Procedure : 2008/0147(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0171/2011

Texts tabled :

A7-0171/2011

Debates :

PV 07/06/2011 - 7
CRE 07/06/2011 - 7

Votes :

PV 07/06/2011 - 8.8
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2011)0252

RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING     ***II
PDF 266kWORD 369k
25 May 2011
PE 458.661v03-00 A7-0171/2011

on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

(15145/1/2010 – C7-0045/2011 – 2008/0147(COD))

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Rapporteur: Saïd El Khadraoui

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

(15145/1/2010 – C7-0045/2011 – 2008/0147(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council position at first reading (15145/1/2010 – C7-0045/2011),

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2009(1),

–   having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 12 February 2009(2),

–   having regard to the opinion of the Commission (COM(2011)0069),

–   having regard to its position at first reading on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0436)(3),

–   having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to Rule 66 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0171/2011),

1.  Adopts its position at second reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment 1

Council position – amending act

Recital 5 a (new)

Council position

Amendment

 

(5a) Transport modes other than road transport have already started to internalise external costs and the relevant Union legislation either phases in such internalisation or at least does not prevent it. CO2 emissions from aviation are already included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) pursuant to Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community. The ETS also covers electricity produced for trains. Other external costs can be internalised through airport charges, which can be modulated for environmental purposes pursuant to Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, and through charges for the use of railway infrastructure pursuant to Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure. In the road transport sector, several taxes and charges already apply, including taxes and charges to compensate partially for external costs such as CO2, as is for example the case with excise taxes on fuel. However, this process needs to be monitored and encouraged further with a view to establishing a Union-wide framework for the internalisation of external costs in all transport modes.

Amendment  2

Council position – amending act

Recital 10

Council position

Amendment

(10) For the purpose of this Directive, the model devised by the Commission for calculating traffic-based air and noise pollution external costs provides reliable methods and a range of unit values which may already serve as a basis for the calculation of external cost charges.

(10) For the purpose of this Directive, the model devised by the Commission for calculating the external costs provides reliable methods and a range of unit values which can already serve as a basis for the calculation of external cost charges.

Justification

In line with EP's 1st Reading AM 9.

Amendment  3

Council position – amending act

Recital 12

Council position

Amendment

(12) Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should however not discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ration between daily, weekly, monthly and annual rates should therefore be fixed for heavy goods vehicles.

(12) Time-based user charges constitute a transitional system for already applying the "user pays" principle where a charging system based on distance travelled, which better reflects the actual use of infrastructure, cannot yet be implemented. Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should however not discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ration between daily, weekly, monthly and annual rates should therefore be fixed for heavy goods vehicles.

Justification

Replacing EP's 1st Reading AM 11 (also EP 1st reading on Article 11).

See also Article 7, 2 on the combination possibilities of time based and km based charging systems.

Amendment  4

Council position – amending act

Recital 12 a (new)

Council position

Amendment

 

(12a) Efforts should be made in the medium term to bring about convergence in the methods which all charging systems of the Member States use to calculate external costs in order to ensure that European road hauliers receive clear price signals, which act as an incentive to optimise behaviour.

Justification

EP's 1st Reading amendment 10.

Amendment  5

Council position – amending act

Recital 18 a (new)

Council position

Amendment

 

(18a) When a variation for the purpose of reducing congestion is applied on a certain road section, the variation should be devised and applied in a revenue-neutral way which grants significant financial advantages to hauliers who choose to use the road section concerned during off-peak periods over those who choose to use it during peak hours.

Justification

Variation should be applied in order to give clear financial incentives to shift the usage during off-peak hours on the same route. This recital makes clear that when a congestion variation is applied a financial compensation has to be given on the same route. The exact calculation and arithmetic verification of the compensation will be done as in the variation of the current Directive, i.e. on the "infrastructure network concerned" (Article 7b(1)).

