environmental damage, tackling congestion, minimising infrastructure damage, optimising the use of the infrastructure concerned or promoting road safety, provided that such variation: — is proportionate to the objective pursued; — is transparent and non-discriminatory particularly regarding the nationality of the haulier, the country or place of establishment of the haulier or of registration of the vehicle, and the origin or destination of the transport operation; — is not designed to generate additional tolling revenue, any unintended increase in revenue (leading to weighted average tolls which are not in accordance with paragraph 9) being counterbalanced through changes to the structure of the variation which must be implemented within two years of the end of the accounting year in which the additional revenue is generated; — respects the maximum flexibility thresholds set out in point (b). (a) Without prejudice to the weighted average tolls referred to in paragraph 9, Member States may vary the toll rates for purposes such as combating environmental damage, tackling congestion, minimising infrastructure damage, optimising the use of the infrastructure concerned or promoting road safety, provided that such variation: — is proportionate to the objective pursued; — is transparent and non-discriminatory particularly regarding the nationality of the haulier, the country or place of establishment of the haulier or of registration of the vehicle, and the origin or destination of the transport operation; — is not designed to generate additional tolling revenue, any unintended increase in revenue (leading to weighted average tolls which are not in accordance with paragraph 9) being counterbalanced through changes to the structure of the variation which must be implemented within two years of the end of the accounting year in which the additional revenue is generated; — respects the maximum flexibility thresholds set out in point (b). (b) Subject to the conditions of point (a), toll rates may be varied according to: — EURO emission class as set out in Annex 0, including the level of PM and NOx, provided that no toll is more than 100 % above the toll charged for equivalent vehicles meeting the strictest emission standards; and/or — the time of day, type of day or season, provided that: — (i) no toll is more than 100 % above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season; or (ii) where the cheapest period is zero-rated, the penalty for the most expensive time of day, type of day or season is no more than 50 % of the level of toll that would otherwise be applicable to the vehicle in question. — Member States shall be required to vary the rates at which tolls are charged in conformity with the first indent no later than 2010, or in the case of concession contracts, when that concession contract is renewed. — A Member State may nevertheless derogate from this requirement if: — (i) this would seriously undermine the coherence of the tolling systems in its territory; (ii) for the tolling system concerned, it would not be technically practicable to introduce such differentiation; or (iii) this would lead to diversion of the most polluting vehicles away from the trans-European road network with consequential impacts on road safety and public health. — Any such derogations shall be notified to the Commission. (b) Subject to the conditions of point (a), toll rates may be varied according to: — EURO emission class as set out in Annex 0, including the level of PM and NOx, provided that no toll is more than 100 % above the toll charged for equivalent vehicles meeting the strictest emission standards; and/or — the time of day, type of day or season, provided that: — (i) no toll is more than 100 % above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season; or (ii) where the cheapest period is zero-rated, the penalty for the most expensive time of day, type of day or season is no more than 50 % of the level of toll that would otherwise be applicable to the vehicle in question. — Member States shall be required to vary the rates at which tolls are charged in conformity with the first indent no later than 2010, or in the case of concession contracts, when that concession contract is renewed. — A Member State may nevertheless derogate from this requirement if: — (i) this would seriously undermine the coherence of the tolling systems in its territory; (ii) for the tolling system concerned, it would not be technically practicable to introduce such differentiation; or (iii) this would lead to diversion of the most polluting vehicles away from the trans-European road network with consequential impacts on road safety and public health. — Any such derogations shall be notified to the Commission. — the time of day, type of day or season, provided that: (i) no toll is more than 100 % above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season; or (ii) where the cheapest period is zero-rated, the penalty for the most expensive time of day, type of day or season is no more than 50 % of the level of toll that would otherwise be applicable to the vehicle in question. — Member States shall be required to vary the rates at which tolls are charged in conformity with the first indent no later than 2010, or in the case of concession contracts, when that concession contract is renewed. — A Member State may nevertheless derogate from this requirement if: (i) this would seriously undermine the coherence of the tolling systems in its territory; (ii) for the tolling system concerned, it would not be technically practicable to introduce such differentiation; or (iii) this would lead to diversion of the most polluting vehicles away from the trans-European road network with consequential impacts on road safety and public health. — Any such derogations shall be notified to the Commission. (c) Subject to the conditions of point (a), toll rates may in exceptional cases for specific projects of high European interest be subject to other forms of variation in order to secure the commercial viability of such projects, when they are exposed to direct competition with other modes of transport for vehicles. The resulting charging structure shall be linear, proportionate, openly published, available to all users on equal terms and shall not lead to additional costs being passed on to other users in the form of higher tolls. The Commission shall verify compliance with the conditions of this point prior to the implementation of the charging structure in question. 