Evaluation Study on Directive 2011/82/EU

1. EVALUATION STUDY ON THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 2011/82/EU - MOVE/C4/SER/2014-255/SI2.706133 Expert Group meeting established to support the enforcement of road safety related traffic offences and Workshop on facilitating cross-border enforcement of sanctions for road safety related traffic offences 11 December 2015 Dalila Frisani, Céline Monteiro and Ludovic Mayot

2. Scope of the Study • Ex-post evaluation of the Directive 2011/82/EU (the “Directive” or “CBE Directive”) and of its effects in terms of promoting road safety (replaced by Directive2015/413/EU). • Ex-ante evaluation of possible amendments to the Directive, aimed at improving its effectiveness and mostly concerning its scope (e.g. need to harmonize road traffic rules, coverage of other related traffic offences) and other specific technical aspects such as the need to develop comparable methods, practices and minimum standards for automatic checking equipment.

3. Background Pursuant to Article 11 of the CBE Directive, the Commission has to submit by 7 November 2016 a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the CBE Directive by the Member States. Aspects to be covered: • Effectiveness of the CBE Directive - assessment of the impact of the Directive on fatalities and accidents on Union roads • Efficiency of the CBE Directive - assessment of administrative costs/burden • Assessment of the need for developing common standards for automatic checking equipment • Scope of the CBE Directive • Effectiveness of EUCARIS - assessment of the software applications as referred to in Article 4(4) • Assessment of the need to strengthen the enforcement of sanctions/Possibilities to harmonize traffic rules where appropriate

4. Effectiveness of the CBE Directive • Main factors affecting the application of the CBE Directive: • the late implementation of the Directive by many Member States • differences in the liability regimes for road traffic offences • lack of mechanisms of cooperation between authorities on issues such as documents handling/procedures and identification of drivers. • The measures set out in the CBE Directive have likely reduced fatalities and accidents on EU roads, as they have improved compliance with road traffic rules among non-resident drivers. • The positive impact will be substantial in the long term if road-users continue to perceive cross-border enforcement as effective and that Member States increase the number and improve the use of automatic checking equipment installed.

5. Efficiency of the CBE Directive • To what extent are the costs involved in the cross-border exchange of data and for the follow-up procedures adequate to achieve the objectives of the CBE Directive? • What aspects of the implementation of the CBE Directive generate an unnecessary administrative burden? COSTS Overall costs incurred on the EU28 Do you consider these costs as excessive? • CONCLUSIONS • Lowest costs related to the development, support and maintenance of the EUCARIS/CBE application and to the maintenance of EUCARIS connections. • Highest costs related to the development of a software ‘plug-in’ application at national level and to administrative activities. • Significant administrative burden generated by (i) the reporting of EU Member States to the Commission; and (ii) the submission of an information letter in the language of the registration document to the non-resident offenders. • Overall costs not considered as « excessive » by EU Member States.

6. Efficiency of the CBE Directive • To what extent are the costs involved in the cross-border exchange of data and for the follow-up procedures adequate to achieve the objectives of the CBE Directive? • What aspects of the implementation of the CBE Directive generate an unnecessary administrative burden? BENEFITS Estimated revenues generated by the CBE Directive between 2013 and 2015 in BE, FR, HU and PL • CONCLUSION • The (short-term) economic benefits, whether related to increased revenues or prevented deaths, generated by the CBE Directive largely prevail over the costs incurred on EU Member States to implement the legislation. • Additional benefits: • Spillover effects related to the compliance of Member States with legal rules • ETSC estimated that the monetary value for 2014 of the human losses avoided by preventing one road fatality was EUR 1.94m

7. Automatic enforcement • Poor use of automatic checking equipment to detect road traffic offences has negative impact on active use (outgoing searches) of the CBE Directive. • Different standards for automatic checking equipment will likely affect the application of the principle of mutual recognition of financial penalties. • In this context ensuring that Member States’ standards for automatic checking equipment and methods for the automatic enforcement of road traffic rules comply with specific minimum standards would facilitate the mutual recognition of evidence gathered through the use of automatic checking equipment. This can be done by way of harmonizing EU measures but also by means of soft low measures such as EU guidelines in the short term. Should soft law measures prove not effective, the EU should consider harmonizing measures.