Amendment  6

Council position – amending act

Recital 21 a (new)

Council position

Amendment

 

(21a) The corridor on which a mark-up is allowed can include parallel, nearby and directly competing mountainous road sections to which the traffic may be diverted as a result of the introduction of the mark-up. In the case of cross-border projects, the application of this provision should be agreed upon by the Member States concerned and by the Commission.

Justification

The useful insertion of the words “parallel and mountainous” should be integrated with the additional words "nearby and directly competing”. The word “nearby” is necessary to avoid that a mark up is allowed in road sections far away from the sections where the mark up is already allowed. The absence to any reference to the distance could allow the possibility to put a mark – up anywhere in an arbitrary way. The insertion of the word “directly competing” is necessary to link the mark up to a substantial traffic diversion.

Amendment  7

Council position – amending act

Recital 27

Council position

Amendment

(27) The use of electronic tolling systems is desirable to avoid disruption of the free flow of traffic and to prevent adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. It is therefore desirable to levy an external-cost charge by means of such systems, in compliance with Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community.

(27) The use of electronic tolling systems is desirable to avoid disruption of the free flow of traffic and to prevent adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. It is therefore desirable to levy an external-cost charge by means of such systems, in compliance with Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community. It is important that the objective of this Directive should be attained in a way which does not harm the proper functioning of the internal market. The Commission should therefore monitor progress made in the framework of Directive 2004/52/EC to implement within the agreed dates a genuine European Electronic Toll Service which limits the number of electronic toll devices in the vehicle to one unit and which is fully compatible with the toll networks of all Member States. The Commission should furthermore support Member States which wish to cooperate in order to introduce a common system for tolls applicable to their combined territories as a whole.

Justification

Recital replacing EP's 1st Reading AM 15, 16, 17, 20, 51, 53.

The new amendment ensures that the Commission recalls its role to monitor the proper implementation of the Directive on the interoperability of electronic tolls so that interoperability becomes fully effective according to the agreed dates. It includes the transmission of a mid-term review report to the EP as per Article 21 of the Directive. Compare also with Common position in Article 1 - point 3 (Article 8b - paragraphs 1 & 2).

Amendment  8

Council position – amending act

Recital 28 a (new)

Council position

Amendment

 

(28a) Member States should be able to use the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget and the Structural Funds in order to improve transport infrastructures with a view to reducing the external costs of transport in general and implementing electronic means of collecting charges under this Directive.

Justification

EP's 1st Reading AM 18.

Amendment  9

Council position – amending act

Recital 34

Council position

Amendment

(34) When implementing alternative scientific methods for calculating external cost-charges, Member States should be able to take into account the values of monetary costs of externalities that are provided by the study "Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector", which gives an overview of the state of the art in the theory and practice of estimating external costs.

(34) When implementing alternative scientific methods for calculating external cost charges, Member States should take into account the methods to calculate the values of monetary costs of externalities that are provided by the study “Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector” which gives an overview of the state of the art in the theory and practice of estimating external costs.

Justification

In line with EP's 1st Reading. The Handbook should be the guide used to calculate the value of external costs, linked to Recital 10.

Amendment  10

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 5

 

Council position

Amendment

5. A Member State may choose to apply tolls and/or user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes if it considers that an extension to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would, amongst others:

5. A Member State may choose to apply tolls and/or user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes if it considers that an extension to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would:

(a) create significant adverse effects on the free flow of traffic, the environment, noise levels, congestion, health, or road safety due to traffic diversion;

(a) create significant adverse effects on the free flow of traffic, the environment, noise levels, congestion, health, or road safety due to traffic diversion; or

(b) involve administrative costs of more than 30 % of the additional revenue which would have been generated by that extension.

(b) involve administrative costs of more than 30 % of the additional revenue which would have been generated by that extension.

 

Member States choosing to apply tolls and/or user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes shall inform the Commission of their decision and on the reasons therefor.

