REPORT on the proposal for 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

18.2.2009 - (COM(2008)0436 – C6‑0276/2008 – 2008/0147(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Saïd El Khadraoui

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for 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

(COM(2008)0436 – C6‑0276/2008 – 2008/0147(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0436),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0276/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6‑0066/2009),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Amendment  1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) The promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy. To this end, the negative impacts of transport, in particular congestion, which impedes mobility, pollution, which creates health and environmental damage, and its contribution to climate change must be reduced. Moreover environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies, including the common transport policy.	(1) The promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy. To this end, the negative impacts of transport, in particular congestion, which impedes mobility, pollution, which creates health and environmental damage, and its contribution to climate change must be reduced. Moreover environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies, including the common transport policy. The following priorities, namely environmental protection, social and economic cohesion objectives and EU business competitiveness objectives, should also be reconciled in a balanced way as part of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment.
Justification
The proposal does not take account of the costs already borne by transport operators owing to congestion and the overall tax burden on companies. Although goods transport by road only accounts for 10% of traffic jams, transport operators have to bear costs linked to congestion through increased fixed and variable costs, wasted time and loss of earnings. In addition, article 7.10 of Directive 1999/62 already provides Member States with the tool to combat congestion.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) The objective of reducing the negative impacts of transport should be achieved in such a way as to avoid disproportionate obstacles to the freedom of movement in the interest of sound economic growth and the proper functioning of the internal market.	(2) The objective of reducing the negative impacts of transport should be achieved in such a way as to avoid disproportionate obstacles to the freedom of movement in the interest of sound economic growth and the proper functioning of the internal market. It should also be emphasised that the principle of internalising external costs is the equivalent of a management instrument and should encourage road users and the related industrial sectors to exploit and expand their respective capabilities in the area of environmentally-friendly transport, for example by means of changes in driving behaviour or further technological development. It is vital that ways and means should be found of reducing the damage caused by road transport, rather than simply using the resulting revenue to cover the relevant costs.
Justification
This addition draws attention to the fact that the principle of internalising external costs should primarily be seen as an appropriate management tool which can be used in the context of efforts to change the way traffic and/or the transport sector is organised, to prepare that sector for future challenges and to reduce the damage that sector causes, rather than simply to cover the resulting costs. Charges which are merely intended to provide an additional source of State revenue are unacceptable.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(5) In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better reflect the costs related to traffic-based air pollution, traffic-based noise pollution, climate change and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships as a means of optimising the use of infrastructure, reducing local pollution, managing congestion and fighting against climate change at least cost for the economy. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, taking into account their particular characteristics.	(5) In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better reflect the external costs related to the use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships. This calls for a coherent and ambitious approach in all transport modes, taking into account their particular characteristics.
Justification
To ensure that the policy measures aiming at internalising external costs are undertaken for all transport modes in order to guarantee a level playing field between them.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(5a) Other transport modes have already started to internalise external costs and the relevant Community legislation either phases in such internalisation or at least does not prevent it. CO2 emissions should be tackled by including aviation in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The provision of electricity for trains is also covered by the ETS and maritime transport is to be included in the ETS shortly. Other external costs can be internalised through airport charges, which can be differentiated for environmental purposes and through infrastructure charges for the use of railways 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 infrastructure1. Moreover, the Commission is due to propose a recast of the First Railway Package in order to introduce harmonised noise-related track access charging schemes.
	1 OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
Justification
The Commission Greening transport inventory (COM(2008)433) gives an overview of the large number and diverse measures that are already in place to reduce the negative impacts of transport. The Impact assessment: Strategy for an internalisation of external costs (SEC(2008) 2208) focuses on the internalisation of external costs of noise, air pollution, climate change, congestion and accidents from all transport modes through pricing instruments such as charges, taxes or tradable permits.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(5b) According to Article 7 of Directive 2001/14/EC, which sets out the charging principles for the use of railway infrastructure, internalisation of external costs is already possible. However, in order to modulate track access charges more widely and have a complete internalisation of external costs in the railway sector, it is a precondition that the road transport sector also applies external cost charging.
Justification
Article 7 of Directive 2001/14 sets out the charging principles in railways. According to this Directive, infrastructure managers are obliged to charge all trains for access to infrastructure to recover the costs of operating the train service. Charging of scarcity and environmental costs is also allowed. However, Article 7, 5 is restrictive: "charging of environmental costs which results in an increase in the overall revenue accruing to the infrastructure manager shall however be allowed only if such charging is applied at a comparable level to competing modes of transport".
Amendment  6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(5c) In the road transport sector, several taxes and charges already apply, including taxes and charges to partially compensate external costs such as CO2, as is for example the case with excise taxes on fuel.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(7) The impact analysis shows that applying tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of pollution, and, on congested roads, on the basis of the cost of congestion, would have a positive effect on the transport system and contribute to the Community strategy to fight climate change. It would reduce congestion and local pollution by encouraging the use of cleaner vehicle technologies, optimising logistic behaviour and reducing empty returns. It would indirectly play an important role in reducing fuel consumption and contributing to the fight against climate change. Tolls which integrate a cost element related to congestion for using congested roads into their calculation will be more effective in reducing congestion if Member States include other road users outside the scope of this Directive in a scheme of a similar nature.	(7) The impact analysis shows that applying tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of pollution, and, on congested roads, on the basis of the cost of congestion, can contribute to or result in more efficient and environmentally friendly road transport and contribute to the EU strategy to fight climate change. It would reduce congestion and local pollution by encouraging the use of cleaner vehicle technologies, optimising logistic behaviour and reducing empty returns. It would indirectly play an important role in reducing fuel consumption and contributing to the fight against climate change. Tolls which integrate a cost element related to congestion for using congested roads into their calculation can only be effective if they are part of an action plan which includes measures related to other road users outside the scope of this Directive, such as similar charging schemes or measures with an equivalent effect such as traffic restrictions and high occupancy vehicles lanes. So far, however, it has been insufficiently demonstrated that such tolls have brought about substantial changes in modal split.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 8
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(8) The costs of traffic-based air and noise pollution and congestion, such as health costs, including medical care, crop losses and other loss of production, and welfare costs, are borne within the territory of the Member State in which the use of transport takes place. The polluter pays principle will be implemented through the external cost charging and this will also contribute to the reduction of external costs.	(8) The polluter pays principle will be implemented through the external cost charging and this will also contribute to the reduction of external costs.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 9
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(9) The model devised by the Commission for calculating the costs of traffic-based air and noise pollution and congestion external costs provides reliable methods and a range of unit values which can already serve as a basis for the calculation of road user charges.	(9) 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 road user charges.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 9 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(9a) In order to ensure that European road hauliers receive clear price signals, which act as an incentive to optimise their behaviour, efforts should be made in the medium term to bring about convergence in the methods which all European charging systems use to calculate external costs.
Justification
The availability of too many possible methods of calculating external costs is creating confusion within the EU and in turn ensuring that road hauliers do not receive clear price signals which act as an incentive to renew their fleets and optimise their logistics. In the medium term, therefore, efforts must be made to bring about convergence in the methods used to calculate external cost factors.
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 12
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(12) Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should not discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ratio between daily, weekly, monthly and annual rates should therefore be fixed.	(12) Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should not discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ratio between daily, weekly, monthly and annual rates should therefore be fixed. For reasons of efficiency and fairness, time-based user charges should be considered as a transitional instrument for charging of infrastructure. A phasing out of time-based charging systems should therefore be taken into consideration.Member States with external borders with third countries should be allowed to derogate from this provision and to continue to apply time-based charging to heavy goods vehicles queuing at border-crossing points.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 17
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(17) The authority which sets the external cost charge should also have no vested interest in setting the amount at an undue level and should therefore be independent from the body which collects and manages toll revenue. Experience has shown that adding a mark-up to tolls in mountainous areas in order to finance priority projects of the trans-European network is not a practicable option for infrastructure operators if the traffic diversion which may result from an increase of the toll is such that it implies a loss of revenue. To remedy this situation, a mark-up should be allowed on alternative routes to which traffic could otherwise be diverted.	(17) The authority which sets the external cost charge should also have no vested interest in setting the amount at an undue level and should therefore be independent from the body which collects and manages toll revenue. Experience has shown that adding a mark-up to tolls in mountainous areas in order to finance priority projects of the trans-European network is not a practicable option if the definition of a corridor is not consistent with the reality of the traffic flow. To remedy this situation, the corridor on which a mark-up could be allowed should in particular cover road sections for which the introduction of a mark-up would result in a traffic diversion towards the priority project concerned.
Justification
Amendment  13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 18
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(18) In order to give the precedence to the construction of priority projects of European interest, Member States which have the possibility of applying a mark-up should use this option before levying an external cost charge. To avoid an undue charging of users, an external cost charge should not be combined with a mark-up unless the external costs exceed the amount of the mark-up already levied. In such a case, it is thus appropriate that the amount of the mark-up should be deducted from the external cost charge.	(18) In order to give the precedence to the construction of priority projects of European interest, Member States which have the possibility of applying a mark-up should use this option before levying an external cost charge.
Justification
Given that toll mark-ups are used to fund alternative, more environmentally friendly transport infrastructures and not other measures which serve to reduce external costs, it should be possible to levy external cost charges in addition to toll mark-ups so that measures can also be taken to reduce external costs on routes on which a toll mark-up is charged.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 21
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(21) Charging external costs through tolls will be more effective in influencing transport decisions if users are aware of these costs. They should accordingly be identified separately on a statement, a bill or an equivalent document from the toll operator. Furthermore, such a document may make it easier for hauliers to pass on the cost of the external cost charge to the shipper or any other clients.	(21) Charging external costs through tolls will be more effective in influencing transport decisions if users are aware of these costs. They should accordingly be identified separately on a comprehensible statement, a bill or an equivalent document from the toll operator. Furthermore, such a document may make it easier for hauliers to pass on the cost of the external cost charge to the shipper or any other clients.
Justification
Due to transparency it is absolutely necessary to provide the toll operator with a comprehensible statement, bill or other document that should be understandable regardless his language knowledge.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(22) The use of electronic tolling systems is essential to avoiding disruption to the free flow of traffic and to preventing adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that the external cost charge is collected by means of such a system, subject to compliance with the requirements of 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 that foresees appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that technical, legal, commercial and data protection and privacy concerns are properly addressed in the implementation of electronic tolling. Furthermore such systems should be designed without roadside barriers and in a way which allows subsequent extension to any parallel roads at low cost. Provision should however be made for a transitional period in order to permit the necessary adaptations to take place.	(22) The use of electronic tolling systems is essential to avoid disruption to the free flow of traffic and to prevent adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that the infrastructure and external cost charges are collected by means of such a system, subject to compliance with the requirements of 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 that foresees appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that technical, legal, commercial and data protection and privacy concerns are properly addressed in the implementation of electronic tolling. Furthermore such systems should be designed without roadside barriers and in a way which allows subsequent extension to any parallel roads at low cost. Provision should however be made for a transitional period in order to permit the necessary adaptations to take place.
Justification
There should not be a distinction between charging systems for infrastructure costs and those for external costs.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(22a) It is important that the objectives of this Directive should be attained in a way which does not harm the proper functioning of the internal market. Moreover, it is important to avoid heavy goods vehicle drivers in future being saddled with ever more incompatible and expensive electronic equipment in their cabs and running the risk of making errors in its use. A proliferation of technologies is unacceptable. The interoperability of the toll systems in the Community, as provided for in Directive 2004/52/EC, should therefore be achieved as quickly as possible. Efforts should be made to limit the number of devices in the vehicle to one, which makes it possible to apply the various rates which are in force in the various Member States.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(22b) The Commission should take all necessary measures to ensure the rapid introduction of a truly interoperable system, in accordance with Directive 2004/52/EC, by the end of 2010.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(23a) 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 the charges arising from the provisions of this Directive.
Justification
Substantial investment will be required both for improving transport infrastructures and implementing the means of collecting charges. Member States must be able to draw on both the TEN-T budget and the Structural Funds for purposes of improving transport infrastructures with a view to reducing external costs.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 24
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(24) In accordance with the transport policy objectives of this Directive, the additional revenue generated from an external cost charge should be used for projects with a broad Community interest and designed to promote sustainable mobility at large. Such projects should therefore relate to facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users. It includes, for example, research and development on cleaner vehicles and the implementation of the transport part of the action plans under Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise , which may comprise measures to mitigate traffic-based noise and air pollution around large infrastructure and in agglomerations. Earmarking this revenue does not release Member States from the obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty to notify the Commission of certain national measures, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any procedures initiated under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty.	(24) In accordance with the transport policy objectives of this Directive, the additional revenue generated from an external cost charge should be used as a matter of priority to reduce and eliminate the external costs of road transport where possible. It may also be used to promote sustainable mobility at large. Such projects should therefore relate to facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of road vehicles, and improving existing road infrastructure or developing alternative infrastructure for transport users. It includes, for example, research and development on cleaner vehicles and the implementation of the transport part of the action plans under Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise , which may comprise measures to mitigate traffic-based noise and air pollution around large infrastructure and in agglomerations. Earmarking this revenue does not release Member States from the obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty to notify the Commission of certain national measures, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any procedures initiated under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 25
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(25) In order to promote interoperability of tolling arrangements, two or more Member States should be allowed to cooperate in introducing a common system of tolls, subject to compliance with certain conditions.	(25) In order to promote interoperability of tolling arrangements, cooperation between Member States in introducing a common system of tolls should be encouraged, subject to compliance with certain conditions. The Commission should support Member States which wish to cooperate in order to introduce a common system of tolls on their combined territory.
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 26
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(26) A comprehensive assessment of the experience acquired in those Member States which apply an external cost charge in accordance with this Directive should be sent in due time by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. This assessment should also include an analysis of progress in the strategy to fight climate change, including in defining a common fuel tax element related to climate change in Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, including of the fuel used by heavy goods vehicles. In the light of this progress, the question of carbon dioxide emissions should be included and an analysis of any other further appropriate actions should be continued.	(26) A comprehensive assessment of the experience acquired in those Member States which apply an external cost charge in accordance with this Directive should be sent in due time by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. This assessment should also include an analysis of progress in the strategy to fight climate change, including in defining a common fuel tax element related to climate change in Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, including of the fuel used by heavy goods vehicles. A comprehensive assessment of internalisation of external costs in all other transport modes should also be drawn up, to serve as a basis for further legislative proposals on the internalisation of external costs in other transport modes. This should ensure the introduction of a fair and competitive system of internalisation of external costs that avoids any distortions of the internal market in all transport modes.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 27
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(27) Article 55(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 provides that the revenue generated by charges borne directly by users must be considered in the determination of the funding-gap in the case of a revenue-generating project. However, since the revenue generated by an external cost charge is earmarked for projects aimed at reducing road transport pollution at the source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users, it should not be considered in the calculation of the funding-gap.	(27) Article 55(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 provides that the revenue generated by charges borne directly by users must be considered in the determination of the funding-gap in the case of a revenue-generating project. However, since the revenue generated by an external cost charge is earmarked for projects aimed at reducing road transport pollution at the source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and improving existing road infrastructure or developing alternative infrastructure for transport users, it should not be considered in the calculation of the funding-gap.
Justification
The revenues should be specifically earmarked and especially include the road transport sector. For the support in this sector, it is vital that the money they are paying for the external costs is used to reduce these external costs, especially in the sector itself.
Amendment  23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 29
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(29) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and IV to technical and scientific progress, and Annexes I and II to inflation. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this directive, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.	(29) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and IV to technical and scientific progress, and Annexes I, II and IIIa to inflation. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this directive, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1
Directive 1999/62/EC
Article 2 – point ba
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (ba) ‘infrastructure charge’ means a charge levied through a toll for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by a Member State related to infrastructure; (ba)‘infrastructure charge’ means a charge levied through a toll for the purpose of recovering the costs related to infrastructure incurred by a Member State or more than one Member State if the project has been jointly undertaken;
Justification
Where cross border sections of TEN-T projects have been realized jointly by more than a single Member State sharing construction and operation costs the infrastructure charges related to have to take into account the specific situation.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2
Directive 1999/62/EC
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 1. Member States may maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges on their road network or on certain sections of that network under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this article and in Articles 7a to 7j. 1. Member States may maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges on the trans-European road network or on any section of their road network which customarily carries a significant volume of international transport of goods under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and in Articles 7a to 7j.
Justification
The directive should permit the free movement of goods in the Union while guaranteeing equal treatment of carriers. It is therefore appropriate to apply it throughout the trans-European transport network and on all the roads customarily used for international goods transport. On the remainder of the road network, it is necessary to avoid an unjustified additional administrative burden because there is no significant international transport. There, however, States remain free to levy taxes in accordance with the rules laid down in the Treaty.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. Member States shall not impose within their territory both tolls and user charges on any given category of vehicle. However, a Member States which imposes a user charge on its network may also impose tolls for the use of bridges, tunnels and mountain passes. 2. Member States shall not impose within their territory both tolls and user charges. However, a Member States which imposes a user charge on its network may also impose tolls for the use of bridges, tunnels and mountain passes.
Justification
Deletion estimated necessary in order to exclude any possibility for a parallel system: e.g. time-based charging for lighter lorries, distance based charging for heavier lorries.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7 – paragraph 5 - introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 5. Until 31 December 2011, 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. From 1 January 2012, tolls and/or user charges shall be applied to all vehicles within the meaning of Article 2(d) unless a Member State considers that an extension to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would: 5. Until 31 December 2011, 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. From 1 January 2012, tolls and/or user charges shall be applied to all vehicles within the meaning of Article 2(d).