11. Without prejudice to Article 9(1) and (1a), in exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in mountainous regions and after informing the Commission, a mark-up may be added to the tolls of specific road sections: (a) which are the subject of acute congestion affecting the free movement of vehicles; or (b) the use of which by vehicles is the cause of significant environmental damage, on condition that: — the revenue generated from the mark-up is invested in priority projects of European interest identified in Annex III to Decision No 884/2004/EC, which contribute directly to the alleviation of the congestion or environmental damage in question and which are located in the same corridor as the road section on which the mark-up is applied, — the mark-up, which may be applied to tolls varied in accordance with paragraph 10, does not exceed 15 % of the weighted average toll calculated in accordance with paragraph 9 except where the revenue generated is invested in cross-border sections of priority projects of European interest involving infrastructure in mountainous regions, in which case the mark-up may not exceed 25 %, — the application of the mark-up does not result in unfair treatment of commercial traffic compared to other road users, — financial plans for the infrastructure on which the mark-up is applied and a cost/benefit analysis for the new infrastructure project are submitted to the Commission in advance of the mark-up's application, — the period for which the mark-up is to apply is defined and limited in advance and is consistent in terms of the expected revenue to be raised with the financial plans and cost/benefit analysis submitted. Application of this provision to new cross-border projects shall be subject to the agreement of the Member States concerned. When the Commission receives the financial plans from a Member State intending to apply a mark-up, it shall make this information available to the members of the Committee referred to in Article 9c(1). Should the Commission consider that the planned mark-up does not meet the conditions set out in this paragraph, or if it considers that the planned mark-up will have significant adverse effects on the economic development of peripheral regions, it may reject or request modification of the plans for charges submitted by the Member State concerned, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9c(2). 12. Where a driver is unable to produce the vehicle documents necessary to ascertain the information referred to in the first indent of paragraph 10(b), and the type of vehicle in the event of a check, Member States may apply tolls up to the highest level chargeable.
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.
Article 7a 
1. In determining the levels of weighted average tolls to be charged on the infrastructure network concerned or a clearly defined part of such a network, Member States shall take into account the various costs set out in Article 7(9). The costs taken into account shall relate to the network or part of the network on which tolls are levied and to the vehicles that are subject to the tolling. Member States may choose not to recover these costs through toll revenue or to recover only a percentage of the costs. 2. Tolls shall be determined in accordance with Article 7 and paragraph 1 of this Article. 3. For new tolling arrangements other than those involving concession tolls put in place by Member States after 10 June 2008, Member States shall calculate costs using a methodology based on the core calculation principles set out in Annex III. For new concession tolls put in place after 10 June 2008, the maximum level of tolls shall be equivalent to, or less than, the level that would have resulted from the use of a methodology based on the core calculation principles set out in Annex III. The assessment of such equivalence shall be made on the basis of a reasonably long reference period appropriate to the nature of a concession contract. Tolling arrangements already in place on 10 June 2008 or for which tenders or responses to invitations to negotiate under the negotiated procedure have been received pursuant to a public procurement process before 10 June 2008 shall not be subject to the obligations set out in this paragraph, for as long as these arrangements remain in force and provided that they are not substantially modified. 4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission at least four months before the implementation of a new tolling arrangement: (a) for tolling arrangements other than those involving concession tolls: — the unit values and other parameters they use in calculating the various cost elements, and — clear information on the vehicles covered by their tolling regime and the geographic extent of the network, or part of the network, used for each cost calculation and the percentage of costs that they are seeking to recover; (a) for tolling arrangements other than those involving concession tolls: — the unit values and other parameters they use in calculating the various cost elements, and — clear information on the vehicles covered by their tolling regime and the geographic extent of the network, or part of the network, used for each cost calculation and the percentage of costs that they are seeking to recover; (b) for tolling arrangements involving concession tolls: — the concession contracts or significant changes to such contracts, — the base case on which the grantor has founded the notice of concession, as referred to in Annex VII B to Directive 2004/18/EC; this base case shall include the estimated costs as defined in Article 7(9) envisaged under the concession, the forecasted traffic divided into types of vehicle, the levels of tolls envisaged and the geographic extent of the network covered by the concession contract. (b) for tolling arrangements involving concession tolls: — the concession contracts or significant changes to such contracts, — the base case on which the grantor has founded the notice of concession, as referred to in Annex VII B to Directive 2004/18/EC; this base case shall include the estimated costs as defined in Article 7(9) envisaged under the concession, the forecasted traffic divided into types of vehicle, the levels of tolls envisaged and the geographic extent of the network covered by the concession contract. 5. Member States shall also inform the Commission at least four months before their implementation of new tolling arrangements applicable to parallel roads to which traffic may be diverted from the trans-European road network and/or which are in direct competition with certain parts of that network on which tolls are levied. This information shall include at least an explanation of the geographic extent of the network covered by the toll, the vehicles covered and the levels of toll envisaged, together with an explanation of how the level of toll was determined. 6. For the cases subject to the obligations in paragraph 3 the Commission shall, within four months of receiving the information in accordance with paragraph 4, give an opinion as to whether these obligations appear to have been fulfilled. For the tolling arrangements referred to in paragraph 5, the Commission may also give an opinion, in particular regarding the proportionality and the transparency of the proposed arrangements and their likely impact on competition in the context of the internal market and the free movement of goods. The opinions of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c(1). 7. Where a Member State wishes to apply the provisions contained in Article 7(11) in respect of tolling arrangements already in place on 10 June 2008, it shall provide information that demonstrates that the weighted average toll being applied to the infrastructure concerned complies with Articles 2(aa), 7(9) and 7(10).