Justification

The vehicle scope should be in line with the definition of a vehicle that the Council has just reiterated in Article 1, 1 (d). In a spirit of compromise, we could accept to go back to the compromise reached in 2006, where exemption from the rule could be accorded under some conditions (a or b). Other reasons different from those listed in the 2006 agreement could be added. Furthermore, it introduces a transparent framework in which Member States explain clearly the reasons of their decisions not to charge 3.5 t vehicles.

Amendment  11

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

.Article 7 b – Paragraph 1

 

Council position

Amendment

1. The infrastructure charge shall be based on the principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs. The weighted average infrastructure charge shall be related to the construction costs and the costs of operating, maintaining and developing the infrastructure network concerned. The weighted average infrastructure charge may also include a return on capital or a profit margin based on market conditions.

1. The infrastructure charge shall be based on the principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs. The weighted average infrastructure charge shall be related to the construction costs and the costs of operating, maintaining and developing the infrastructure network concerned. The weighted average infrastructure charge may also include a return on capital and/or on a profit margin based on market conditions.

Justification

It is worth highlighting that the purpose of this proposal is to protect the economic and financial equilibrium of existing concessions and that of concessions whose assignment procedure has already started. Indeed, as is well known, toll levels affect traffic demand levels; it follows that an excessive increase of tolls, not contemplated by the contract, could lead to a reduction in traffic demand with consequential repercussions on the concessions and on their relative economic and financial plans (which would in turn lead to a number of disputes).

Amendment  12

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 c – paragraph 1 – .subparagraph 1

 

Council position

Amendment

1. The external-cost charge may be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution. On road sections crossing areas with a concentration of population exposed to road traffic-based noise pollution, the external-cost charge may include the cost of traffic-based noise pollution.

1. The external-cost charge may be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution. On road sections crossing areas with a population exposed to road traffic-based noise pollution, the external-cost charge may include the cost of traffic-based noise pollution.

The external-cost charge shall vary and be set in accordance with the minimum requirements and the methods as specified in Annex IIIa and shall respect the maximum values set out in Annex IIIb.

The external-cost charge shall vary and be set in accordance with the minimum requirements and the methods as specified in Annex IIIa and shall respect the maximum values set out in Annex IIIb.

Justification

It was impossible to clarify convincingly whether the term 'concentration of population' in the Council common position would sufficiently include mountainous valleys.

Amendment  13

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7c – paragraph 3

 

Council position

Amendment

3. The external-cost charge related to traffic-based air pollution shall not apply to vehicles which comply with the most stringent EURO emission standards until four years after the dates of application laid down in the rules which introduced those standards.

3. The external-cost charge related to traffic-based air pollution shall not apply to vehicles which comply with the most stringent EURO emission standards until three years after the dates of application laid down in the rules which introduced those standards.

Justification

EP's 1st reading AM 35 says: No external cost charging is allowed for Euro VI until January 2013/2014 (Euro VI becomes mandatory for all new type approvals from 31st of December 2012 - registration of new vehicles one year later). This was an effective incentive for the fleet renewal. The Council's position introduced a longer derogation that may exempt quite an important % of the international transport from air pollution charging (around 60% end 2017). A derogation of 3 years should therefore be the maximum.

Amendment  14

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 f – paragraph 5

 

Council position

Amendment

5. The amount of the mark-up shall be deducted from the amount of the external cost charge calculated in accordance with Article 7c.

5. The amount of the mark-up shall be deducted from the amount of the external cost charge calculated in accordance with Article 7c, except for vehicles of EURO emission classes 0, I, II and III. All revenues generated shall be invested in financing the construction of priority projects of European interest identified in Annex III to Decision No 1692/96/EC.

Justification

It is necessary to provide full incentives to renew the fleet, together with positive financial incentives for cleaner vehicles which must be accompanied by financial penalties for the most polluting trucks. At the same time it shall not be disregarded that, according to Directive, the revenues deriving from mark-up are earmarked for financing priority projects belonging to the TEN-T network.