Justification
The legislator had already in 2006 decided to extend the vehicle scope to 3,5 tonnes. To grant exemption on the basis of these factors means de facto to have a completely arbitrary scope. Member States are free to impose charging also on secondary roads if they fear detours.
Amendment  28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (a) create significant adverse effects on the free flow of traffic, the environment, noise levels, congestion or health; or deleted
Justification
The legislator had already in 2006 decided to extend the vehicle scope to 3,5 tonnes. To grant exemption on the basis of these factors means de facto to have a completely arbitrary scope. Member States are free to impose charging also on secondary roads if they fear detours.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (b) involve administrative costs of more than 30% of the additional revenue which would have been generated by that extension. deleted
Justification
The legislator had already in 2006 decided to extend the vehicle scope to 3,5 tonnes. To grant exemption on the basis of these factors means de facto to have a completely arbitrary scope. Concerning (a): Member States are free to impose charging also on secondary roads if they fear detours.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2
Directive 1999/62/EC
Article 7a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 1. User charges shall be in proportion to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure and shall be available for the duration of a day, week, month and a year. In particular, the annual rate shall be no less than 80 times the daily rate, the monthly rate shall be no less than 13 times the daily rate and the weekly rate shall be no less than five times the daily rate. 1. User charges shall be in proportion to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure and shall be available for the duration of a day, week, month and a year. In particular, the monthly rate shall be no more than 10% of the annual rate and the weekly rate shall be no more than 2.7% of the annual rate.
Justification
In order to prevent drivers from disproportionate user charges.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment     A Member State may only apply annual rates for vehicles registered in that Member State. deleted
Justification
One of the main reasons for the Eurovignette directive is to avoid discrimination within the EU.
Amendment  32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2
Directive 1999/62/EC
Article 7 b – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission 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, developing and ensuring safety standards on the infrastructure network concerned. The weighted average infrastructure charge may also include a return on capital or a profit margin based on market conditions.
Justification
Adherence to road safety is vital in order to avoid costs resulting from accidents. However, carrying out this duty calls for investments in facilities (e.g. test centres and control places for HGVs) and expenditure on safety personnel. In some countries, performing some of these control functions is even incumbent on regional authorities or territorial authorities, who are faced with enormous challenges in view of the increase in road freight transport.
Amendment  33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7b – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. The external cost charge shall be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution, the cost of traffic-based noise pollution, or both. 2. The external cost charge shall be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution, the cost of traffic-based noise pollution, or both. On road sections subject to congestion the external cost charge may also include the cost of congestion during the periods when these road sections are usually congested. On specified road sections subject to congestion the external cost charge may also include a congestion charge which reflects the cost of congestion caused by vehicles subject to it during the periods when the use of these road sections is usually close to capacity limits.   Before the implementation of a congestion charge, the Member State concerned shall set out an action plan which identifies, on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis, the possible measures to enhance the capacity of the road sections concerned by reducing the traffic volume or by building new infrastructure. The action plan shall cover all road users causing congestion.   The congestion charge shall not result in unfair treatment of commercial traffic compared to other road users causing congestion nor in distortions of competition between operators and therefore a charge with an equivalent effect is applied to all other road users causing congestion.
Justification
Amendment  34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7c – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 1. The external cost charge shall vary according to the type of road and EURO emission class, and also according to the time period in cases where the charge includes the cost of congestion or traffic-based noise pollution. 1. The external cost charge shall vary according to the type of road and EURO emission class (Annex IIIa, Table 1), and also according to the time period in cases where the charge includes the cost of congestion or traffic-based noise pollution.
Justification
Amendment  35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7c – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   2a. The charges referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to vehicles complying in advance with future EURO emissions standards as regards the dates laid down in the relevant rules.
Justification
Prescribing charges for those who have renewed a vehicle fleet or whose vehicles are of low environmental impact would do nothing to help achieve the objectives set by the proposed revision, but on the contrary would lead to a slowdown in the process of renewing the vehicle fleet and reducing emissions, as there would be fewer resources available to invest in new vehicles.
Amendment  36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7c – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 3. The amount of the external cost charge shall be set by an authority designated by the Member State for this purpose. The authority shall be legally and financially independent from the organisation in charge of managing or collecting part or all of the charge. However, if that organisation is controlled by the Member State, the authority may be an administrative entity of that State. 3. The amount of the external cost charge shall be set by each Member State. If a Member State designates an authority for this task, that authority shall be legally and financially independent from the body in charge of managing and collecting all or part of the charge.
Justification
The system should offer sufficient flexibility for the various procedures that exist.
Amendment  37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7e – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (1) In exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in mountainous regions, and after informing the Commission, a mark-up may be added to the infrastructure charge levied on specific road sections which are subject to acute congestion, or the use of which by vehicles is the cause of significant environmental damage, on condition that: (1) In exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in mountainous regions and conurbations, and after informing the Commission, a toll mark-up may be added to the infrastructure charge levied on specific road sections which are subject to acute congestion, or the use of which by vehicles is the cause of significant environmental damage, on condition that:
Justification
Conurbations can also be affected by congestion, and this can justify a toll mark‑up.
Amendment  38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7e – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (a) the revenue generated from the mark-up is invested in financing the construction of priority projects of European interest, identified in Annex III to Decision No 1692/96/EC, which contribute directly to the alleviation of the congestion or environmental damage and which are located in the same corridor as the road section on which the mark-up is applied; (a) the revenue generated from the mark-up is invested in financing projects designed to promote sustainable mobility and contribute directly to the alleviation of the congestion or environmental damage and which are located in the same corridor as the road section on which the mark-up is applied;
Justification
The Member States should be able to use the revenues for the improvement of transport infrastructure in general according to their own priorities.
Amendment  39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7e – paragraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (b) the mark-up does not exceed 15% of the weighted average infrastructure charge calculated in accordance with Article 7b(1) and Article 7d 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%; (b) the mark-up does not exceed 15% of the weighted average infrastructure charge calculated in accordance with Article 7b(1) and Article 7d except where the revenue generated is invested in cross-border sections of projects designed to promote sustainable mobility involving infrastructure in mountainous regions, in which case the mark-up may not exceed 25%;
Justification
The Member States should be able to use the revenues for the improvement of transport infrastructure in general according to their own priorities.
Amendment  40 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7e – paragraph 6
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 6. The amount of the mark-up shall be deducted from the amount of the external cost charge calculated in accordance with Article 7c. deleted
Justification
The reason for the mark up is to give MS further possibilities to finance the construction of priority projects of European interest and is not linked to the internalisation of external costs.
Amendment  41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7f – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 1. Toll rates which comprise only an infrastructure charge shall be varied according to EURO emission class in such a way that no toll is more than 100% above the toll charged for equivalent vehicles meeting the strictest emission standards. 1. Toll rates which comprise only an infrastructure charge shall be varied according to EURO emission class (Annex IIIa, Table 1) in such a way that no toll is more than 100% above the toll charged for equivalent vehicles meeting the strictest emission standards.
Justification
Amendment  42 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7f – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. Where a driver is unable to produce the vehicle documents necessary to ascertain the EURO emission class of the vehicle in the event of a check, Member States may apply tolls up to the highest level chargeable. 2. Where a driver is unable to produce the vehicle documents necessary to ascertain the EURO emission class of the vehicle in the event of a check, Member States may apply tolls up to the highest level chargeable, provided that there is a possibility of subsequent rectification to return the excess collected.
Justification
Provision needs to be made for a procedure whereby users can recover the difference in cases where they were charged a higher amount than the rate applicable to them because they did not have sufficient documentation in the vehicle.
Amendment  43 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7f – paragraph 3 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (c) no toll is more than 100% above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season. (c) no toll is more than 500% above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season.
Justification
Member States must be given sufficient freedom to differentiate according to the time of day and season.
Amendment  44 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7g – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. The Commission shall, within six months of receiving all the necessary information in accordance with paragraph 1, give an opinion as to whether the obligations of Article 7d are complied with. The opinions of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c. 2. The Commission shall, within six months of receiving all the necessary information in accordance with paragraph 1, give an opinion as to whether the obligations of Article 7d are complied with. The opinions of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c and to the European Parliament.
Justification
Since the purpose of this directive is to introduce the internalisation of external costs the information provided to the Commission by Member States of where and how these are calculated should be made available to the European Parliament.
Amendment  45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7g – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (d a) the envisaged earmarking of the external cost charge.
Justification
This amendment reinforces the concept of earmarking.
Amendment  46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7g – paragraph 3 – point d b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (d b) a specific plan indicating how additional revenue from external cost charges is to be used to reduce the damage caused.
Amendment  47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7g – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 4. The Commission may, within six months of receiving the information in accordance with paragraph 3, decide to ask the Member State concerned to adapt the proposed external cost charge, if it considers that the obligations laid down in Articles 7b, 7c, 7i or 9(2) are not complied with. The decision of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c. 4. The Commission may, within six months of receiving the information in accordance with paragraph 3, decide to ask the Member State concerned to adapt the proposed external cost charge, if it considers that the obligations laid down in Articles 7b, 7c, 7i or 9(2) are not complied with. The decision of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c and to the European Parliament.
Justification