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.
Article 7b 
This Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States which introduce a system of tolls and/or user charges for infrastructure to provide, without prejudice to Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, appropriate compensation for these charges.
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 7k ):
Without prejudice to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States which introduce a system of tolls and/or user charges for infrastructure to provide appropriate compensation for those charges.
Article 8 
1. Two or more Member States may cooperate in introducing a common system for user charges applicable to their territories as a whole. In that case, those Member States shall ensure that the Commission is closely involved therein and in the system's subsequent operation and possible amendment. 2. A common system shall be subject to the following conditions in addition to those in Article 7: (a) the common user-charge rates shall be set by the participating Member States at levels that are not higher than the maximum rates referred to in Article 7(7); (b) payment of the common user charge shall give access to the network as defined by the participating Member States in accordance with Article 7(1); (c) other Member States may join the common system; (d) a scale shall be worked out by the participating Member States whereby each of them shall receive a fair share of the revenues accruing from the user charge.
Article 8a 
Each Member State shall monitor the system of tolls and/or user charges to ensure that it functions in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.
Article 9 
1. This Directive shall not prevent the non-discriminatory application by Member States of: (a) specific taxes or charges: — levied upon registration of the vehicle, or — imposed on vehicles or loads of abnormal weights or dimensions; (a) specific taxes or charges: — levied upon registration of the vehicle, or — imposed on vehicles or loads of abnormal weights or dimensions; (b) parking fees and specific urban traffic charges. (a) regulatory charges specifically designed to combat time and place-related traffic congestion; (b) regulatory charges designed to combat environmental impacts, including poor air quality on any road, notably in urban areas, including trans-European road network roads crossing an urban area. Member States shall determine the use to be made of revenue from charges for the use of road infrastructure. To enable the transport network to be developed as a whole, revenue from charges should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system.
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 9 ):
1. This Directive shall not prevent the non-discriminatory application by Member States of: (a) specific taxes or charges: — levied upon registration of the vehicle, or — imposed on vehicles or loads of abnormal weights or dimensions; (a) specific taxes or charges: — levied upon registration of the vehicle, or — imposed on vehicles or loads of abnormal weights or dimensions; (b) parking fees and specific urban traffic charges. 1a. This Directive shall not prevent the non-discriminatory application by Member States of regulatory charges specifically designed to reduce traffic congestion or combat environmental impacts, including poor air quality, on any roads located in an urban area, including trans-European network roads crossing urban areas. 2. Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated by this Directive. To enable the transport network to be developed as a whole, revenues generated from infrastructure and external costs charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, should be used to benefit the transport sector, and optimise the entire transport system. In particular, revenues generated from external cost charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, should be used to make transport more sustainable, including one or more of the following: (a) facilitating efficient pricing; (b) reducing road transport pollution at source; (c) mitigating the effects of road transport pollution at source; (d) improving the CO 2 and energy performance of vehicles; (e) developing alternative infrastructure for transport users and/or expanding current capacity; (f) supporting the trans-European transport network; (g) optimising logistics; (h) improving road safety; and (i) providing secure parking places. This paragraph shall be deemed to be applied by Member States, if they have in place and implement fiscal and financial support policies which leverage financial support to the trans-European network and which have an equivalent value of at least 15 % of the revenues generated from infrastructure and external cost charges in each Member State.
Article 9a 
Member States shall establish appropriate controls and determine the system of penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted under this Directive. They shall take all necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties established shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Article 9b 
The Commission shall facilitate dialogue and the exchange of technical know-how between Member States in relation to the implementation of this Directive and in particular Annex III. The Commission shall update and clarify Annexes 0, III and IV in the light of technical progress and Annexes I and II in the light of inflation, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9c(3).
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 9b ):
The Commission shall facilitate dialogue and the exchange of technical know-how between Member States in relation to the implementation of this Directive and in particular the Annexes.
Article 9c 
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee. 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. 3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months. 4. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
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 9c ):
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers ( 17 ). 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.