Sittings · Document

DRAFT REPORT (COM(2023)0128 – C9-0036/2023 – 2023/0055(COD)) 2023-09-04

On the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union-wide effect of certain driving disqualifications

Committee on Transport and Tourism · Rapporteur: Petar Vitanov

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

PR_COD_1amCom

Symbols for procedures

* Consultation procedure

*** Consent procedure

***I Ordinary legislative procedure (first reading)

***II Ordinary legislative procedure (second reading)

***III Ordinary legislative procedure (third reading)

(The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the draft act.)

Amendments to a draft act

Amendments by Parliament set out in two columns

Deletions are indicated inbold italicsin the left-hand column. Replacements are indicated inbold italicsin both columns. New text is indicated inbold italicsin the right-hand column.

The first and second lines of the header of each amendment xml:identify the relevant part of the draft act under consideration. If an amendment pertains to an existing act that the draft act is seeking to amend, the amendment heading includes a third line xml:identifying the existing act and a fourth line xml:identifying the provision in that act that Parliament wishes to amend.

Amendments by Parliament in the form of a consolidated text

New text is highlighted inbold italics. Deletions are indicated using either the ▌symbol or strikeout. Replacements are indicated by highlighting the new text inbold italicsand 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.

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union-wide effect of certain driving disqualifications

(COM(2023)0128 – C9-0036/2023 – 2023/0055(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0128),

– 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 the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0000/2023),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

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

Amendment 1

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.

Or. en

Amendment 2

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.

Or. en

Amendment 3

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 without delay, and no later than seven working days following a decision on the adoption of measures granting a Union-wide effect to driving disqualifications, as well as of decisions taken on grounds of exemption, the completion of the driving disqualifications and for any circumstances affecting the originally imposed driving disqualifications.

Or. en

Justification

The timeframes for important stages in the procedure of granting Union-wide effect to certain disqualifications are missing and should be more narrowly defined in order to ensure the adequate execution of each stage and consequently the effectiveness of the entire procedure

Amendment 4

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 without delay, and no later than seven working days following the notification of a driving disqualification, 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.

Or. en

Amendment 5

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.

Or. en

Amendment 6

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 license 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;

Or. en

Amendment 7

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;

Or. en

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 8

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 without delay, and no later than seven working days following any decision that it takes to impose 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.

Or. en

Amendment 9

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.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment intended to clarify that not all disqualifications result in the license being physically seized from the offender

Amendment 10

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;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. RESPER shall be used for the transmission of any information between the Member State of the offence and the Member State of issuance required under this Directive.

Or. en

Justification

This provision is to ensure legal certainty as to how information (be it notifications, additional documentations provided, etc) is to be exchanged between the two sides.

Amendment 12

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:

Or. en

Justification

These points a)-c) are not really conditions

Amendment 13

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

Or. en

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 14

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.

Or. en

Amendment 15

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:

Or. en

Amendment 16

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;

Or. en

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3a. The Member State of issuance shall aim to ensure that the measures taken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 with regard to driving disqualifications have the same or comparable duration as the correspondent measures imposed by the Member State of the offence.

Or. en

Amendment 18

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 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.

Or. en

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 19

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 were exceeded by less than 30km/h in the case of urban roads and by less than 50 km/h in the case of non-urban roads;

Or. en

Justification

It has to be differentiated for urban and non-urban speed limits as 50 km/h is too high for lower urban speed limits

Amendment 20

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 without delay, and no later than seven working days from the adoption of the measures taken under Article 6(1) or of 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.

Or. en

Amendment 21

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 without delay, and no later than seven working days after the expiry of the time-limit set out in paragraph 1, giving the reasons for which it was not possible to meet that time-limit.

Or. en

Amendment 22

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.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment linked to a new provision under Article 5 ensuring that only RESPER is used for the transmission of any information and documents related to disqualification falling under this Directive

Amendment 23

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 without delay, and no later than seven working days following the adoption:

Or. en

Amendment 24

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;

Or. en

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 25

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, and 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.

Or. en

Amendment 26

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.

Or. en

Justification

Additional time limits have been set up in other articles than just article 9

Amendment 27

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.

Or. en

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 29

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 ... [date of entry into force of this Directive + 1 year]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.

Or. en

Justification

The transposition date needs to be defined

Amendment 30

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.

Or. en

Amendment 31

Proposal for a directive

Article 20 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Report on the application

Review

Or. en

Amendment 32

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 ... [date of entry into force of this Directive + 5 years], 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 be accompanied, if necessary, by a legislative proposal to amend this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 21 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Entry into force and application

Entry into force

Or. en

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.