Since the purpose of this directive is to introduce the internalisation of external costs the information provided to the Commission by Member States of where and how these are calculated should be made available to the European Parliament.
Amendment  48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7h – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 3. Subject to the conditions provided for in Article 7f(3)(b) and in Article 7f(4), toll rates may, in exceptional cases, namely specific projects of high European interest, be subject to other forms of variation in order to secure the commercial viability of such projects where they are exposed to direct competition with other modes of vehicle transport. The resulting charging structure shall be linear, proportionate, openly published, and 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 these conditions prior to the implementation of the charging structure in question. 3. Subject to the conditions provided for in Article 7f(3)(b) and in Article 7f(4), toll rates may, in exceptional cases, namely specific projects of high European interest in the field of freight transport, be subject to other forms of variation in order to secure the commercial viability of such projects where they are exposed to direct competition with other modes of vehicle transport. The resulting charging structure shall be linear, proportionate, openly published, and 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 these conditions prior to the implementation of the charging structure in question.
Justification
The objective should be to achieve a more effective and efficient transport system and to ensure market integration.
Amendment  49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7i – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. The arrangements for collecting tolls and 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 or user charges exclusively by means of a system that requires the use of a vehicle on-board unit, it shall ensure that appropriate on-board units compliant with the requirements of Directive 2004/52/EC can be obtained by all users under reasonable administrative and economic arrangements. 2. The arrangements for collecting tolls and user charges shall not, financially or otherwise, place non-regular users of the road network at an unjustified disadvantage compared to those who use alternative forms of payment. In particular, where a Member State collects tolls or user charges exclusively by means of a system that requires the use of a vehicle on-board unit, it shall ensure that appropriate on-board units compliant with the requirements of Directive 2004/52/EC can be obtained by all users under reasonable administrative and economic arrangements.
Justification
Non-regular users should be able to pay these charges without installing compulsory equipment.
Amendment  50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7i – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 3. If a Member State levies an external cost charge on a vehicle, the amount of such charge shall be indicated in a document provided to the haulier. 3. If a Member State levies a toll on a vehicle, the total amount of the toll, the amount of the infrastructure charge and the amount of the external cost charge shall be indicated in a document provided to the haulier, if possible by electronic means.
Justification
The document provided to the haulier should clearly indicate the amounts paid for the infrastructure charge, for the external cost charge and for VAT.
Amendment  51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7i – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 4. An external cost charge shall be levied and collected by means of an electronic system which complies with the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/52/EC and which can subsequently be extended to other road sections without the need for roadside barriers which imply significant additional roadside investment. 4. An external cost charge shall be levied and collected by means of an electronic system which complies with the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/52/EC. Member States shall also cooperate to ensure that they use interoperable electronic systems which can be used on one another's territory, with the provision that, if necessary, the rates can be adjusted.
Amendment  52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7i – paragraph 5
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 5. However, until 31 December 2013, an external cost charge may be levied and collected by means of an existing tolling arrangement. In such a case, the Member State concerned shall notify the Commission of its plan to switch to a system which complies with the requirements of paragraph 4 by 31 December 2013 at the latest. deleted
Justification
Amendment  53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7i – paragraph 5 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   5 a. As soon as the operability of toll collecting services based on the Galileo satellite positioning system is technically worked out, external cost charges shall be levied and collected by an interoperable European electronic toll collecting system as specified in Directive 2004/52/EC.
Justification
A truly interoperable European toll collecting system is necessary to ensure higher transport efficiency and safety.
Amendment  54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7j
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 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. 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, also if this would fall below the minimum rates of Annex I.
Justification
Consistent when the transformation to the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles.
Amendment  55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. A Member State in which an external cost charge is levied shall ensure that the revenue generated by the charge is earmarked for measures aimed at facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users. 2. A Member State in which an external cost charge is levied shall ensure that the revenue generated by the charge is earmarked as a priority to reduce and where possible eliminate the external costs arising from road transport. The revenue may also be used for measures aimed at facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of road transport vehicles, and developing and improving existing road infrastructure or developing alternative infrastructure for transport users.
Amendment  56 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 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 should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system. 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.
Amendment  57 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   As from 2011, at least 15% of the revenues generated by external costs and infrastructure charges 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
It is important that revenues generated from charges are partially and gradually earmarked to finance the TEN projects providing evidence to the citizen about their use
Amendment  58 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 5 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 9b
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 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. The Commission shall adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and IV in the light of scientific and technical progress and Annexes I and II in the light of inflation. Those measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 9c(3). 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. The Commission shall adapt Annexes 0, III, IIIa and IV in the light of scientific and technical progress and Annexes I, II and IIIa in the light of inflation. Those measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 9c(3).
Amendment  59 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (b a) the effect of the external cost charge or infrastructure charge on modal shift, the optimisation of road transport and the environment, and the effect of the external cost charge on the external costs which the Member State is seeking to cover by means of the charge.
Amendment  60 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   1 a. No later than 31 December 2010, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the availability of safe and secured parking places on the Trans-European Road Network (TEN).   After involving the relevant social partners, this report shall be accompanied by proposals on:   a) earmarking of infrastructure charges for a sufficient number of safe and secured parking areas on the TEN to be complied with by infrastructure operators or by public authorities responsible for the TEN;   b) guidelines for the European Investment Bank, the European Cohesion Fund and the European Structural Fund for due consideration of safe and secure parking areas within the design and co-financing of TEN-projects.
Justification
A tired driver is a liability in terms of road safety. However, an insufficient number of safe and unsecured parking places alongside the Trans-European-Network makes even impossible the legal respect of driving and rest obligations by drivers. With a view to avoid accident costs and to improve the health and safety of truck drivers, this issue should also be dressed in the Eurovignette-Directive.
Amendment  61 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (d a) the technical and economic feasibility of gradually abolishing time-based charging systems and introducing distance-based systems and the need to maintain a derogation for Member States with external borders with third countries to continue to apply time-based charging systems to heavy goods vehicles queuing at border-crossing points.
Justification
Amendment  62 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (d b) the need for a proposal for a scheme to ensure the consistent and simultaneous internalisation of external costs for all other modes of transport.
Justification
In order to prevent distortion of competition between different modes of transport, the Commission must submit proposals for directives for the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport.
Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   The report shall be accompanied by an assessment of the progress of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and, by a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive.
Amendment  64 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – point 1 – subparagraph 2 - introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment Where a Member State chooses to levy an external cost charge on only a part or parts of the network, the part or parts shall be chosen after an assessment establishing that: A Member State may choose to levy an external cost charge on only a part or parts of the network on the basis of objective criteria.
Justification
To impose on the MS an extensive assessment before being entitled to charge external costs, is estimated as an unnecessary administrative burden.
Amendment  65 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – point 1 – subparagraph 2 – bullet point 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment vehicles’ use of the roads where the external cost charge is applied generates environmental damage and congestion higher than that generated on average on other parts of the road infrastructure network that are not subject to a external cost charge, or deleted
Justification
To impose on the MS an extensive assessment before being entitled to charge external costs, is estimated as an unnecessary administrative burden.
Amendment  66 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – point 1 – subparagraph 2 – bullet point 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment the imposition of an external cost charge on other parts of the network might have adverse effects on the environment, congestion or road safety, or levying and collecting an external cost charge on them would entail disproportionate cost. deleted
Justification
To impose on the MS an extensive assessment before being entitled to charge external costs, is estimated as an unnecessary administrative burden.
Amendment  67 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – point 3 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment For each vehicle class, type of road and time period, the independent authority shall determine a single specific amount. The resulting charging structure shall be transparent, openly published and available to all users on equal terms. For each vehicle EURO class, type of road and time period, the independent authority shall determine a single specific amount. The resulting charging structure shall be transparent, openly published and available to all users on equal terms.
Amendment  68 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – point 3 – subparagraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment The independent authority shall monitor the effectiveness of the charging scheme in reducing environmental damage arising from road transport and in relieving congestion where it is applied. It shall regularly adjust the charging structure and the specific amount of the charge set for a given class of vehicle, type of road and period of time to the changes in transport demand. The independent authority shall monitor the effectiveness of the charging scheme in reducing environmental damage arising from road transport and in relieving congestion where it is applied. It shall regularly adjust the charging structure and the specific amount of the charge set for a given EURO class of vehicle, type of road and period of time to the changes in transport demand.
Amendment  69 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.1 – Table 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Table 1: Air pollution cost of vehicle (PCV)
Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre Suburban roads Other interurban roads EURO 0 16 13 EURO I 11 8 EURO II 9 8 EURO III 7 6 EURO IV 4 4 EURO V and less polluting 3 2
Values in euro cents, 2000
Amendment
Table 1: Maximum chargeable air pollution cost of any vehicle in a given class
Euro cent/vehicle.kilometre Roads subject to higher external cost charges/ Suburban roads and motorways Roads subject to lower external cost charges/Interurban roads and motorways EURO 0 16 12 EURO I 11 8 EURO II 9 7 EURO III 7 6 EURO IV 4 3 EURO V 3 2 EURO VI 2 1 Less polluting than EURO VI, for example hybrid and electric heavy goods vehicles or vehicles running on a natural gas/hydrogen mixtures or hydrogen power supply 0 0
Values in euro cents, 2000