Amendment  15

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7g – paragraph 3 – point (c)

 

Council position

Amendment

(c) no infrastructure charge is more than 175 % above the maximum level of the weighted average infrastructure charge as referred to in Article 7b; and

(c) no infrastructure charge is more than 200 % above the maximum level of the weighted average infrastructure charge as referred to in Article 7b; and

Justification

Intelligent charging means a system which gives clear price signals to the users, one element of the different policies necessary for achieving goals as fleet renewal, more efficient use of transport infrastructure, limiting the environmental impact. A revenue neutral variation is already foreseen in Eurovignette II (less variation in % but no limitation in daily hours). The increase of variation possibility already proposed in EPs 1st Reading (see AM 43) should be meaningful enough to give this clear price signals.

Amendment  16

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7g – paragraph 3 – point d

 

Council position

Amendment

(d) the peak periods during which the higher infrastructure charges are levied for the purpose of reducing congestion do not exceed five hours per day.

(d) the peak periods during which the higher infrastructure charges are levied for the purpose of reducing congestion do not exceed eight hours per day.

Justification

The constraints in hours where the maximum charge could be levied are problematic (and not in line with EP's 1st reading) as they limit the scope for MS to combat congestion where this arises. The actual peak hours on EU roads are more likely to be around 8 hours a day instead of the 5 hours proposed. Combining a reasonable flexibility for MS with the proposed specifications (only on congested road sections, variation on same road section (see AMs 5 and 15) and new obligations (see AMs 16 and 17) should give operators additional reassurances for the correct handling of this measure.

Amendment  17

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7g – paragraph 3 – point d a new

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(da) the variation is devised and applied on a road section affected by congestion in a way which offers reduced toll rates to hauliers who choose to travel during off-peak periods and applies increased toll rates to those who choose to travel during peak hours on the same road section.

Amendment  18

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7g - paragraph 3 - point d b new

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(db) a Member State wishing to introduce such a variation informs the Commission thereof and provides it with the information necessary to ensure that the conditions are fulfilled.

Amendment  19

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 g – paragraph 4 a (new)

 

Council position

Amendment

 

4a. The Commission shall arrange for a user guide on the implementation of the Directive to be drafted in the languages of those Member States that apply it, with a special focus on modulating congestion, so as to enable public bodies and private firms to draw up business plans that take into account the possible effects of such modulation. This guide shall be published by *. .

 

* OJ: Please insert date: three months after the entry into force of this Directive.

Justification

The principle of modulation will have significant implications for the drafting of contracts for the provision of transport services, owing to the lack of certainty as to the cost of each trip by a haulage firm. It would be helpful to clarify how this measure will be implemented from a technological and economic standpoint.

Amendment  20

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 h – paragraph 3 – point (d a) (new)

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(da) a specific plan indicating how additional revenue from external cost charges is to be used .

Amendment  21

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 h – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

 

Council position

Amendment

The Member State concerned shall adapt the proposed external-cost charge in order to be in conformity with the decision. The decision of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9d.

The Member State concerned shall adapt the proposed external-cost charge in order to be in conformity with the decision. The decision of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9d and to the European Parliament.

Amendment  22

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 7 j – paragraph 4

 

Council position

Amendment

4. Where economically feasible, Member States shall levy and collect external-cost charges by means of an electronic system which complies with the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/52/EC.

4. Where economically feasible, Member States shall levy and collect external-cost charges by means of an electronic system which complies with the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/52/EC. The Commission shall promote any cooperation between Member States that may prove necessary to ensure interoperable toll collection systems that can be used on one another's territory.

