Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 13. 07. 1998 COM(1998) 427 final 96/0182(SYN) Amended proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 189 a (2) of the EC-Treaty) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1. On 10. 7. 1996 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on the infrastructures1 the use of certain charging of heavy goods vehicles for [COM(96)331 final, 96/0182(SYN)]. On 13. 11. 1996 this proposal was transmitted to the Council. On 28. 1. 1997 the Council consulted the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. On 23. 4. 1997 the Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion2 which was overall supportive of the Commission's proposal. On 17. 7. 1997 at its plenary session, the European Parliament approved subject to 26 amendments the proposal, on first reading according to the Co-operation procedure. 2. The Commission cannot accept 16 amendments proposed by the Parliament, namely amendments 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26, for the following reasons: Amendments 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 delete all provisions relating to external costs and sensitive routes. These are issues to which the Commission attaches great importance in view of establishing a more differentiated charging system. Amendment 7 introduces the concept of sensitive areas which the Commission finds impractical. Amendment 6 modifies recitals 11 and 12 in a way that does no longer correspond to the provisions in Article 6 to which they relate and which remain unchanged. Amendment 1 suggests that substantial differentiation of charges according to infrastructure damage and air pollution may be undertaken initially only through user charges. This claim is not shared by the Commisssion and contradicts the gist of the Parliament's opinion (and particularly amendment 24). 1 O. J. C59, 26. 2. 1997 2 CES 458/97. Amendment 4 does not lead to any specific legal provision in the Directive. Amendments 16 and 25 proposes a differentiation of user charges according to two classes based on the number of the vehicle's axles1, this is. clearly less accurate and fair îhan the user charge structure proposed by the Commission. According to this structure user charges vary following the degree of damage tli£t vehicles cause to the ;:cad. The latter depends on the vehicle weight and the number and configuration of îbe axles. These factors determine the three different damage classes in which the Commission proposes to classify vehicles. Amendment 24 modifies unnecessarily the existing structure for the minimum vehicle taxes. There is no need for such a simplification, the proposed by the Commission structure of the minimum vehicle taxes is the same as in the existing Directive and no complaints have been made by Member States on it. The proposed by the Parliament simplification will not solve any problems but on the contrary is likely to create new ones. Amendment 26 proposes levels for the annual user charges that are unacceptably high. 3. The Commission accepts 10 of the Parliament's amendments, namely amendments 2, 3, 5, 8, 10,11,12,13,15 and 23, for the following reasons: Amendment 2 modifies recital 3 by deleting reference to maximum levels for the vehicle taxes. This recital refers to the provision in Article 6. 1,1st sub-paragraph, modified according to Amendment 11. Amendment 5 deletes recital 9, which refers to the provision in Article 6. 1, 2nd sub paragraph allowing minimum rates of vehicle taxes not to apply when a user charge system is in operation. Amendment 11 modifies Article 6. 1,1st sub-paragraph by deleting the requirement that vehicle taxes should not go beyond a certain ceiling proposed by the Commission. Amendment 12 deletes Article 6. 1, 2nd sub-paragraph, which allows minimum rates of vehicle taxes not to be complied with when a user charge system is in operation. The objective of the Commission in setting maximum levels for vehicle taxes whilst allowing Member States to apply vehicle taxes that are lower than the minimum levels if they operate a user charge system (as provided for in Article 6. 1 1st and 2nd sub-paragraphs) is to ensure that existing differences in transport related levies across the Community will not increase any further. However, this is not the most fundamental element of the proposal; amendments 2, 5, 11 and 12 are therefore accepted at this stage in view of concentrating on the more important aspects of the proposed Directive. Amendment 3 introduces a new recital 3a making reference to the Alpine Convention. Although this new recital does not correspond to any specific provision in the Commission's modified proposal, it is nevertheless consistent with the original Commission proposal which introduced the concept of sensitive routes (among ^vhieh it included certainly the Alpine zone). Tthis amendment is acceptable. Amendment 8 modifies recital 16 by calling for differentiation in user charge rates instead of the "limited" differentiation that the Commission proposed, thereby somewhat improving the clarity of the text. Amendment 10 modifies recital 18 by adding reference to the territoriality principle. Although this additional reference is not strictly speaking necessary it nevertheless adds a useful element. Amendment 13 introduces a new Article 6. 1a which calls for a regular review of the vehicle taxes. This provision is almost superfluous given the review foreseen for the whole Directive but it is not harmful either. Amendment 15 introduces a new Article 7. 2, sub-paragraph la which asks for a 50% reduction of user charge rates for vehicles from peripheral regions. Given that user charge reductions have been applied so far to certain peripheral Member States, this amendment can provide an acceptable arrangement for them, provided it refers to "Member States" and not to "regions" and it is limited in time. Amendment 23 modifies Article 13. 