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. Current situation

The current Eurovignette Directive 1999/68/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC effectively prohibits Member States from charging heavy goods vehicles (HGV) over 12 tonnes (3,5 tonnes from 2012 onwards) for external costs on roads that are part of the TEN network.

On all other roads and for vehicles below 12 tonnes, however, Member States are under the actual Eurovignette directive free to charge whatever external cost they want, as long as they respect the general rules of the Treaty of the European Union, notably the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.

2. Commission proposal

On July 2008 the European Commission presented a proposal for a revision of the existing Directive that would allow Member States to install a charge levied through a toll for certain external costs. The Commission also proposes an extension of the geographical scope of the directive. Accordingly Member States would need to comply on all roads with the requirements of the directive when charging for infrastructure and external costs. Only urban areas would remain free to introduce regulatory charging schemes, as already done by different cities.

The Commission proposal is a first step in applying the polluter pays principle for road transport. The requirements Member States need to fulfil in order to get authorisation by the Commission are quite strict. Member States would only be allowed to charge for certain external costs, levied only via road-side barrier free tolls and only if they follow certain calculation methods as defined in the Annex IIIa.

3. Background to the current proposal

The European Parliament has always been very supportive of the principle of internalization of external costs. During the most recent revision of the Eurovignette in 2006, the Parliament pressed for a clause in Article 11 of the current Directive, obliging the Commission to come up with a "generally applicable, transparent and comprehensible model for the assessment of all external costs to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges." This model had to be "accompanied by an impact analysis of the internalization of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy for a stepwise implementation of the model for all modes of transport."

This point of view has, over the years, been reiterated in many resolutions of the Parliament on transport issues[1]. The European Parliament resolution of 12 July 2007 on the implementation of the first railway package states in Paragraph 2:

"Considers that the "Eurovignette 2" Directive is an initial step towards fair intermodal competition: fair competition is not possible when the levying of charges is mandatory throughout the EU for all trains on all rail routes, while road tolls in the EU have an upper limit, are charged only on a voluntary basis without an internalisation of external costs, mostly only on motorways and only for lorries; calls, therefore, on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive by 2008 (cf. Article 1(9) of Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures⁽⁵⁾ ) in which the Eurovignette is adjusted in line with the rail route pricing system, tolls are made mandatory for all lorries over 3.5 tonnes on all roads in the EU without loopholes, and external costs are internalised;"

The European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2008 on sustainable European transport policy, taking into account European energy and environment policies states in paragraph 12: "Urges the Commission to submit by June 2008 at the latest, a comprehensible, transparent, generally applicable model for assessing the external costs of all modes of transport, on which to base future calculation of the charges to be paid for the use of infrastructure; observes that, under the Eurovignette Directive, that model must be accompanied by an analysis of the impact of internalising external costs for all modes of transport and by a strategy for phasing in the model for all modes of transport; looks to the Commission, alongside the above initiative to produce legislative proposals, starting with the revision of the Eurovignette Directive;"

On the basis of the requested model for the assessment of all external costs, the Commission finally proposes this revision together with a comprehensive strategy for internalizing external costs in all transport modes. Road transport is not alone. Other transport modes have already started to internalize external costs. Relevant Community legislation for other transport modes either phases-in such internalisation or at least does not prevent it. CO2 is tackled by including aviation into the ETS, that covers also electricity provision for trains, and in the near future maritime transport is to be included in the system. Other external costs can be internalized via airport charges and infrastructure charges for trains (Directive 2001/14). However, in order to modulate track access charges more widely and have a complete internalization of external costs in the railway sector, it is precondition that the road applies external cost charging.[2] The Commission is due to propose a recast of the First Railway Package in order to introduce harmonized noise related track access charging schemes.