Amendment  23

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 4

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

 

Council position

Amendment

2. Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated by this Directive. The revenues generated from external-cost charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, should be used to benefit the transport sector, to make transport more sustainable and optimise the entire transport system, including the following:

2. Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated by this Directive. The revenues generated from external-cost charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, shall be used to benefit the transport sector, to make transport more sustainable and optimise the entire transport system, including the following:

(a) facilitating efficient pricing;

(a) facilitating efficient pricing;

(b) reducing road transport pollution at source;

(b) reducing road transport pollution at source;

(c) mitigating the effects of road transport pollution at source;

(c) mitigating the effects of road transport pollution at source;

(d) improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles;

(d) improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles;

(e) developing alternative infrastructure for transport users and/or expanding current capacity;

(e) developing alternative infrastructure for transport users and/or expanding current capacity;

(f) optimising logistics; or

(f) optimising logistics;

(g) improving road safety.

(g) improving road safety

 

(ga) providing secure parking places.

 

A Member State in which an infrastructure charge is levied shall determine the use to be made of revenue generated by that charge. To enable the transport network to be developed as a whole, revenue from charges shall be used mainly to benefit the road transport sector and optimise the road transport system.

 

At least 15 % of the revenues generated by the external cost charge and infrastructure charge in each Member State shall be dedicated to financially supporting TEN-T projects in order to increase transport sustainability. This percentage shall gradually increase over time.

Justification

On the basis of EP's Reading AM 55, 56 and 57.

Amendment  24

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 5

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 9c

 

Council position

Amendment

The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as regards:

The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as regards:

- the adaptation of Annex 0 to the Union acquis;

- the adaptation of Annex 0 to the Union acquis;

- the adaptation of the formulas of sections 4.1 and 4.2 in Annex IIIa to scientific and technical progress.

- the adaptation of the formulas of sections 4.1 and 4.2 in Annex IIIa and calculation methods of sections 2 and 3 in Annex III to scientific and technical progress.

The procedures set out in Articles 9e, 9f and 9g shall apply to the delegated acts referred to in this Article.

The procedures set out in Articles 9e, 9f and 9g shall apply to the delegated acts referred to in this Article.

Justification

In line with EP's 1st Reading AM 58. Certain, technical adaptations should be agreed on a technical level.

Amendment  25

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

 

Council position

Amendment

1. By …*, and every four years thereafter, Member States which levy an external-cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge shall draw up a report on tolls, including concession tolls, levied on their territory and shall forward it to the Commission which shall make it available to the other Member States. That report may exclude tolling arrangements that were already in place on 10 June 2008 and which do not include external-cost charges, as long as those arrangements remain in force and provided that they are not substantially amended. That report shall comprise information on:

1. By …*, and every four years thereafter, Member States which levy an external-cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge shall draw up a report on tolls, including concession tolls, levied on their territory and shall forward it to the Commission which shall make it available to the other Member States. That report may exclude tolling arrangements that were already in place on 10 June 2008 and which do not include external-cost charges, as long as those arrangements remain in force and provided that they are not substantially amended. That report shall comprise information on:

(a) the weighted average external-cost charge and the specific amounts levied for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and period of time;

(a) the weighted average external-cost charge and the specific amounts levied for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and period of time;

(b) the variation of infrastructure charges according to the type of vehicles and time; and

(b) the variation of infrastructure charges according to the type of vehicles and time; and

(c) the weighted average infrastructure cost charge and total revenue raised through the infrastructure charge.

(c) the weighted average infrastructure cost charge and total revenue raised through the infrastructure charge.

* OJ: Please insert date: 48 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

* OJ: Please insert date: 36 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

Justification

Shorten the deadline in line with EP's 1st Reading position.

Amendment  26

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 1– point c a (new)

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(ca) the use of revenues and the actions taken pursuant to Article 9(2).

Justification

Increases transparency and accountability, in line with EP's 1st Reading position.