1, 2nd sub-paragraph by asking that information to be forwarded to the Commission should also specify the degree to which road traffic costs are covered, by category of vehicle and road. The Commission agrees that the information called for in this amendment can be very useful. The Commission proposal [COM(96)331 final, 96/0182(SYN)] is therefore amended as follows. Amended proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. The Commission proposal [COM(96)331 final, 96/0182(SYN)] is therefore amended as follows. Initial Commission proposal Amended proposal (Amendment 2) Recital 3 Whereas Member States should ensure the Whereas Member States should ensure the functioning of the internal market and avoid functioning of the internal market and avoid obstacles to the free movement of goods or obstacles to the free movement of goods or services within the Community; whereas the services within the Community; whereas the proper functioning of the internal market in proper functioning of the internal market in transport calls for a harmonization of the transport calls for the reduction of the differences in the conditions of competition conditions of competition in goods road in goods road transport due to unjustifiable unjustifiable divergences in the levels of transport related divergences in the levels of transport related charges, including taxes and other relevant charges, including taxes and other relevant levies; whereas, therefore, vehicle taxes and levies; whereas, therefore, vehicle taxes user charge rates should be set within a should not be set below a minimum level and user charge rates should be set within a maximum and a minimum level; maximum and a minimum level; transport marked by (Amendment 3) Recital 3a (new) Whereas on 7 November 1991 the Convention on the Protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention)3 was concluded in Salzburg; (Amendment 5) Recital 9 Whereas minimum rates for vehicle taxes Deleted need not apply in Member States where a user charge system is in operation; 3 OJC 278, 5. 10. 1994, p. 8 Initial Commission proposal Amended proposal (Amendment Recital 16 Whereas the rates of user charges should be based on the duration of the use made of the infrastructure in question and be as close to the real costs caused by the road vehicles as possible; whereas this should be pursued in the short term through the introduction of limited differentiation of the rates according to the damage caused to the infrastructure and the environment; Whereas the rates of user charges should be based on the duration of the use made of the infrastructure in question and be as close to the real costs caused by the road vehicles as possible; whereas this should be pursued in the short term through the introduction of differentiation of the rates according to the damage caused to the infrastructure and the environment; Recital 16 a (new) applied Whereas reduced rates of user charges may vehicles temporarily be registered in peripheral Member States to account their for difficulties due geopolitical position. for to (Amendment 10) Recital 18 Whereas two or more Member States may cooperate for the purpose of introducing a common system of user charges, subject to compliance with some additional conditions; Whereas the principle of territoriality should be applied; whereas two or more Member States may cooperate for the purpose of introducing a common system of user charges, subject to compliance with some additional conditions; (Amendment 11) Article 6. 1, first subparagraph 1. Whatever the structure of the taxes referred to in Article 3, Member States shall set the rates so as to ensure that the tax rate for each vehicle category or subcategory referred to in Annex 1 is not lower than the minimum and not higher than the maximum laid down in that Annex. 1. Whatever the structure of the taxes referred to in Article 3, Member States shall set the rates so as to ensure that the tax rate for each vehicle category or subcategory referred to in Annex 1 is not lower than the minimum laid down in that Annex. (Amendment 12) Article 6. 1, second sub-paragraph However, Member States may levy vehicle taxes below these minimum rates provided they are applying a user charge system in accordance with this Directive. Deleted. Initial Commission proposal Amended proposal (Amendment 13) Article 6. 1a (mew) i la. The minimum rates and the tas rates | : f. e(rasll. y adopted shall be reviewed on 1 i Jaauairy 2001 $MÛ g'ver/ second year 1 thereafter. With a view , hKrmoEisstion and I abolition of vehicle excise duties, the j C®msasi33ion adjustments adoption by | procedure laid down in the treaty. th&t are necessary the council under reduction or the for the t© greater propose shall the (Amendment 15) Article 7. 2, first subparagraph a (new) User charges shall be reduced by 50% for vehicles registered in peripheral Member States until 31. 12. 2000. (Amendment 23) Article 13. 1, second subparagraph Member States shall forward the necessary information to the Commission no later than the in order 1 June 1999 Commission to draw up the above report. to enable Member States shall forward the necessary information to the Commission no later than the in order 1 June 1999 Commission to draw up the above report. This information shall also specify the degree to which road traffic costs are covered, by category of vehicle and road. to enable The remainder of the text is unchanged. Done at Brussels, For the Council 7 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(98) 427 final DOCUMENTS EN 07 06 09 14 Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-437-EN-C ISBN 92-78-37943-3 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg r