Sittings · Compare
What changed
PR_COD_1amCom
PR_COD_2app
Symbols for procedures
Amendments by Parliament in the form of a consolidated text
New text is highlighted in bold italics. Deletions are indicated using either the ▌symbol or strikeout. Replacements are indicated by highlighting the new text in bold italics and by deleting or striking out the text that has been replaced. By way of exception, purely technical changes made by the drafting departments in preparing the final text are not highlighted.
By way of exception, purely technical changes made by the drafting departments in preparing the final text are not highlighted.
No table of contents entries found.
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposalCouncil forposition at first reading with a Directiveview to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council onamending theDirective Union-wide(EU) effect2025/… ofas regards certain driving disqualifications
(COM(2023)0128(08351/1/2025 – C9-0036/2023C100231/2025 – 2023/0055(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: firstsecond reading)
– having regard to the CommissionCouncil proposalposition toat Parliamentfirst andreading the(08351/1/2025 Council- (COM(2023)0128),C10-0231/2025),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0036/2023),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 June 2023,
– after consulting the Committee of the Regions,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to its position at first reading on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0128),
– having regard to theArticle report294(7) of the CommitteeTreaty on Transportthe andFunctioning Tourismof (A9-0410/2023),the European Union,
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
– having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 75(4) of its Rules of Procedure,
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
– having regard to Rule 68 of its Rules of Procedure,
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A10-0193/2025),
Amendment 1
1. Approves the Council position at first reading;
Proposal for a directive
2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;
Recital 6
3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Text proposed by the Commission
4. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
Amendment
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
(6) However, the implementation of this Directive should not require the harmonisation of national rules concerning the definition of road traffic offences, their legal nature and the applicable sanctions for such offences. In particular, the Union-wide effect of driving disqualifications should be pursued regardless of the qualification of the national measures in the Member State of offence as administrative or criminal.
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
(6) However, the implementation of this Directive should respect the principle of subsidiarity and not require the harmonisation of national rules concerning the definition of road traffic offences, their legal nature and the applicable sanctions for such offences. In particular, the Union-wide effect of driving disqualifications should be pursued regardless of the qualification of the national measures in the Member State of offence as administrative or criminal. When applying a Union-wide driving disqualification, within the existing legal limits of the national rules in that regard, the Member States should aim to align their decisions, as much as possible.
The Council position at first reading reflects the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council in interinstitutional negotiations at early second-reading stage. The agreed text has been the result of smooth negotiations where the co-legislators have reached a satisfactory compromise text aiming to establish for the first time in EU legislation a system for communication, information sharing and recognition of driving disqualifications across the Union when applied for a limited range of major driving offences, such as drink or drug driving, excessive speeding or driving which causes death or serious bodily injury. The adopted provisions will curtail the current wide-spread in the Union impunity for drivers committing major offences outside of the Member State that issued their driving licence and thus improve the level of safety on Union roads.
Amendment 2
ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT
Proposal for a directive
The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his report input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
Recital 10
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(10) As drink-driving (namely driving with a blood alcohol level that surpasses the maximum value allowed by the law), speeding (that is to say exceeding the speed limits in force for the road or type of vehicle concerned) and driving under the influence of drugs constitute the leading causes of road traffic crashes and fatalities within the Union, the highest possible diligence should be provided for cases relating to those offences, which should thus be considered as ‘major road-safety-related traffic offences’ for the purposes of this Directive. Furthermore, given their seriousness, road traffic offences which result in the death or serious bodily injury of the victim, should also be considered as major offences.
(10) As drink-driving (namely driving with a blood alcohol level that surpasses the maximum value allowed by the law), speeding (that is to say exceeding the speed limits in force for the road or type of vehicle concerned) and driving under the influence of drugs and psychoactive substances constitute the leading causes of road traffic crashes and fatalities within the Union, the highest possible diligence should be provided for cases relating to those offences, which should thus be considered as ‘major road-safety-related traffic offences’ for the purposes of this Directive. Furthermore, given their seriousness, road traffic offences which result in the death or serious bodily injury of the victim, or driving without a valid driving licence should also be considered as major offences.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(12) The Member State which imposed the driving disqualification (“Member State of the offence”) should notify the Member State that issued the driving licence of the person concerned (“Member State of issuance”) of any driving disqualification imposed for a duration of one month or more on such person, in order to trigger the procedures necessary to ensure the Union-wide effect of the driving disqualification. Such notification should be transmitted by means of a standard certificate, in order to ensure a seamless, reliable and effective exchange of information between the Member States.
