RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community
(6277/1/2004 – C5‑0163/2004 – 2003/0081(COD))
7 April 2004 - ***II
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Renate Sommer
PROCEDURAL PAGE
At its sitting of 18 December 2003 Parliament adopted its position at first reading on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the widespread introduction and interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (COM(2003) 132 – 2003/0081(COD)).
At the sitting of 31 March 2004 the President of Parliament announced that the common position had been received and referred to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (6277/1/2004 – C5‑0163/2004).
The committee had appointed Renate Sommer rapporteur at its meeting of 21 May 2003.
It considered the common position and the draft recommendation for second reading at its meeting of 6 April 2004.
At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 27 votes, with 3 abstentions.
The following were present for the vote: Paolo Costa (chairman), Helmuth Markov (vice-chairman), Renate Sommer (rapporteur), Graham H. Booth (for Rijk van Dam), Philip Charles Bradbourn, Felipe Camisón Asensio, Christine de Veyrac, Garrelt Duin, Alain Esclopé, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Juan Manuel Ferrández Lezaun (for Nelly Maes), Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Sérgio Marques, Emmanouil Mastorakis, Linda McAvan (for Danielle Darras), Erik Meijer, Enrique Monsonís Domingo, Camilo Nogueira Román, Samuli Pohjamo, Reinhard Rack, Brian Simpson, Ulrich Stockmann, Joaquim Vairinhos, Mark Francis Watts, Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (for Rolf Berend).
The recommendation for second reading was tabled on 7 April 2004.
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community
(6277/1/2004 – C5‑0163/2004 – 2003/0081(COD))
(Codecision procedure: second reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Council common position (6277/1/2004 – C5‑0163/2004),
– having regard to its position at first reading[1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2003) 132)[2],
– having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Rule 78 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5‑0246/2004),
1. Approves the common position;
2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;
3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;
4. Instructs its Secretary-General duly to sign the act and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
I. Introduction
On 18 December 2003, the European Parliament adopted its position in first reading on the draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community.
The Directive aims to ensure the interoperability of electronic toll systems in the Community and the introduction of a European electronic toll service which encompasses the entire road network in the Community on which tolls are charged.
Your rapporteur welcomed the initiative of the Commission and stressed during the deliberations in committee that " ... the Commission's objective of establishing contractual and technical interoperability of the European tolls system deserves Parliament's support. Since it can be expected, in view of scarce resources, that additional Member State, including enlargement States, will plan the introduction of national toll systems, we must not allow users of road-network infrastructures and the internal common market to be obstructed by administrative and technical barriers."
II. Parliament's first reading-the main amendments
The Parliament was able, following the recommendations of its rapporteur to agree on the major lines of the Commission's proposal. On some points however, the Parliament decided to modify the text in order to make it clearer and simpler.
The most important modifications operated by the Parliament are the following:
1. The Parliament modified the title of the Directive by excluding the words "widespread introduction" from the text of the title.
2. Whereas the Commission had proposed to make the use of satellite positioning and mobile communications technologies obligatory in new electronic toll systems as of a certain date, the Parliament decided that no such obligation should be imposed, and that the use of these technologies should only be recommended (Article 2, paragraph 6). Hence, systems using traditional 5,8 GHz microwave technology may continue to co-exist with systems using the new satellite technologies.
3. The Parliament modified the time frame as proposed by the Commission for the putting into place of the European electronic toll service. The time frame should be as follows:
- a)The decisions relating to the definition of this service should be taken at the latest by 1 January 2007 (Article 4, paragraph 5a new);
- b)Operators and or issuers should offer the service to their customers according to the following timetable (Article 3, paragraph 3):
- -for all vehicles exceeding 3,5 tonnes and for all vehicles which are allowed to carry more than nine passengers (driver + 8), at the latest two years after the decisions on the definition of the service have been taken;
- -for all other types of vehicle, at the latest five years after the decisions on the definition of the service have been taken.
4. Parliament defined the "European toll service" as a contractual set of rules allowing all operators and/or issuers to provide the service, a set of technical standards and requirements and a single subscription contract between the clients and the operators offering the service (Article 3, paragraph 1)
5. The Parliament made clear that the Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States to lay down rules governing road infrastructure charging and taxation matters (recital 2a new).
6. In order to avoid superfluous costs, the Parliament underlined that the Directive does not apply a) to road toll systems for which no electronic means of toll collection exists, and provided moreover that the Directive does not apply b) to electronic road toll systems which do not need the installation of equipment on board vehicles, and c) to small, strictly local road toll systems for which the costs of compliance with the requirements of the Directive would be disproportionate to the benefits (Article 1, paragraph 1a new).
7. Member States which have toll systems should take the necessary measures to increase the use of electronic toll systems, but provided that Member States only need to endeavour to ensure that by 1 January 2007 at the latest, at least 50% of traffic flow in each toll station can use electronic toll systems (Article 2, paragraph 7)
8. As regards the definition of the European electronic toll service, the Parliament provided not only that the decisions relating thereto should be taken by the Commission at the latest by 1 January 2007, but also that such decisions should only be taken if all the conditions, evaluated on the basis of appropriate studies, are in place to enable interoperability to work from all points of view, including the technical, legal and commercial points of view (Article 4, paragraph 5a new)
9. The Parliament also asked that the concerned parties (toll service operators, infrastructure managers, electronics and motor industries and users) should be consulted by the Commission on technical and contractual aspects of the European toll service.(Recital 13 a new)
10. Finally the Plenary asked the participation of NGOs in the regulatory committee (Art 5, paragraph 1).
III. The Council's common position
The Council was ready to accept, after negociations your rapporteur had with the Irish Presidency, to the letter or in substance, the following amendments of Parliament's first reading (unless otherwise indicated, the articles referred to are those of the common position):
No 1 – see the modification to the title of the Directive;
No 2 – see the modifications to recital 2;
No 3 – see the new recital 23;
No 4 – see the modifications to recital 3;
No 5 – see the modifications to recital 5;
No 6 – see the new recital 7;
No 7 – see the modifications to recital 8 (recital 6 in the Commission proposal);
No 8 – see the modifications to recital 9 (recital 7 in the Commission proposal);
No 9 – see the modifications to recital 10 (recital 8 in the Commission proposal);
No 10 – see the modifications to recital 11 (recital 9 in the Commission proposal);
No 11 – see the new recital 12;
No 12 – see the new recital 22;
No 13 – see the new recital 18;
No 14 – see the new recital 19;
No 15 – see the new recital 21;
No 16 – see the modifications to Article 1, paragraph 1;
No 17 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 1, introductory part;
No 18 – see the new recital 6;
No 19 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 2;
No 20 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 4 (Article 2, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal);
No 21 – Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Commission proposal has been deleted;
No 22 – Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Commission proposal has been deleted;
No 25 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 5 (Article 2, paragraph 7, in the Commission proposal);
No 27 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 2;
No 28 – see the new Article 3, paragraph 3;
No 29 – the amendment could not be accepted, but the words ‘and/or issuers’ have been inserted, see Article 3, paragraph 4 (Article 3, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal);
No 32 – see the reformulation of item (i) in the Annex to the Directive (Article 4, paragraph 1, point (f) in the Commission proposal);
No 33 – see new item (m) in the Annex to the Directive;
No 34 – see the modifications to Article 4, paragraph 3 (Article 4, paragraph 2, in the Commission proposal)
No 36 – the date has been postponed in line with the amendment of Parliament, but the Council decided to adopt the general rule of 18 months after the entry into force or the Directive, see Article 6, first paragraph;
No 39 – the amendment has been taken into account by the new wording in recital 21;
Nos 41 and 45 – see the modifications in Article 1, paragraph 3 (Article 1, second paragraph in the Commission proposal);
No 44 – see the new Article 1, paragraph 2;
No 46 – see the new Article 2, paragraph 6;
No 47 – see the new recital 13;
No 48 – see the new Article 2, paragraph 3;
No 49 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 1;
No 50 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 4 (Article 3, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal); in line with the amendment of Parliament, the Council replaced the fixed dates by which the European electronic toll service should be offered to customers with dates that are calculated by adding certain time periods (three years, five years) to the moment by which the decisions on the definition of the service are taken; by applying three years in respect of lorries, the Council took a slightly different view from Parliament, which had suggested two years, but with the five years in respect of all other vehicles the Council and the Parliament are exactly on the same line.
No 51 – see the new Article 4, paragraph 4; while the Council in its general approach stated that the decisions on the definition of the European electronic toll service should be taken at the latest by 1 January 2006, it finally decided to set this date at 1 July 2006, in order to take account of the amendment of Parliament which requested 1 January 2007.
Finally is has been noted that the Council transferred the items whereupon the European electronic toll service should be based, from Article 4 of the Commission's proposal to a new Annex.
IV. Conclusions
Your rapporteur is persuaded that the text of the common position is appropriate and balanced and corresponds to Partliament's desiderata. With respect to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in first reading your rapporteur observes that almost all amendments have been integrated – to the letter or in spirit, partially or in full into the common position. Despite some minor differences, especially with regard to the timetable of the introduction of the European toll service, your rapporteur recommends the adoption of the common position without any modifications. A European toll service and user-friendly interoperability of the different toll systems is supported by our citizens and the leading performers in the European transport sector. Consequently it should be introduced without any unnecessary delays.