Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the CouncilShow full title

Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 27 September 2011

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions(2),

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(3),

Whereas:

(1) The promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy. To this end, the contribution of the transport sector to climate change and its negative impacts should be reduced, in particular congestion, which impedes mobility, and air and noise pollution, which create health and environmental damage. Moreover environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Union policies, including the common transport policy.

(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, the proper functioning of the internal market and territorial cohesion.

(3) To optimise the transport system accordingly, the common transport policy should use a variety of instruments to improve transport infrastructure and the use of technologies and to enable the more efficient management of transport demand through, in particular, the promotion of the renewal of the fleet, a more efficient use of infrastructures and co-modality. This calls for further recourse to the ‘user pays’ principle and the development and the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in the transport sector in all modes of transport.

(4) Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4) called on the Commission to present a model for the assessment of all external costs arising from use of the transport infrastructure to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges. That model was to be accompanied by an impact analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy for a stepwise implementation of the model and, if appropriate, by proposals for further revision of that Directive.

(5) In order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better reflect the costs related to traffic-based air and noise pollution, climate change, and congestion caused by the actual use of all modes of transport, as a means of optimising the use of infrastructure, reducing local pollution, managing congestion and combating climate change at the least cost for the economy. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, taking into account their particular characteristics.

(6) Transport modes have already started to internalise external costs and the relevant Union legislation either phases in such internalisation or at least does not prevent it. However, this process needs to be monitored and encouraged further for all modes of transport applying common principles while taking into account the specificity of each mode.

(7) In the road transport sector, tolls calculated as distance-based charges for the use of infrastructure constitute a fair and efficient economic instrument to achieve a sustainable transport policy, since they relate directly to the use of infrastructure, the environmental performance of vehicles and the place and time of use of vehicles and can therefore be set at a level which reflects the cost of pollution and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles. Moreover, tolls do not create any distortion of competition within the internal market since they are payable by all operators irrespective of their Member State of origin or establishment and in proportion to the intensity of use of the road network.

(8) 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 higher variation of toll rates during peak periods could have a positive effect on the transport system and contribute to the Union strategy on climate change. It could reduce congestion and local pollution by encouraging the use of cleaner vehicle technologies, optimising logistic behaviour and reducing empty returns. It could indirectly play an important role in reducing fuel consumption and contributing to combating climate change.

(9) This Directive does not prevent Member States from applying national rules for charging other road users outside the scope of this Directive.

(10) The costs of traffic-based air and noise pollution, 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 transport takes place. The polluter pays principle will be implemented through the external-cost charging which will contribute to the reduction of external costs.

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

(12) There are still uncertainties about the costs and benefits of the systems required to enforce differentiated charges on roads with low traffic. Until such uncertainties are dealt with, a flexible approach at Union level appears most appropriate. This flexible approach should leave Member States the option to decide whether and on which roads to introduce external-cost charges on the basis of the local and national characteristics of the network.

(13) Time-based user charges constitute a useful system for already applying the ‘user pays’ principle when a charging system based on distance travelled, which better reflects the actual use of infrastructure, is currently not implemented. 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 heavy goods vehicles.

(14) In order to ensure that European hauliers receive clear price signals, which act as an incentive to optimise behaviour, efforts should be made in the medium term to bring about convergence in the methods which the Member States use to calculate external costs.

(15) A clear and transparent implementation of the charging schemes could lead to a better functioning of the internal market. Therefore, inconsistent charging schemes should be avoided in order not to distort competition in international goods transport on the trans-European road network or on certain sections of that network, and on any additional sections of those interlinked networks or motorways which are not part of the trans-European road network. The same charging principles should, in particular, be applied to any section of the motorway network of a Member State.

(16) Member States should have the option of charging the maximum level of the infrastructure costs and external costs permitted by this Directive through tolls, but should be able to choose to charge one or both of those costs at a lower level or not to charge them at all.

(17) When determining the network on which to apply an external-cost charge, Member States should be able to choose not to levy external-cost charges on certain roads in order to improve access to, and the competitiveness of, peripheral, landlocked and island regions.

(18) It should be possible to add to an infrastructure charge an external-cost element based on the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution. The external-cost element included in tolls should be permitted to be added to the cost of use of infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are respected in the calculation of costs so as to avoid undue charging.

(19) To better reflect the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, the external-cost charge should vary according to the type of roads, type of vehicles and, for noise, the time periods involved.

(20) Congestion has a negative impact, in that for the road users in general, it means a loss of time and a waste of fuel. Differentiation of infrastructure charges offers a tool to manage congestion, provided that the differentiated tolls give a clear and meaningful price signal to road users to modify their behaviour and to avoid congested road sections during peak periods.