(12) The Member State which imposed the driving disqualification (“Member State of the offence”) should notify the Member State that issued the driving licence of the person concerned (“Member State of issuance”) of any driving disqualification imposed for a duration of one month or more on such person, in order to trigger the procedures necessary to ensure the Union-wide effect of the driving disqualification. Such notification should be transmitted by means of a standard certificate no later than ten working days after the decision imposing the driving disqualification, in order to ensure a seamless, reliable and effective exchange of information between the Member States. The transmission of the certificate and the exchange of other required information between the national contact points of the Member States in respect of the application of this Directive should be carried out through the EU driving licence network ('RESPER').
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(13) The standard certificate should contain a minimum set of data allowing for the proper implementation of this Directive, namely the authority of the Member State of the offence imposing the driving disqualification, the major road-safety-related traffic offence committed, the resulting driving disqualification, the person concerned, and the procedures followed for the imposition of the disqualification. Such certificate should also be translated into an official language of the Member State of issuance or to any other language that the Member State of issuance has accepted, in order to ensure quick processing by the addressee. Through providing only for this information the standard certificate can guarantee effectiveness without obliging Member States to share not proportionate or excessive amounts of information.
(13) The standard certificate should contain a minimum set of data allowing for the proper implementation of this Directive, namely the authority of the Member State of the offence imposing the driving disqualification, a description of the major road-safety-related traffic offence committed, the resulting driving disqualification, details identifying the person concerned, and the procedures followed for the imposition of the disqualification. Such certificate should also be translated into an official language of the Member State of issuance or to any other language that the Member State of issuance has accepted, in order to ensure quick processing by the addressee. Through providing only for this information the standard certificate can guarantee effectiveness without obliging Member States to share not proportionate or excessive amounts of information.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(20) The proper implementation of this Directive presupposes close, swift and effective communication between the competent national authorities involved. The competent national authorities of the Member States should therefore consult each other whenever necessary, via appropriate means. Moreover, in specific well-defined cases, both the Member State of issuance and Member State of offence should provide each other with important information in relation to the application of this Directive without delay. This should be the case for the adoption of measures granting a Union-wide effect to driving disqualifications, decisions taken on grounds of exemption, the completion of the driving disqualifications and for any circumstances affecting the originally imposed driving disqualifications.
(20) The proper implementation of this Directive presupposes close, swift and effective communication between the competent national authorities involved. The competent national authorities of the Member States should therefore consult each other whenever necessary. Moreover, in specific well-defined cases, both the Member State of issuance and Member State of offence should provide each other with important information in relation to the application of this Directive no later than ten working days following a decision on the adoption of measures granting a Union-wide effect to driving disqualifications or a decision taken on grounds of exemption, the completion of the driving disqualifications and for any circumstances affecting the originally imposed driving disqualifications.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(21) After being notified of a driving disqualification and granting it Union-wide effects, the Member State of issuance should inform the person concerned without delay, in order to allow the exercise of fundamental rights such as the right to be heard and to challenge the decisions before the competent national courts and tribunals.
(21) After being notified of a driving disqualification and granting it Union-wide effects, the Member State of issuance should inform the person concerned no later than seven working days following that notification, in order to allow the exercise of fundamental rights such as the right to be heard and to challenge the decisions before the competent national courts and tribunals.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(25) In order to ensure the seamless, reliable and effective exchange of information, each Member State should designate a national contact point for the purposes of this Directive. They should further ensure that their respective national contact points cooperate with the relevant authorities involved in the enforcement of the driving disqualifications covered by this Directive, in particular to ensure that all necessary information is shared in due time.