4. Position of your rapporteur and suggested amendments

High fuel prizes and financial crisis: The timing could be better for this revision. But the inconvenient truth is that we need to readjust as soon as possible[3] the conditions for a more efficient and sustainable transport policy. If prices do not appropriately reflect social costs, they fail to convey the right economic signals, thus leading to situations where transport activities generate excessive costs as compared to an efficient situation. Your rapporteur estimates that a differentiated road charging system is an efficient element within a range of policy options that are needed for a more sustainable transport policy. Tolls could be made more effective, by way of greater differentiation however the current Directive does not allow it. Further road charging options for Member States, via the acceptance of the internalisation of external costs principle, are therefore required.

Taking all this into consideration, your rapporteur proposes the following:

a) Calculation of external costs is possible

The calculation and the methodology are sound. Let us start with the proposed 3 externalities and also the external costs of CO2, at least as long as this is not internalized through a common fuel tax policy.

For the time being, your rapporteur does not propose to include accident costs, due to the great variety in insurance models and different levels of internalisation of accident costs in the EU. Nonetheless, your rapporteur supports this as a principle and suggests that no later than 31 December 2010, the Commission shall present a report and legislative proposals on accident costs and on the different level of internalisation in national risk oriented insurance premiums in order to harmonise the level of internalisation of accidents costs in Member States.

Your rapporteur also stresses the need to keep congestion in the proposal. Some argue that all vehicles should be subject to charging, not only heavy goods vehicles. This is a valid premise, but if congestion is not included in this Directive, Member States cannot start introducing external cost charges for congestion on interurban roads in the first place.

b) Differentiated charging is efficient

Give the right prize signals: Phase out time-based charging systems as soon as possible; stay as close as possible to the real external costs (no caps, adaptation to inflation; correction of the values given for congestion at peak hours as they do not by far reflect the actual mean values[4]).

c) Increase interoperability and harmonization

Encourage barrier free charging systems. Propose mandatory charging as soon as possible. Same rules everywhere: Yes to the extension of the geographic scope. Define vehicle scope better: The current Directive also allows Member States to exclude vehicles weighing 3, 5 to 12 tonnes from the application of the Directive. To further harmonize charging of heavy goods vehicles in the EU, your rapporteur suggests applying the Directive to all HGV weighing 3, 5 tonnes or more, without exceptions.

d) Earmarking

Earmarking of revenues is essential to this Directive. The revenues generated by charging external costs must not end up being another form of taxation. Your rapporteur therefore supports the Commission proposal to reinvest revenues into the transport system and proposes to strengthen the obligation how revenues should be used to reduce external costs.

The proposal says "revenues from charges should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system". Your rapporteur suggests restoring the wording "shall" in the existing text in order to keep the text as strong as possible.

e) Future steps

In 2013, the Commission will draw up a report on the application of the Directive and further steps to take. Your rapporteur suggests adding, by 2010, a report and legislative proposals on accident costs and on the different level of internalisation of those costs. Furthermore, your rapporteur suggests assigning to the Commission a deadline to examine the possibilities of introducing mandatory schemes and the abolition of time-based charging schemes by 2013. These reports should be accompanied by legislative proposals.

• [1]  see also paragraph 14 of Parliament's resolution P6_TA(2007)0345of 12 July 2007 on keeping Europe moving − Sustainable mobility for our continent and paragraph 1 of Parliament's resolution P6_TA(2007)0345 of 4 September 2008 on freight transport in Europe
• [2]  see Directive 2001/14 Article 7 Paragraph 5.
• [3]  The entry into force of the new directive is foreseen by 31 December 2010 at the latest.
• [4]  For calculations: Project GRACE – http://www.grace-eu.org

OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (16.12.2008)

for the Committee on Transport and Tourism

on the proposal for 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
(COM(2008)0436 – C6‑0276/2008 – 2008/0147(COD))

Rapporteur: Claude Turmes

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Transport sector, peak oil and environmental sustainability

The transport sector in general and goods transport in particular have almost 90% of their energy needs covered by fossil fuels; as a consequence this mode of transport is extremely exposed to highly volatile oil prices. Just now when the International Energy Agency in its 2008 World Energy Outlook[1] rings the alarm bell on the future availability of cheap oil, the EU has become the most exposed of all major world economic zones with only 10% of its goods transport relying on other than oil fuel.

In addition to that, within the intra-EU goods transport sector, road transport has an overall dominance with a share of 46%, maritime has some 37% while rail accounts for less than 11%[2]. Road freight has also grown by 31% in the 2000-05 period and this trend is expected to remain

As there is little sustainable alternatives for oil driven lorries in the coming decades, rationalising the goods transport sector and switching to rail and ship modes will be key to strengthen the Union's resilience to predicted major oil price crises.

Greening the Eurovignette - key provisions

As part of the 'Greening Transport' package, the Commission came forth in July 2008 with a proposal for a revision of the so-called Eurovignette Directive 2006/38/EC which in 2006 made first steps in improving the 1999 Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure. The current proposal introduces for the first time the opportunity for Member States to apply 'smarter' payments for the road haulage sector to cover the external costs and thus encourage a more sustainable behaviour among these participants:

· external cost charges (covering congestion, noise and air pollution) could be applied by Member States (provision not mandatory) for heavy goods vehicles on any part of their road network (excluding urban areas) as of 31st December 2010;

· CO2 emissions, oil dependency and accidents remain outside the external cost definition;

· charges will be capped at maximum levels and vary according to the time of day, distance travelled and vehicle EURO emissions class type;

· tolls with barriers will no longer be permitted; charge collection will be based on an electronic system - transition period till January 2014;

· external cost charging revenues will be earmarked for improving the sustainable performance of the road transport;

· envisaged review of current provisions in 2013 in view of assessing if external costs are to become mandatory and inclusive of CO2 emissions;

Main points of the opinion

Your draftsman welcomes the Commission's proposal as it introduces the internalisation principle for the first time and thus works towards completing the legislative improvements inaugurated with the 2006 Eurovignette Directive.

It is his opinion that the opportunity with this second revision should be fully exploited with some concrete and substantive measures to bring tangible results and contribute to meeting the Union's environmental and energy efficiency targets by 2020.

To this end, your draftsman believes that the proposal should be strengthened with more ambitious provisions:

v Binding provision for internalisation by all Member States

The non-compulsory approach to internalisation will not help bring in the expected environmental and social benefits. To ensure results and realise the objective of a greener European transport system, external cost charging should apply to all Member States.

v Inclusion of damage to nature and landscape, climate change, oil dependency and accidents (other than covered by insurance) to 'external cost' definition

Undeniably all of the above factors do come at a serious cost to both economy and society. Excluding these from 'external cost' definition goes contrary to the findings of the Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector[3]. Relying on other methods through fuel taxation for example with regards climate change internalisation is not quite promising in delivering the required results given the unanimity required at present for EU level measures on taxation.

v Removing caps on external cost charges in Annex III A

Your draftsperson takes the view that maximum charging values should be left open in order to precisely reflect the value of the external cost in a given situation and a charge being set accordingly. The built-in checks in the proposal on calculation method and reporting to the Commission are a set guarantee against possible misuse by some Member States.

v Earmarking of revenues - strengthening the provision

The proper use of revenues generated from external cost charges is central to achieving the goals of this proposal. These should be specifically targeted to projects aiming to improve the sustainability of the transport network. Your draftsperson suggests a tightening of the direction given to Member States as to the fields where such revenues could be invested avoiding the possibility of using the funds instead for general wear and tear maintenance of the infrastructure.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) The promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy. To this end, the negative impacts of transport, in particular congestion, which impedes mobility, pollution, which creates health and environmental damage, and its contribution to climate change must be reduced. Moreover environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies, including the common transport policy.	(1) The promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy. To this end, the negative impacts of transport, in particular congestion, which impedes mobility, pollution, which creates health and environmental damage, and its contribution to climate change must be reduced. Moreover environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies, including the common transport policy. The priorities of environmental protection, social and economic cohesion objectives and EU business competitiveness objectives should also be reconciled in a balanced way as part of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment.
Justification
The proposal does not take account of the costs already borne by transport operators owing to congestion and the overall tax burden on companies. Although goods transport by road only accounts for 10% of traffic jams, transport operators have to bear costs linked to congestion through increased fixed and variable costs, wasted time and loss of earnings. In addition, article 7.10 of Directive 1999/62 already provides Member States with the tool to combat congestion.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(2a) The results from "The programme for a sustainable transport policy for Europe" should be implemented within this Directive.
Justification
It is vital that the results of "The program for a sustainable transport policy for Europe" are taken into account.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 2 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(2b) It is vital to ensure that progress on improving fuel quality is not hampered, and that incentives for levy companies to invest in alternative fuels, such as biofuels, are integrated in this Directive.
Justification
The improvement of fuel quality, as well as the transition from oil-based fuels to biofuels, are key priorities in order to reduce Europe's dependency on oil as well as to meet EU's targets on emissions reduction.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) To optimise the transport system accordingly, the common transport policy must use a variety of instruments to improve the transport infrastructure and technologies and enable a more efficient management of transport demand. This calls for further recourse to the "user pays" principle and the development of the "polluter pays" principle in the transport sector.	(3) To optimise the transport system accordingly, the common transport policy must use a variety of instruments to improve the transport infrastructure and technologies and enable a more efficient management of transport demand. This calls for an assessment of the impact of any new political initiative, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Strategy and the Strategy for sustainable development. Any decision related to the mandatory principle applicable in the future to the provisions of this Directive should be based solely on an in-depth cost-benefit analysis that takes into account the overall burden on goods transport by road.
Justification
While the "polluter pays" principle is a means of levying tax that in no way guarantees a reduction in the external effects targeted, an in-depth cost-benefit analysis in line with the EU initiative on "better regulation" would promote the reduction in the external effects of goods transport by road at source at a minimal cost for the European economy as a whole.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(5) In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better reflect the costs related to traffic-based air pollution, traffic-based noise pollution, climate change and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships as a means of optimising the use of infrastructure, reducing local pollution, managing congestion and fighting against climate change at least cost for the economy. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, taking into account their particular characteristics.	(5) In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better reflect the costs related to traffic-based air pollution, traffic-based noise pollution, damage to nature and landscape, climate change, accidents other than those covered by insurance, and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships as a means of optimising the use of infrastructure, reducing local pollution, managing congestion and fighting against climate change at least cost for the economy. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, taking into account their particular characteristics.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 9 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(9a) The internalisation of external transport costs occurs not only through user charges but also through the development of infrastructures with a view to providing real alternatives to the most polluting forms of transport, via the promotion of research and technological advances and the harmonisation of standards at EU level.
Justification
The internalisation of external transport costs is a complex process, one of whose key components is the introduction of a charging system based on the 'polluter pays' principle.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) Tolls based on distance travelled should be allowed to include an external cost element based on the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution. Furthermore, on roads that are usually congested and during peak periods congestion costs which are mostly borne at local level should also be allowed to be recovered through the external cost charge. The external cost element included in tolls should be allowed to be added to the cost of infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are respected in the calculation of costs so as to avoid undue charging.	(14) Tolls based on distance travelled should be allowed to include an external cost element based on the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, damage to nature and landscape, and accidents other than those covered by insurance. Furthermore, on roads that are usually congested and during peak periods congestion costs which are mostly borne at local level should also be allowed to be recovered through the external cost charge. The external cost element included in tolls should be allowed to be added to the cost of infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are respected in the calculation of costs so as to avoid undue charging.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) To better reflect the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, and congestion, the external cost charge should vary according to the type of roads, type of vehicles and time periods such as daily, weekly or seasonal peak and off peak periods and night period.	(15) To better reflect the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, damage to nature and landscape, congestion and accidents other than those covered by insurance, the external cost charge should vary according to the type of roads, type of vehicles and time periods such as daily, weekly or seasonal peak and off peak periods and night period.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 21 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(21a) It is necessary to examine the present state of affairs in certain Member States under which VAT is levied on the vignette or road tax and the harmonisation of the relevant fiscal regime, so as not to create artificial barriers to the free movement of goods and to avoid double taxation.
Justification
It is important that the tax regime applicable to the Eurovignette or road tax should be the same in all Member States, so as to ensure that no artificial barriers are created to the free movement of goods.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(23a) Road congestion is the outcome of existing transport infrastructures' quality and capacity levels and the volume of traffic of both private cars and vehicles transporting persons and goods; it is therefore necessary for Member States to invest in transport infrastructures so as to minimise the external costs generated by them.
Justification
Congestion and pollution arise from transport infrastructures' limitations in terms of capacity and quality. Transporters are not the only ones who cause the problems and should not be the only ones to have to pay. It is the responsibility of the Member States to improve transport infrastructure with a view to reducing external costs.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(23b) 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 the charges arising from the provisions of this Directive.
Justification
Substantial investment will be required both for improving transport infrastructures and implementing the means of collecting charges. Member States must be able to draw on both the TEN-T budget and the Structural Funds for purposes of improving transport infrastructures with a view to reducing external costs.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 24
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(24) In accordance with the transport policy objectives of this Directive, the additional revenue generated from an external cost charge should be used for projects with a broad Community interest and designed to promote sustainable mobility at large. Such projects should therefore relate to facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users. It includes, for example, research and development on cleaner vehicles and the implementation of the transport part of the action plans under Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise , which may comprise measures to mitigate traffic-based noise and air pollution around large infrastructure and in agglomerations. Earmarking this revenue does not release Member States from the obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty to notify the Commission of certain national measures, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any procedures initiated under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty.	(24) In accordance with the transport policy objectives of this Directive, the additional revenue generated from an external cost charge should be used to improve the transport sector as a whole, namely projects with a broad Community interest, and with the objective of reducing external costs. Such projects should therefore relate to facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects and developing alternative and sustainable infrastructure for transport users. It includes for example, research and development on cleaner vehicles, repair, maintenance and improvement works on existing infrastructure, developing new infrastructure and the implementation of the transport part of the action plans under Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, which may comprise measures to mitigate traffic-based noise and air pollution around large infrastructure and in agglomerations. Earmarking this revenue does not release Member States from the obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty to notify the Commission of certain national measures, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any procedures initiated under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty.
Justification
The internalisation of external costs should not be an end in itself, but goal-oriented, towards the development of efficient and sustainable infrastructure. The earmarking of additional revenues generated by the internalisation of external costs should guarantee the best – and most sustainable – conditions of mobility to transport users.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 25 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25a) The Commission should take all necessary measures to ensure the introduction of a truly interoperable European electronic toll collecting system, in accordance with Directive 2004/52/EC.
Justification
A truly interoperable European toll collecting system is necessary to ensure higher transport efficiency and safety.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 26 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(26a) Member States in receipt of EU co-funding for road infrastructure should provide the Commission with an estimate of the revenues expected from applying this Directive as well as Directive 1999/62/EC and Directive 2006/38/EC.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 27 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(27a) The use of EU funds and revenues from road charging within the framework of this Directive as well as Directive 1999/62/EC and Directive 2006/38/EC should incorporate the requirements of Directive 2004/52/EC. This should lead to a stronger position on the world market for EU industries which produce such systems.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 27 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(27b) The trans-border mountainous Alpine region should apply the principles of the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention and therefore be allowed to introduce additional non-discriminatory measures for calculating external costs and cross-subsidising rail transport.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 29 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(29a) Complementary measures should boost the effects of pricing systems in order to face climate change challenges and improve the environmental performance of the transport system, in particular with regard to the pursuit of EU transport policy goals: a more balanced modal shift, greater efficiency of the logistic performance of road transport, reduction of energy consumption and emissions by the road transport sector.
Justification
The pricing system should be only one part of the measures envisaged to improve the environmental performance of transport system.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 2 – point b b
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (bb) ‘external cost charge’ means a charge levied through a toll for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by a Member State related to traffic-based air pollution, traffic-based noise pollution and congestion; (bb) 'external cost charge' means a charge levied through a toll for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by a Member State related to traffic-based air and noise pollution, damage to nature and landscape, congestion and accidents other than those covered by insurance;
Amendment  19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 2 – point b c
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (bc) ‘cost of traffic-based air pollution’ means the cost of the damage caused by the release of certain harmful air emissions in the course of the operation of a vehicle; (bc) 'cost of traffic-based air pollution' means the cost of damage caused by the release of certain harmful air emissions in the course of the operation of a vehicle, including its effects on health;
Amendment  20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 2 – point b d
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (bd) ‘cost of traffic-based noise pollution’ means the cost of the damage caused by the noise emitted by a vehicle or created by the interaction of a vehicle and the road surface; (bd) 'cost of traffic-based noise pollution' means the cost of damage caused by the noise, emitted by a vehicle or created by the interaction of a vehicle and the road surface, including its effects on health;
Amendment  21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 2 – point be a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (bea) 'cost of damage to nature and landscape' means the cost of damage caused by spatial separation or barriers, a decline in the quality of landscapes, loss of natural land and biotopes, disturbance of eco-systems, as well as pollution of soils, surface, and groundwater;
Amendment  22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (4a) The internalisation of external transport costs, especially those related to the environment, should be gradually phased in, so as not to generate excessive costs which might adversely affect the competitiveness of any particular mode of transport.
Justification
Internalisation should be gradually phased in so that charges do not become obstacles to the competitiveness of a given mode of transport.
Amendment  23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment A Member State may apply only annual rates for vehicles registered in that State. deleted
Justification
One of the main objectives of the directive on the Eurovignette is to prevent discrimination within the EU.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7a – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   2a. The application of these regulatory charges to fight congestion in densely populated areas or in sensitive areas shall not have any discriminatory effects on transit traffic.
Justification
The application of these regulatory charges to fight congestion in densely populated areas or in sensitive areas should not have any discriminatory effects on transit traffic.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7b – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. The external cost charge shall be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution, the cost of traffic-based noise pollution, or both. On road sections subject to congestion the external cost charge may also include the cost of congestion during the periods when these road sections are usually congested. 2. The external cost charge shall be related to the cost of climate change and of traffic-based air and noise pollution, damage to nature and landscape, the cost of traffic-based accidents other than those covered by insurance. On road sections subject to congestion the external cost charge may also include the cost of congestion during the periods when these road sections are usually congested.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7c – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. The amount of the external cost charge for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and time period shall be set in accordance with the minimum requirements, the common formulae and the maximum chargeable external costs in Annex IIIa. 2. The amount of the external cost charge for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and time period shall be set in accordance with the minimum requirements and the common methods for external cost calculation in Annex IIIa.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7f – paragraph 3 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (c) no toll is more than 100% above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season. (c) with the exception of tolls charged for congestion no toll is more than 100% above the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season.
Justification
Congestion costs shall be considered included in the infrastructure toll charge.
Amendment  28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 7f – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (ca) tolls charged for congestion shall not exceed by more than 200% the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season; where the whole amount of congestion revenues are spent explicitly to reduce congestion by using ITS solutions on those roads where the congestion charges were levied, the congestion toll shall not exceed by more than 400% the toll charged during the cheapest period of the day, type of day or season.
Justification
Congestion costs shall be considered included in the infrastructure toll charge.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. A Member State in which an external cost charge is levied shall ensure that the revenue generated by the charge is earmarked for measures aimed at facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users. 2. A Member State in which an external cost charge is levied shall ensure that the revenue generated by the charge is earmarked for measures aimed at facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution (air or noise) at source, mitigating effects, improving CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, improving existing infrastructure, developing traffic management systems aimed at optimising the use of existing infrastructure and developing a balanced transport infrastructure network, according to needs, with the objective of reducing external costs.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/62/EC Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment     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 should be used to benefit the transport sector and optimise the entire transport system. 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 should be used to benefit the transport sector, for example, through the installation and maintenance of interoperable (satellite based) toll collecting systems as referred to in Directive 2004/52/EC, optimisation of logistics, traffic management and inter-modal nodes of the entire transport network, noise reduction at source, infrastructure investments for safer and less oil consuming modes , such as rail, sustainable waterborne transport and pipelines.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex Directive 1999/62/EC Annex IIIa – title
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LEVYING AN EXTERNAL COST CHARGE AND MAXIMUM CHARGEABLE EXTERNAL COST ELEMENTS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND COMMON METHODS FOR LEVYING AN EXTERNAL COST CHARGE