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

(22) 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(5) already provides a basis for developing and completing the set of Union measures concerning noise emitted by road vehicles and infrastructure by requiring competent authorities to draw up strategic noise maps for major roads and to draw up action plans to reduce noise where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health.

(23) The smooth functioning of the internal market requires a Union framework in order to ensure that road charges set on the basis of the local cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution and on the basis of congestion are transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. That framework should include common charging principles, calculation methods, maximum levels and unit values of external costs based on acknowledged scientific methods, as well as procedures for notifying and reporting tolling schemes to the Commission.

(24) If an authority is designated by a Member State to set the external-cost charge, it should 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.

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

(26) In order to give precedence to the construction of the priority projects of European interest identified in Annex III to Decision No 661/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(6), Member States which have the possibility of applying a mark-up should use that 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.

(27) Discounts or reductions of the external-cost charge should not be permitted, as there would be a significant risk that they would unduly discriminate against certain categories of users.

(28) Subject to the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on State Aid, incentive measures should be permitted for trips involving expensive modal transfers, such as road-sea-road, in the interest of territorial cohesion and the accessibility and competitiveness of peripheral, landlocked and island regions.

(29) It should be possible to permit discounts or reductions of the infrastructure charge under certain circumstances for any category of users, such as frequent users or users of electronic toll systems.

(30) Charging external costs through tolls will be more effective in influencing user decisions if they are aware of such costs. Therefore, those costs should be identified separately on a statement, on a bill or on an equivalent document provided by the toll operator. Furthermore, such a document would facilitate hauliers in passing on the cost of the external-cost charge to the shipper or to any other clients.

(31) The use of electronic toll systems is desirable to avoid disruption of the free flow of traffic and to prevent adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. It is therefore desirable to levy an external-cost charge by means of such systems, in compliance with Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community(7). With a view to facilitating the proper functioning of the internal market, the Commission should monitor progress made in the framework of Directive 2004/52/EC to implement within the agreed dates a genuine European Electronic Toll Service which limits the number of electronic toll devices in a given vehicle to one unit which is fully compatible with the electronic fee collection systems of all the Member States.

(32) While decisions on national public expenditure, including the use of revenues generated under this Directive, are, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, a matter for Member States, the additional revenue generated from external-cost charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, in accordance with the transport policy objectives of this Directive, should be used to benefit the transport sector and to promote sustainable mobility in general. Such projects should therefore relate to, inter alia, facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving the CO₂ and energy performance of vehicles, developing alternative infrastructure for transport users, optimising logistics or improving road safety.

(33) In order to promote the interoperability of tolling arrangements, and subject to compliance with certain conditions, two or more Member States should be permitted to cooperate in introducing common systems of tolls.

(34) The Commission should send in due time to the European Parliament and to the Council a comprehensive assessment of the experience acquired in the Member States which apply an external-cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge in accordance with this Directive.

(35) 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(8) 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, revenue generated by external-cost charges should not be considered in calculation of the funding-gap, since this revenue should be spent on projects aimed at reducing road transport pollution at the source, mitigating its effects, improving the CO₂ and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users.

(36) When implementing alternative scientific methods for calculating external-cost charges, Member States should be able to take into account the methods for calculating the values of monetary costs of externalities that are provided by the study ‘Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector’(9), which gives an overview of the state of the art in the theory and practice of estimating external costs.

(37) In mountain areas as described in the study ‘Mountain areas in Europe: analysis of mountain areas in EU Member States, acceding and other European countries’ commissioned by the European Commission in 2004, higher external-cost charges should be permitted to the extent that objective scientific data prove that air and noise pollution cause greater damage in those mountain areas due to geographic circumstances and physical phenomena such as the gradient of roads, temperature inversions and the amphitheatre effect of valleys.

(38) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers(10).

(39) The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of certain adaptations of the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

(40) In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making(11), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.

(41) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to encourage differentiated charging based on external costs as a means towards sustainable transport, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone, and can therefore, by reason of the importance of the cross-border dimension of transport, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

(1)

OJ C 255, 22.9.2010, p. 92.

(2)

OJ C 120, 28.5.2009, p. 47.

(3)

Position of the European Parliament of 11 March 2009 (OJ C 87 E, 1.4.2010, p. 345) and position of the Council at first reading of 14 February 2011 (OJ C 77 E, 11.3.2011, p. 1). Position of the European Parliament of 7 June 2011 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Council decision of 12 September 2011.

(4)

OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

(5)

OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

(6)

OJ L 204, 5.8.2010, p. 1.

(7)

OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 124.

(8)

OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25.

(9)

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm

(10)

OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.

(11)

OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1.