(25) In order to ensure the seamless, reliable and effective exchange of information via RESPER, each Member State should designate a national contact point for the purposes of this Directive. They should further ensure that their respective national contact points cooperate with the relevant authorities involved in the enforcement of the driving disqualifications covered by this Directive, in particular to ensure that all necessary information is shared in due time.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(26 a) Within the scope of its review, the Commission should also include in its report on the implementation of this Directive an assessment of the possibility of creating a similar legal framework for demerit point systems, including the exchange of information on penalty points and transferring or duplicating point additions or subtractions between the Member State of the offence and the Member State of issuance.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(3) ‘suspension’ means the temporary limitation of the validity of the driving license or of the right to drive or of their recognition, for a fixed amount of time, or for both a combination of a fixed amount of time and the fulfilment of additional conditions;
(3) ‘suspension’ means the temporary limitation of the validity of the driving licence or of the right to drive or of their recognition, for a fixed period, or for both a combination of a fixed period and the fulfilment of additional conditions;
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(6) ‘Member State of the offence’ means the Member State in which a driving disqualification was delivered;
(6) ‘Member State of the offence’ means the Member State within the territory of which the road traffic offence that has given rise to a driving disqualification was committed and in which that driving disqualification was delivered;
Justification
Definition aligned to the one used in the Convention 98/C 216/01 on Driving Disqualifications, OJ C 216 of 10.07.1998
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(10) ‘person concerned’ means the natural person against whom a driving disqualification is issued;
(10) ‘liable person’ means the natural person against whom a driving disqualification is issued;
Justification
Alignment with CBE Directive
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11- subpoint da (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(da) driving without a valid driving licence as outlined in Directive 2006/126/EC;
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall ensure that a driving disqualification issued by a Member State with respect to a person who does not have its normal residence in that Member State and who holds a driving licence issued by another Member State shall have effect across the entire territory of the Union in accordance with this Directive.
Member States shall ensure that a driving disqualification issued by a Member State with respect to a person who does or does not normally reside in that Member State or another Member State and who either holds a driving licence issued by another Member State or does not hold a driving licence shall have effect across the entire territory of the Union in accordance with this Directive.
Justification
The draft directive does not take into account the fact that driving disqualifications may also be imposed on persons who do not hold a driving licence, and that its scope should therefore also extend to such persons, who pose a serious risk to road safety.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
1. The Member State of the offence shall notify the Member State of issuance of any driving disqualification imposed for a duration of one month or more on a person who does not have its normal residence in the Member State of the offence and who holds a driving licence issued by the Member State of issuance.
1. The Member State of the offence shall notify the Member State of issuance no later than ten working days following any decision imposing a driving disqualification for a duration of one month or more on a person who does not have its normal residence in the Member State of the offence and who holds a driving licence issued by the Member State of issuance. The Member State of the offence shall also notify the person concerned if he or she is not normally resident in the Member State of issuance.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3. The national contact point of the Member State of the offence shall complete, sign and transmit the certificate directly to the national contact point of the Member State of issuance, which shall forward it to the authority competent for ensuring the Union-wide effect of the driving disqualification. The driving licence of the person concerned, when it has been seized, and the original decision imposing the driving disqualification or a certified copy thereof shall also be forwarded to the national contact point of the Member State of issuance by the national contact point of the Member State of the offence. There shall be no obligation for the Member State of the offence to translate the original decision or its certified copy.
3. The national contact point of the Member State of the offence shall complete, sign and transmit the certificate directly to the national contact point of the Member State of issuance, which shall forward it to the authority competent for ensuring the Union-wide effect of the driving disqualification. The driving licence of the person concerned, in the event that it has been seized, and the original decision imposing the driving disqualification or a certified copy thereof shall also be forwarded to the national contact point of the Member State of issuance by the national contact point of the Member State of the offence. There shall be no obligation for the Member State of the offence to translate the original decision or its certified copy.
Justification
Amendment intended to clarify that not all disqualifications result in the license being physically seized from the offender
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(b) the description of the major road-safety-related traffic offence and the facts leading to the imposition of the driving disqualification;
(b) the description of the major road-safety-related traffic offence, of the facts and of the causes leading to the imposition of the driving disqualification;
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(c) the name and address of the person concerned, and the number of the driving licence, and if necessary, of the national identification documents of the person concerned, where available;
(c) the name and address of the person concerned and the number of his or her driving licence and national identification documents, whilst other personal information linked to the person's national identity document is to remain confidential;
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(fa) the right to appeal the decision before the judiciary in accordance with the national legislation of the Member State of the offence.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
5 a. The national contact points of the Member State of the offence and the Member State of issuance shall also use RESPER for the exchange of the information to be provided in accordance with Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. The Commission shall ensure that RESPER is equipped with the necessary resources to fulfil this task.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
2. Where the driving disqualification consists in a withdrawal, the measures taken by the Member State of issuance shall comply with the following conditions:
2. Where the driving disqualification results in a withdrawal, the measures taken by the Member State of issuance shall be the following:
Justification
These points a)-c) are not really conditions
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(b) the person concerned may recover the driving licence or the right to drive in accordance with the national rules of the Member State of issuance;
deleted
Justification
This point should come as a new subparagraph as it does not fit in the list of measures to be taken by the Member state of issuance
Amendment 22
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(ca) in the event that the 'country of normal residence', as defined in Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC differs from the country of issuance, the exchange of the driver's driving licence shall be facilitated.
Justification
Intra-EU mobility is becoming more frequent, leading to the situation that a country of residence may not always be the country of issuance of a license. An exchange of a person’s drivers license should thus be facilitated to ensure faster and more seamless recovery in case of a withdrawal.
Amendment 23
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
The person concerned may recover the driving licence or the right to drive in accordance with the national rules of the Member State of issuance.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3. Where the driving disqualification consists in a suspension or a restriction, the measures taken by the Member State of issuance shall comply with the following conditions:
3. Where the driving disqualification results in a suspension or a restriction, the measures taken by the Member State of issuance shall be the following:
Amendment 25
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(b) where the suspension or the restriction imposed and notified by the Member State of the offence is subject both to the lapse of a fixed amount of time and the fulfilment of additional conditions, the Member State of issuance shall take into account only the fixed period of time;
(b) where the suspension or the restriction imposed and notified by the Member State of the offence is subject both to the lapse of a fixed period and the fulfilment of additional conditions, the Member State of issuance shall take into account only the fixed period;
Amendment 26
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3 a. The Member State of issuance shall aim to ensure that, within the existing legal limits of national rules, the measures taken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 with regard to driving disqualifications are aligned to the greatest extent possible with the corresponding measures imposed by the Member State of the offence.
Amendment 27
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3. However, additional conditions attached to a driving disqualification notified in accordance with Article 4(1) shall be deemed to be fulfilled by the Member State of the offence where the Member State of issuance has positively assessed that the person concerned fulfills the conditions applicable in the Member State of issuance for recovering the right to drive or the driving licence or to be able to apply for a new one.
3. However, additional conditions attached to a driving disqualification notified in accordance with Article 4(1) shall be deemed to be fulfilled by the Member State of the offence where the Member State of issuance has positively assessed that the person concerned has fulfilled the conditions applicable in the Member State of issuance for recovering the right to drive or the driving licence or to be able to apply for a new one. In such case, the Member State of the offence shall be bound by the positive assessment of the Member State of issuance and its effects. The Member State of the offence shall therefore no longer apply the additional conditions. However, the Member State of the offence may continue to apply the driving disqualification on its territory until the end of its duration.
Justification
Clarification to ensure that in withdrawal cases where the Member State of issuance has imposed also some additional conditions and these have eventually been assessed as fulfilled, the Member State of the offence can only continue to apply the disqualification for the originally set duration but not to require the fulfilment of the additional conditions
Amendment 28
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(d) there is a privilege or immunity under the law of the Member State of issuance that prevents the execution of the driving disqualification;
deleted
Amendment 29
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(b) the driving disqualification was imposed only on grounds of speeding and the speed limits in force in the Member State of the offence were exceeded by less than 50 km/h;
(b) the driving disqualification was imposed only on grounds of speeding and the speed limits in force in the Member State of the offence, provided that the speed limit on the road where the speeding took place was clearly demarcated, were exceeded in the case of residential area roads, by less than 30km/h and in the case of non-residential area roads, by less than 50 km/h;
Amendment 30
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Whenever the Member State of issuance intends to apply in a specific case a ground for exemption pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2, it shall inform without delay the Member State of the offence and, where applicable, request any necessary information for the purpose of examining whether a ground for exemption referred to therein applies. The Member State of the offence shall provide the requested information without delay and may provide any additional information or comment it deems relevant.
Whenever the Member State of issuance intends to apply in a specific case a ground for exemption pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2, it shall inform no later than ten working days following a decision to apply an exemption, the Member State of the offence and, where applicable, request any necessary information for the purpose of examining whether a ground for exemption referred to therein applies. The Member State of the offence shall provide the requested information no later than ten working days following the request and may provide any additional information or comment it deems relevant.
Amendment 31
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
1. The Member State of issuance shall take the measures referred to in Article 6 (1) or adopt the decision that a ground of exemption pursuant to Article 8 applies without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 3, no later than 15 days after it received the certificate in accordance with Article 5(1).
1. The Member State of issuance shall take the measures referred to in Article 6(1) or adopt the decision that a ground of exemption pursuant to Article 8 applies without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 3, no later than 15 working days after it received the certificate in accordance with Article 5(1).
Amendment 32
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
2. The national contact point of the Member State of issuance shall communicate without delay the measures taken under Article 6(1) or the decision that a ground of exemption applies pursuant to Article 8 to the national contact point of the Member State of the offence through RESPER.
2. The national contact point of the Member State of issuance shall communicate no later than ten working days following the adoption of the measures taken under Article 6(1) or the decision that a ground of exemption applies pursuant to Article 8 to the national contact point of the Member State of the offence through RESPER.
Amendment 33
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Where it is not possible, in a specific case, to meet the time-limit set out in paragraph 1, the national contact point of the Member State of issuance shall inform the national contact point of the Member State of the offence without delay by any means, giving the reasons for which it was not possible to meet that time-limit.
Where it is not possible, in a specific case, to meet the time-limit set out in paragraph 1, the national contact point of the Member State of issuance shall inform via RESPER the national contact point of the Member State of the offence no later than ten working days following the expiry of that time-limit, giving the reasons for which it was not possible to meet that time-limit.
Amendment 34
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Where necessary, Member States shall consult each other, via appropriate means and without delay, to ensure the effective application of this Directive.
Where necessary, Member States shall consult each other in a timely manner, in order to ensure the effective application of this Directive.
Amendment 35
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
The national contact point of the Member State of issuance shall without delay inform the national contact point of the Member State the offence:
The national contact point of the Member State of issuance shall inform the national contact point of the Member State of the offence no later than ten working days following the adoption:
Amendment 36
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
The national contact point of the Member State of the offence shall without delay inform the national contact point of the Member State issuance:
The national contact point of the Member State of the offence shall inform the national contact point of the Member State of issuance, no later than ten working days following the adoption:
Amendment 37
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(a) any circumstance that affects the decision that imposed the driving disqualification;
(a) any circumstance that affects the decision that imposed the driving disqualification, including any relevant information with regard to any fulfilment that has already taken place in the Member State of the offence of any additional conditions imposed in relation to a driving disqualification;
Justification
This is related to Article 6(1)(c) where the Member State of issuance should take such information into consideration, but nowhere is spelled out where the information is to come from, hence this addition to Article 12 regarding info to be provided by Member State of offence, if the info exists
Amendment 38
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
1. Following both the reception of the notification under Article 4(1) and the adoption of measures under Article 6(1), respectively, the Member State of issuance shall inform the person concerned without delay, in accordance with procedures under its national law.
1. Following both the reception of the notification under Article 4(1) and the adoption of measures under Article 6(1), respectively, the Member State of issuance shall inform the person concerned no later than seven working days following the reception of the notification under Article 4(1) or the adoption of measures under Article 6(1), in accordance with procedures under its national law.
Amendment 39
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(i) the name of the authorities competent for the enforcement of the driving disqualification of both the Member State of issuance and the Member State of the offence; and
(i) the name, postal address, phone number, internet presence and e-mail contact of the authorities competent for the enforcement of the driving disqualification of both the Member State of issuance and the Member State of the offence; and
Amendment 40
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
2. Member States shall ensure that their respective national contact points cooperate with the authorities competent for the enforcement of the driving disqualifications imposed for the commission of major road-safety-related traffic offences, in particular in order to ensure that all necessary information is shared in due time, and that the time-limits laid down in Article 9 are complied with.
2. Member States shall ensure that their respective national contact points cooperate with the authorities competent for the enforcement of the driving disqualifications imposed for the commission of major road-safety-related traffic offences, in particular in order to ensure that all necessary information is shared in due time, and that the time-limits laid down in this Directive are complied with.
Amendment 41
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3. Member States shall inform the Commission of the national contact points designated for the purposes of this Directive. The Commission shall make the information received under this Article available to all Member States on its website.
3. Member States shall inform the Commission of the national contact points designated for the purposes of this Directive. The Commission shall make the information received under this Article available to all Member States via RESPER, and on the CBE Portal once it becomes operational. Until then, the Commission shall make the information available on its website.
Amendment 42
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(aa) the number of notifications sent to the persons concerned;
Amendment 43
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(c) the time needed to transmit information on the decision on a ground of exemption;
(c) the time needed to transmit information for each decision taken on a ground of exemption;
Amendment 44
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(ca) the number of times a delay had to be justified;
Amendment 45
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
By ... [one year after the date of entry into force of this Directive] Member States shall communicate up-to-date information to the Commission on the rules in force concerning the penalties applicable in their legal system for major road-safety-related traffic offences. Member States shall inform the Commission within three months of any major change to those penalties by providing an update to the information that they previously transmitted. By ... [18 months after the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall publish an overview of the information received under this paragraph on the Portal for cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences ('CBE Portal') established in accordance with Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2015/413 in all of the official languages of the European Union. In the event of a major change of the system in place in a Member State, the Commission shall update the overview within three months of receiving the information.
Amendment 46
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [DD/MM/YYYY]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by ... [one year after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Justification
The transposition date needs to be defined
Amendment 47
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
2. By [DD/MM/YYYY], Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of their national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
2. By … [date of entry into force of this Directive + 15 months], Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of their national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – title
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Report on the application
Review
Amendment 49
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
By [entry into force + 5 years], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Directive, including its impact on road safety. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by proposals for amendments to this Directive.
By ... [five years after the date of entry into force of this Directive], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Directive, including its impact on road safety. The report shall include statistics from the Member States on the use of the mechanism laid down by this Directive, as well as bottlenecks and areas for potential improvement. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by a legislative proposal to amend this Directive.
Amendment 50
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – title
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Entry into force and application
Entry into force
Justification
Application is not needed in the title of the article as there are no special provisions that required divergent date of application
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Background to the Proposal
Over the last two decades, the improvement of road safety and the reduction of the number of road fatalities have been at the heart of the Union’s transport policies. A steady reduction in road fatalities has indeed taken place, from 51,400 in 2001 to 19,800 in 2021 - this fell however slightly short of the EU target of a 75% reduction between 2001 and 2020. In recent years, the decline in fatalities has showed signs of slowing down.
In that context, EU Transport Ministers issued a ministerial declaration in Valetta in 2017 that called on the Commission to explore the further strengthening of the Union’s road safety legal framework, in particular with regard to the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications of non-resident drivers. At present, if a driver commits an offence outside the Member State where his or her driving licence is issued (typically the Member State of residence) and consequently has their driving licence suspended for 6 months, for example, that suspension will most of the time only be valid in the Member State where the offence was committed. The person in question would still be free to drive in all other EU Member States, including the Member State where they usually live.
This proposal on the Union-wide effect of driving disqualifications currently under consideration [COM(2023)0128] therefore seeks to put an end to this situation of impunity for non-resident drivers. It is part of a broader ‘road safety package’ unveiled in March 2023, containing three pieces of interlinked legislation. The package includes two other proposals, respectively on driving licences [updating Directive 2006/126/EC] and on cross-border exchange (CBE) of information on road safety-related traffic offences [updating Directive (EU) 2015/413].
Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences, namely in Article 11(4), tried to take some steps towards regulating EU-wide driving disqualifications but its wording is considered insufficiently clear and has not been as effective as it was hoped.
Content of the Proposal
The proposal’s ultimate objective is to increase road safety by cutting down on prevailing acts of impunity by reckless driving while abroad. It does so by creating a framework for providing EU-wide effect to any decision to withdraw, suspend or restrict a driving licence of a driver who has committed a major driving offence outside the Member State where his or her driving licence is issued. It establishes a system of cooperation and information transfer between the Member State where an offence (MSoO) is committed and the Member State that issued the driving licence (MSoI). It lays down concrete procedures and obligations for the two countries involved.
The scope of the proposal only covers those road traffic offences that most contribute to accidents and fatalities as stipulated in the CBE Directive: excessive speeding, drink driving, driving under the influence of drugs and causing death or serious injury as the result of any road safety-related traffic offence.
Position of the Rapporteur
The Rapporteur strongly welcomes the whole road safety package and specifically the current proposal, which is the brand new element with a great dissuasive potential for reckless driving. In spite of divergent rules and scope of penalties amongst the different Member States, the time is ripe for a European approach to serious cross-border road offences especially in view of growing movement of citizens across borders and higher volumes of tourism.
Overall, the proposal sets the right approach, scope and depth of measures to ensure the intended effect - decrease in road accidents of the more severe case.
Ultimately, its success depends on the right cooperation among the Member States and the smooth and timely flow of information between them. To this end, one aspect that the Rapporteur seeks to improve is the timeframes for important stages in the procedure granting Union-wide effect to certain driving disqualifications. These are largely missing in the proposal, which puts in question the overall length of time such a procedure could take. Therefore, most timeframes in the proposal have been more narrowly defined (set to 7 working days) in order to ensure the adequate execution of each stage and consequently the effectiveness of the entire procedure. This is of particular importance to EU citizens who end up as offenders and whose rights (ex. that of driving) could be severely affected if a procedure takes unnecessarily long time to complete simply due to protracted administrative handling.
As already mentioned, undeniably, the penal codes for traffic offences do vary in the different Member States. However, the proposal seeks to bring about this Union-wide effect of driving disqualifications given by one Member State and applicable in the rest, the Rapporteur believes that a degree of synchronisation should be sought within the frames of existing limitations. Thus the Member States are encouraged to try to align as much as possible the duration of disqualifications, the Union-wide one given by the Member State of issuance and the ‘original’ one given by the Member State of the offence (for example if the MSoO issues a disqualification of 15 months, and the same offence in the MSoI is penalised with a timeframe of between 9 to 12 months, then the MSoI should, within its discretion, decide on at least 12 months duration to be as close as possible to the original decision, without overstepping its own rules of course).
Another slight adjustment proposed by the Rapporteur concerns the grounds for exemption linked to the disqualifications based on speeding. The proposal suggests that for offences of below 50km/h of speeding on top of the permitted speed, the MSoI may choose a derogation. However, on an urban speed limit of 30km/h (as increasingly is the trend in many cities), this derogation is unjustified, hence at least a broad differentiation of urban vs non-urban road speed limits should be made and what speeding is ‘allowed’ to qualify for exemption in each case.
Finally, the right tools also need to be set in place - the profound improvement and adjustment of an existing system for inter-Member State exchange of communication - the EU driving licence network ('RESPER'). RESPER is to be the cornerstone of this proposal, therefore the Rapporteur considers it should be the sole means for all information transactions between the Member States, also in view of the tightened timeframes presented in this draft report.
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, until the adoption thereof in committee:
Entity and/or person
European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)
Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) e.V.