8. Scope of the Directive • Speeding offences are the vast majority of offences committed by non–resident. • The mechanism put in place by the Directive is not useful for offences that cannot be detected automatically. • At this stage there is no need to extend the scope of the Directive as speeding and not stopping at a red light are offences that are detected automatically in most Member States, while other offences are not detected automatically in most Member States.

9. Effectiveness of EUCARIS • To what extent does EUCARIS contribute to the effective implementation of the CBE Directive, including equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders? IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of EUCARIS between 2013 and 2015 Implementation of EUCARIS in 2015 FI In production Accepted, pending NO In acceptance EE No initiatives (yet) SE LV DK LT IE UK PL NL DE BE CZ LU SK AT HU FR CH RO • CONCLUSIONS • 18 EU Member States allow other Member States' national contact points access to their data relating to vehicles, owners and holders of the vehicle • 7 Member States were not compliant with the legal provisions from the CBE Directive in 2015. SI HR BG IT ES PT GR CY MT

10. Effectiveness of EUCARIS • To what extent does EUCARIS contribute to the effective implementation of the CBE Directive, including equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders? USE AND SATISFACTION Does EUCARIS facilitate cross-border exchange of VRD? Does EUCARIS facilitate the reporting by Member States to the EC? Key findings on the use of EUCARIS/CBE application • EUCARIS/CBE application is operational but not used for outgoing searches in 6 EU Member States (at least). • EUCARIS/CBE application is used to track less than half of the offences committed by non-resident offenders. • In the cases of FR and LT, all the automatically detected offences committed by non-resident offenders are followed by a search using EUCARIS/CBE application. • The numberof the searches performed using EUCARIS/CBE application and the quality of the search results have significantly increased year-over-year. Should EUCARIS be replaced by another system? What are the problems with the functioning of EUCARIS? • CONCLUSIONS • EUCARIS/CBE application does contribute to the effective implementation of the CBE Directive, including equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders. • Its potential to ensure that non-resident offenders are tracked for the offences they committed could however be further improved.

11. Cross-border enforcement • The cross-border enforcement of road traffic rules is not sufficiently effective and existing mechanisms do not properly ensure cross-border enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences due to legal and practical obstacles. • Differences in the liability regimes have crucial impact onenforcement of sanctionsfor non-resident offenders.

12. Policy options for improving cross-border enforcement • No action • EU support of joint on spot enforcement actions of police forces • CBE Directive amendment better reflecting the application of different liability regimes by MS, setting out enhanced reporting obligations (enforcement indicators) and recommending basic principles concerning the use of automatic checking equipment • The CBE Directive amendment as mentioned above, including the exchange of demerit/penalty points • Fast track mutual recognition of financial penalties (i.e. electronic transmission of decisions, identification of decisions that should be mutually recognized based on a criterion of enforceability and on a less restrictive definition of court than the one in the FD 2005/214, reduced translation obligations) covering administrative and criminal offences and reflecting different liability regimes applied by MS. • The CBE Directive amendment, including the exchange of demerit/penalty points combined with the fast track mutual recognition of financial penalties and driving disqualifications and EU support of joint on spot enforcement actions of police forces.

13. Policy options for improving cross-border enforcement • Possible ways to address differences in the liability regimes of MSs: • an EU measure requiring MSs to impose an obligation on the owner/holder of the vehicle to reply to a request from another MS requiring the owner/holder to identify the driver of the vehicle. • an EU measure requiring enforcement authorities of MSs to reply to requests for assistance of other MSs aimed at identifying the driver of the vehicle.

14. Thank you for your attention! For any question please contact: Dalila Frisani: dfrisani@grimaldilex.com Celine Monteiro: celine.monteiro@kurtsalmon.com Ludovic Mayot: ludovic.mayot@kurtsalmon.com