Amendment  27

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

 

Council position

Amendment

2. By …*, the Commission, assisted by the committee referred to in Article 9d, shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, in particular as regards the effectiveness of the provisions on the recovery of the costs related to traffic-based pollution, and on the inclusion of vehicles of more than 3,5 and less than 12 tonnes. The report shall also analyse, based on continuous monitoring, and assess, amongst others:

2. By …*, the Commission, assisted by the committee referred to in Article 9d, shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, in particular as regards the effectiveness of the provisions on the recovery of the costs related to traffic-based pollution, and on the inclusion of vehicles of more than 3,5 and less than 12 tonnes. The report shall also analyse, based on continuous monitoring, and assess, amongst others:

* OJ: Please insert date: 60 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

* OJ: Please insert date: 48 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

Justification

Shorten the deadline in line with EP's 1st Reading position.

Amendment  28

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point c a new

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(ca) the technical and economic feasibility of introducing minimum distance-based charges on the main inter-urban roads. The report shall identify the possible types of road sections to be charged, the possible ways of levying and enforcing in a cost-effective way such charges and a common simple method for setting the minimum rates.

Justification

This point was proposed by Commission and confirmed by EP's 1st Reading.

Amendment  29

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 2 –subparagraph 1 – point (c a) (new)

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(ca) the degree of interoperability between different toll systems in the Member States as required by Directive 2004/52/EC.

Amendment  30

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point c b new

 

Council position

Amendment

 

(cb) the technical and economic feasibility of gradually abolishing time-based charging systems and introducing distance-based systems.

Justification

Builds up on EP's 1st Reading AM 61.

Amendment  31

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

 

Council position

Amendment

 

The report shall be accompanied by a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive.

Justification

Builds upon EP's 1st Reading AM 63.

Amendment  32

Council position – amending act

Article 1 – point 8

Directive 1999/62/EC

Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

 

Council position

Amendment

In order to ensure a fair intermodal competition while gradually charging the external costs of all transport modes, it shall include a timetable of the measures which remain to be taken to address the modes of transport and/or the external cost elements not taken into account yet.

In order to ensure a fair intermodal competition while gradually charging the external costs of all transport modes, it shall include a timetable of the measures which remain to be taken to address other categories of vehicles, or other modes of transport and/or the external cost elements not taken into account yet, especially the cost of CO2 emissions, should the definition of a common fuel tax element related to climate change not have yielded satisfactory results, the cost of congestion and accidents and the cost of biodiversity loss.

Justification

Builds upon EP's 1st Reading AM 62 and Commission text on para 2 (a) + (b).

Amendment  33

Council position – amending act

Article 2

Directive 1999/62/EC

Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

 

Council position

Amendment

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by …*. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by …*. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a table illustrating the correlation between them and this Directive.

* OJ: Please insert date: 36 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

* OJ: Please insert date: 24 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

Justification

In line with EP's 1st Reading position.

Amendment  34

Council position – amending act

Annex

Directive 1999/62/EC

Annex III a – point 2 – subpoint 2

 

Council position

Amendment

Where applicable, it shall also notify the Commission of the exact time periods corresponding to the night period during which a higher external-cost charge may be imposed to reflect greater noise nuisances.

Where applicable, it shall also notify the Commission of the exact time periods corresponding to the night period during which a higher external noise-cost charge may be imposed to reflect greater noise nuisances.

Justification

Clarification of the intention of the Council common position.

Amendment  35

Council position – amending act

Annex

Directive 1999/62/EC

Annex IIIb – point 1 – Table 1

Council position

Table 1: Maximum chargeable air pollution cost

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre

Suburban roads (including motorways)

Interurban roads (including motorways)

EURO 0

16

12

EURO I

11

8

EURO II

9

7

EURO III

7

6

EURO IV

 

3

EURO V

after 31 December 2013

0

3

0

2

EURO VI

after 31 December 2017

0

2

0

1

Less polluting than EURO VI

0

0

Amendment

Table 1: Maximum chargeable air pollution cost

Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre

Suburban roads (including motorways)

Interurban roads (including motorways)

EURO 0

16

12

EURO I

11

8

EURO II

9

7

EURO III

7

6

EURO IV

 

3

EURO V

starting 1 January 2013

0

3

0

2

EURO VI

starting 1 January 2017

0

2

0

1

Less polluting than EURO VI

0

0

Justification

Linked to AM 13.

(1)

OJ C 255, 22.9.2010, p. 92.

(2)

OJ C 120, 28.5.2009, p. 47.

(3)

OJ C 87 E, 1.4.2010, p. 345.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Some time has passed since the adoption of the European Parliament position in 1st Reading on Eurovignette III.

The Council's position was announced by Parliament's President in the February plenary II and we have time until June to complete our 2nd Reading.

Your rapporteur would like to remind you of the main directive's objectives :

It will allow Member States - if they so wish - also to charge road users for some - limited - external costs, so that finally the polluters pay principle is introduced in road transport.

It will give Member States additional possibilities to make their national road charging systems more efficient, that means a better transport-demand-management instrument.

These objectives were confirmed by the Council position.

You know my aspirations and political position on this file, which were also explained in the explanatory note in my 1st reading report.

Now - it seems - it's time for a pragmatic approach in order not to waste more time and to reach the best possible compromise within Parliament and with Council.

The amendments proposed are the outcome of consultations with the political groups.

Your rapporteur has reinstated, in a most pragmatic way, the essential elements of EP's 1st reading position (taking into account the new political setting after the last election) and has acknowledged, to a large extent, the reasonable new elements introduced by the Council.

In particular my amendments concentrate on the following main elements:

1) Choice of external costs and the mechanisms of revenue neutral infrastructure charge variation proposed instead of the possibility of charging for congestion costs. This concerns notably the maximum number of peak hours per day, the maximum variation possibility and a more precise wording, in order to guarantee the revenue neutrality of this variation.

2) The earmarking of the infrastructure and external cost revenues, which shall be used in particular for sustainable transport and the trans-European network : An efficient earmarking of the revenues (which increases accountability and transparency) does not only increase the public acceptance but will also accelerate the reduction of external costs of road transport.

3) Efficient fleet renewal incentives (derogation of air pollution charging for Euro classes V/VI and the issue of Mark up).

4) Vehicle scope. Exemptions from the rule could be granted only under specified conditions.

5) Reporting back mechanism and next steps. Importance of regular supervision of the national charging systems and new initiatives from the Commission in order to move step by step to the most efficient road charging systems.

I am confident that, on the basis of my draft report, we can work closely together in the coming weeks in order to achieve the best possible agreement with Council.


PROCEDURE

Title

The charging of heavy goods vehicles

References

15145/1/2010 – C7-0045/2011 – 2008/0147(COD)

Date of Parliament’s first reading – P number

11.3.2009                     T6-0113/2009

Commission proposal

COM(2008)0436 - C6-0276/2008

Receipt of Council position at first reading announced in plenary

17.2.2011

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

TRAN

17.2.2011

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Saïd El Khadraoui

24.1.2011

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

28.2.2011

14.3.2011

11.4.2011

24.5.2011

Date adopted

12.4.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

27

1

11

Members present for the final vote

Inés Ayala Sender, Georges Bach, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Antonio Cancian, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Saïd El Khadraoui, Ismail Ertug, Carlo Fidanza, Knut Fleckenstein, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu Grosch, Jim Higgins, Juozas Imbrasas, Ville Itälä, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Werner Kuhn, Eva Lichtenberger, Gesine Meissner, Hubert Pirker, Vilja Savisaar-Toomast, Olga Sehnalová, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Keith Taylor, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Giommaria Uggias, Thomas Ulmer, Peter van Dalen, Artur Zasada

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Philip Bradbourn, Spyros Danellis, Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Guido Milana, Dominique Riquet, Corien Wortmann-Kool

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Gianluca Susta, Patrizia Toia

Date tabled

25.5.2011

Last updated: 26 May 2011Legal notice