PROCEDURE

Title	The charging of heavy goods vehicles
References	COM(2008)0436 – C6-0276/2008 – 2008/0147(COD)
Committee responsible	TRAN
Opinion by        Date announced in plenary	ITRE 2.9.2008
Drafts(wo)man        Date appointed	Claude Turmes 15.9.2008
Discussed in committee	16.10.2008		13.11.2008
Date adopted	11.12.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	21 0 10
Members present for the final vote	John Attard-Montalto, Jan Březina, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Dragoş Florin David, Den Dover, Nicole Fontaine, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Eluned Morgan, Reino Paasilinna, Vladimír Remek, Teresa Riera Madurell, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Ivo Belet, Manuel António dos Santos, Neena Gill, Vladimir Urutchev, Lambert van Nistelrooij
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Louis Grech, Aurelio Juri, Sepp Kusstatscher, Eva Lichtenberger, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, María Sornosa Martínez

• [1]  World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency) - 12 November 2008.
• [2]  Energy and Transport in Figures, 2007 (Directorate General for Transport and Energy and Eurostat) NB: figures for 2006.
• [3]  Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector (CE Delft, 2008) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/doc/2008_01_15_handbook_external_cost_en.pdf

PROCEDURE

Title	The charging of heavy goods vehicles
References	COM(2008)0436 – C6-0276/2008 – 2008/0147(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	8.7.2008
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	TRAN 2.9.2008
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 2.9.2008		ITRE 2.9.2008
Not delivering opinions        Date of decision	ENVI 10.9.2008
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Saïd El Khadraoui 26.8.2008
Discussed in committee	9.9.2008		7.10.2008		3.11.2008		20.1.2009
Date adopted	11.2.2009
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	32 14 0
Members present for the final vote	Gabriele Albertini, Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Brigitte Fouré, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Timothy Kirkhope, Jaromír Kohlíček, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Bogusław Liberadzki, Erik Meijer, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Ulrike Rodust, Gilles Savary, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Michel Teychenné, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Yannick Vaugrenard, Armando Veneto, Roberts Zīle
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Johannes Blokland, Luigi Cocilovo, Markus Ferber, Armando França, Lily Jacobs, Elisabeth Jeggle, Eleonora Lo Curto, Helmuth Markov, Corien Wortmann-Kool
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Samuli Pohjamo, Claude Turmes