IRU
-
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
References
COM(2023)012808351/1/2025 – C9-0036/2023C10-0231/2025 – 2023/0055(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P number
1.3.2023
6.2.2024 T9-0057/2024
Committee responsible
Draft act considered at first reading
Date announced in plenary
COM(2023)0128 - C9-0036/2023
TRAN 17.4.2023
Receipt of Council position at first reading announced in plenary
Committees asked for opinion(s)
9.10.2025
Committee(s) responsible
Date announced in plenary
JURI 17.4.2023
TRAN
LIBE 17.4.2023
9.10.2025
Not delivering opinions
Rapporteurs
Date of decision
JURI 21.3.2023
LIBE 27.4.2023
Rapporteur
Date appointed
Petar Vitanov 25.4.2023
Matteo Ricci
3.9.2024
Discussed in committee
27.6.2023
29.1.2025
18.9.2023
9.4.2025
26.10.2023
Date adopted
29.11.2023
13.10.2025
Result of final vote
+ : 37
+:
- : 5
–:
0 : 0
0:
Members present for the final vote
31
Andris Ameriks, José Ramón Bauzá Díaz, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold, Ciarán Cuffe, Jakop G. Dalunde, Mario Furore, Isabel García Muñoz, Jens Gieseke, Elsi Katainen, Elena Kountoura, Bogusław Liberadzki, Peter Lundgren, Benoît Lutgen, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Tilly Metz, Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Tomasz Piotr Poręba, Bergur Løkke Rasmussen, Dominique Riquet, Thomas Rudner, Massimiliano Salini, Vera Tax, István Ujhelyi, Achille Variati, Henna Virkkunen, Petar Vitanov, Roberts Zīle
Substitutes present for the final vote
Pablo Arias Echeverría, Ignazio Corrao, Andor Deli, Angel Dzhambazki, Roman Haider, Ljudmila Novak, Marianne Vind
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote
Hildegard Bentele, Theresa Bielowski, Vasile Blaga, Janina Ochojska, Francesca Peppucci, Catharina Rinzema
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
37
+
NI
Deli Andor, Furore Mario
PPE
Arias Echeverría Pablo, Bentele Hildegard, Blaga Vasile, Braunsberger-Reinhold Karolin, Gieseke Jens, Lutgen Benoît, Marinescu Marian-Jean, Monteiro de Aguiar Cláudia, Novak Ljudmila, Ochojska Janina, Peppucci Francesca, Salini Massimiliano, Virkkunen Henna
Renew
Bauzá Díaz José Ramón, Bilbao Barandica Izaskun, Katainen Elsi, Oetjen Jan-Christoph, Rasmussen Bergur Løkke, Rinzema Catharina, Riquet Dominique
S&D
Ameriks Andris, Bielowski Theresa, García Muñoz Isabel, Liberadzki Boguslaw, Rudner Thomas, Tax Vera, Ujhelyi István, Variati Achille, Vind Marianne, Vitanov Petar
The Left
Kountoura Elena
Verts/ALE
Corrao Ignazio, Cuffe Ciarán, Dalunde Jakop G., Metz Tilly
5
-
ECR
Dzhambazki Angel, Lundgren Peter, Poreba Tomasz Piotr, Zile Roberts
ID
Haider Roman
0
0
Members present for the final vote
Key:
Nina Carberry, Benoit Cassart, Vivien Costanzo, Johan Danielsson, Jens Gieseke, Borja Giménez Larraz, Sérgio Gonçalves, Roman Haider, Dariusz Joński, François Kalfon, Elena Kountoura, Julien Leonardelli, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Milan Mazurek, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Philippe Olivier, Matteo Ricci, Arash Saeidi, Andreas Schieder, Volker Schnurrbusch, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Stanislav Stoyanov, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Roberts Zīle
+ : in favour
Substitutes present for the final vote
- : against
Magdalena Adamowicz, Asger Christensen, Markus Ferber, Carlo Fidanza, Norbert Lins, Luděk Niedermayer, Andrey Novakov, Jutta Paulus, Flavio Tosi, Kris Van Dijck
0 : abstentions
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote
Grégory Allione, Evin Incir
Date tabled
15.10.2025
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Key to symbols: