On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/45/EU on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/45/EU on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union

(COM(2025)0180 – C100072/2025 – 2025/0097(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0180),

– 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 (C100072/2025),

– 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 18 September 2025,

– after having consulted the Committee of the Regions,

– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A100000/2025),

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

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

Amendment 1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Or. en

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Or. en

Justification

Update of reference numbers.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Or. en

Justification

Odometer fraud is most commonly present in M1 and N1 vehicles. Therefore, the measure should primarily address these vehicle categories. The proposed wording by the Commission risks creating unwanted bureaucratic burdens as even small maintenance tasks such as the replacement of windshield wipers could be covered. This would increase the labour hours connected to the tasks and thus increase the costs for vehicle owners.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

New recital that builds up on the introductory remarks of Annex I, making clear that vehicles only have to comply to the requirements of their type-approval.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Or. en

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

OEMs face difficulties in some Member States in reaching the current owners of vehicles due to incomplete or inaccurate contact information. In addition, vehicle owners often fail to act on recall notifications, which is particularly problematic in the case of mandatory safety recalls. While in some Member States failure to comply with a recall may affect vehicle registration, this is not universally the case. To enhance road safety, periodic roadworthiness tests should be used as an additional mechanism to ensure that a greater proportion of vehicles undergo mandatory recall campaigns.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Or. en

Justification

The inspection standards in the Member States vary significantly. The proposed shortening would represent a substantial additional burden for owners of vehicles older than 10 years, many of whom come from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds. Moreover, the Commission itself notes in its impact assessment that technical defects are only rarely the cause of accidents. Member States can already shorten their inspection intervals today, for example to respond to higher accident rates. However, even in such cases, the causal link between more frequent inspections and a reduction in accident causes remains doubtful. The proposed measure is therefore not proportionate and should be deleted.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Justification

N1 vehicles are typically used by SMEs. Requiring these SMEs to take their vans out of service every year imposes a significant administrative and financial burden. Moreover, type-approval legislation already guarantees that emission control systems fulfil minimum durability criteria. In addition, the on-board diagnostics systems inform about any malfunction. The Commission itself acknowledges that there is little information available on the share of vehicles with defective or tampered emission control systems. The proportionality of the proposed measure is, therefore, not given.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Or. en

Justification

Addition to ensure that the existing flexibility that allows rectification and testing either in the Member State that initiated the suspension or in the Member State of registration remains. A new roadworthiness certificate should be issued without undue delay once the deficiencies have been corrected.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Or. en

Justification

Further specification of the recital as otherwise it could be misunderstood. Not all unauthorized modifications have a negative impact on road safety or the emissions of a vehicle.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25

Or. en

Amendment 15

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Or. en

Justification

The inclusion of N1 vehicles in the scope of Regulation 2014/47/EU is a welcomed step. However, given the different national circumstances such as control capacities, the Member States should determine the scope of the target that they have to fulfil. Where a Member State makes uses of more frequent testing (e.g. annually), that Member State should have the possibility to exclude N1 vehicles from roadside inspections.

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a directive

Recital 30 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Frequent and thorough roadside checks are the best possibility to catch offenders. Therefore, Member States should ensure that competent authorities are equipped to do the task given to them.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a directive

Recital 32

Or. en

Justification

Clarification that visual inspections should become mandatory during RSI while extensive cargo security checks should only be made if the visual inspection reveals an issue.

Amendment 20

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – indent 6

Or. en

Justification

Requiring regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³ is essential for road safety and environmental protection. These vehicles reach higher speeds and are more powerful than smaller mopeds, which increases the risk of accidents if brakes, lights, tyres, or other safety-critical components are not properly maintained. Regular inspections will help protect riders, other road users, and the environment alike.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6a

Or. en

Justification

The definition should be clarified, since the present wording may wrongly imply that a vehicle is only a 'connected' one when a specific device is installed.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4 – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4 – paragraph 6

Or. en

Justification

Free of charge access to information necessary for the performance of roadworthiness test is important in order to not increase further the costs of roadworthiness test. However, as this provision confers a financial and bureaucratic burden on vehicle manufacturers, the Commission should check the necessity of information items regularly and whether they are used or not. If information is not used, it should also not be provided by vehicle manufacturers.

Amendment 24

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Odometer fraud is most commonly present in M1 and N1 vehicles. Therefore, the measure should primarily address these vehicle categories. The proposed wording by the Commission risks creating unwanted bureaucratic burdens as even small maintenance tasks such as the replacement of windshield wipers could be covered. This would increase the labour hours connected to the tasks and thus increase the costs for vehicle owners.

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Justification

1) Due to their batteries, modern zero-emission vehicles tend to be heavier than their fossil counterparts in the categories M1 and N1. Therefore, they would risk to fall into the stricter testing regime of M2 or N2.2). The inspection standards in the Member States vary significantly. The proposed shortening would represent a substantial additional burden for owners of vehicles older than 10 years, many of whom come from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds. Moreover, the Commission itself notes in its impact assessment that technical defects are only rarely the cause of accidents. Member States can already shorten their inspection intervals today, for example to respond to higher accident rates. However, even in such cases, the causal link between more frequent inspections and a reduction in accident causes remains doubtful. The proposed measure is therefore not proportionate and should be deleted.3) N1 vehicles are typically used by small and medium-sized enterprises. Requiring these SMEs to take their vans out of service every year imposes a significant administrative and financial burden. Moreover, type-approval legislation already guarantees that emission control systems fulfil minimum durability criteria. In addition, the on-board diagnostics systems installed in most vehicles today provide early warnings of any malfunction. As the Commission itself acknowledges that there is little information available on the share of vehicles with defective or tampered emission control systems, the measure is not proportionate.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 5 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Requiring regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³ is essential for road safety and environmental protection. These vehicles reach higher speeds and are more powerful than smaller mopeds, which increases the risk of accidents if brakes, lights, tyres, or other safety-critical components are not properly maintained. Regular inspections will help protect riders, other road users, and the environment alike.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 6 – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

Requiring regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³ is essential for road safety and environmental protection. These vehicles reach higher speeds and are more powerful than smaller mopeds, which increases the risk of accidents if brakes, lights, tyres, or other safety-critical components are not properly maintained. Regular inspections will help protect riders, other road users, and the environment alike.

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Test methods and equipment must keep pace with technological developments to ensure inspections remain accurate, reliable, and relevant. Up-to-date procedures help detect genuine safety defects while avoiding false positives, preserve the road safety benefits of periodic inspections, and maintain proportionality and credibility by preventing unnecessary burdens on vehicle owners. Regular updates also support harmonization with international best practices and foster continuous improvement, enabling the controlled adoption of validated new technologies such as advanced diagnostics and cybersecurity assessments.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

OEMs face difficulties in some Member States in reaching the current owners of vehicles due to incomplete or inaccurate contact information. In addition, vehicle owners often fail to act on recall notifications, which is particularly problematic in the case of mandatory safety recalls. While in some Member States failure to comply with a recall may affect vehicle registration, this is not universally the case. To enhance road safety, periodic roadworthiness tests should be used as an additional mechanism to ensure that a greater proportion of vehicles undergo mandatory recall campaigns.

Amendment 30

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Regulation 2014/45/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

In order to facilitate controls of certificates in the different Member States, the certificates should not only be made available in the language(s) of the issuing Member State, but also in the language most commonly used in this field.

Amendment 31

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 9 – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

Replication of wording of paragraph 2 in order to allow vehicle owners to do their follow-up on deficiencies not only in the Member State that suspended their vehicle, but also in the Member State of registration. It should be underlined that this in no way alters the vehicle’s prohibition from use on public roads.

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2014/45/EU

Article 9 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Reformulation of the paragraph as otherwise it could be misunderstood. Not all unauthorized modifications have a negative impact on road safety or the emissions of a vehicle.

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Owners might not be aware that their vehicle is emitting more than allowed. In order to give the owner a chance to remedy the situation, Member States should inform the owner of a failed remote sensing test.

Amendment 35

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 36

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 37

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 3a (new)

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be an optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 39

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 4a – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

While remote sensing holds substantial long-term potential to improve the identification of high-emitting vehicles and to enable more targeted and efficient enforcement, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature to warrant mandatory application across all Member States. At this stage, its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness still need to be demonstrated in operational conditions. Therefore, remote sensing should be a optional tool for Member States. However, they should be encouraged to undertake pilot projects to gather practical experience and to contribute to the evidence base needed for future harmonisation. The Commission, in the meantime, should develop delegated acts to establish common criteria. This approach ensures that the Union can advance towards a coherent remote sensing framework without imposing disproportionate obligations before the technology is fully validated.

Amendment 40

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 5 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The inclusion of N1 vehicles in the scope of Regulation 2014/47/EU is a welcomed step. However, given the different national circumstances such as control capacities, the Member States should determine the scope of the target that they have to fulfil. Where a Member State makes uses of more frequent testing (e.g. annually), that Member State should have the possibility to exclude N1 vehicles from roadside inspections.

Amendment 41

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Justification

The sole reference to Annex III suggests that a full cargo security check should become mandatory with every roadside inspection. However, only the visual inspection should become mandatory. If this reveals problems, the inspector can decide to make a more extensive check in accordance with Annex III.

Amendment 42

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Or. en

(Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness)

Justification

The proposed change strengthens the follow-up on major or dangerous deficiencies by the Member States and ensures that vehicles that have such deficiencies are dealt with.

Amendment 43

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 a (new)

Directive 2014/47/EU

Article 18 – paragraph 2

Or. en

(Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness)

Justification

The proposed change strengthens the follow-up mechanism for major or dangerous deficiencies by obliging the inspecting Member State to contact the vehicles' Member State of registration and requesting follow-up action.

Amendment 44

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point i a (new)

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 0 – point 0.2a

Or. en

Amendment 45

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxiv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 4.14.4.6

Or. en

Justification

The charging cable is not a safety or emission-relevant item that needs to be checked in inspections. For many charging operations it is not necessary to have a charger on board.

Amendment 46

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxvi

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 5.2.3

Or. en

Justification

It remains unclear how the "environmental performance" is to be tested or verified. Relevant parameters for the assessment of tyres are tyre size, load capacity, approval mark and speed category as laid down in the type-approval. A failure to comply with these requirements leads to a non-compliance.

Amendment 47

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxiii

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 8 – point 8.1.1

Or. en

Justification

The starting point for a noise test should be the subjective evaluation by the inspector. If the inspector finds it necessary, a measurement can be conducted. Additionally, Art. 6 (3) stipulates that Member States are in charge of setting the testing conditions for category L.

Amendment 48

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – point 3 – point xxxiv a (new)

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 9 – point 9.12a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 49

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.3

Or. en

Justification

While some cars come equipped with deflectors, it will almost be impossible for an inspector to assess whether that spoiler fulfils a safety-related function or not.

Amendment 50

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.20

Or. en

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as vehicle would fail because of the defective light.

Amendment 51

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.40

Or. en

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as the integrity and correctness of the tyre pressure is checked under different points. If the system is defective, the tyre would be flat or if the vehicle is equipped with a tyre pressure warning, the system would indicate low pressure.

Amendment 52

Proposal for a directive

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c – point xxxv

Directive 2014/45/EU

Annex I – point 10.43

Or. en

Justification

According to Art. 6 (3) of this revision of Directive 2014/45/EU, the Member States are tasked to determine the areas, items and appropriate methods of testing. Listing items relating solely to motorcycles under the testing points infringes upon this provision.

Amendment 53

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – point 1 – point b – point 3 – point xxiii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 4.14.4.6

Or. en

Justification

The charging cable is not a safety or emission-relevant item that needs to be checked in inspections. For many charging operations it is not necessary to have a charger on board.

Amendment 54

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – point 1 – point b – point 3 – point xxx

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 8.1.1

Or. en

Justification

The starting point for a noise test should be the subjective evaluation by the inspector. If the inspector finds it necessary, a measurement can be conducted. Additionally, Art. 6 (3) stipulates that Member States are in charge of setting the testing conditions for category L.

Amendment 55

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – point 1 – point b – point 3 – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.3

Or. en

Justification

While some cars come equipped with deflectors, it will almost be impossible for an inspector to assess whether that spoiler fulfils a safety-related function or not.

Amendment 56

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – point 1 – point b – point 3 – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.20

Or. en

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as vehicle would fail because of the defective light.

Amendment 57

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – point 1 – point b – point 3 – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.40

Or. en

Justification

Unnecessary inspection item as the integrity and correctness of the tyre pressure is checked under different points. If the system is defective, the tyre would be flat or if the vehicle is equipped with a tyre pressure warning, the system would indicate low pressure.

Amendment 58

Proposal for a directive

Annex II – point 1 – point b – point 3 – point xxxii

Directive 2014/47/EU

Annex II – point 10.43

Or. en

Justification

According to Art. 6 (3) of this revision of Directive 2014/45/EU, the Member States are tasked to determine the areas, items and appropriate methods of testing. Listing items relating solely to motorcycles under the testing points infringes upon this provision.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The revision of the Union framework for roadworthiness and roadside inspections is both timely and necessary. Technological progress, the increasing digitalisation of the transport sector, and the accelerated market penetration of zero- and low-emission vehicles have rendered parts of the existing rules outdated. The overarching objective of this report is therefore to ensure that the Union’s roadworthiness regime remains fit for purpose, technologically future-proof, and proportionate, while continuing to deliver on its core objectives: improving road safety, safeguarding environmental performance, and ensuring the effective enforcement of Union law.

Despite gradual improvements over recent years, the number of fatalities and serious injuries on Union roads remains unacceptably high. In 2024 alone, 19 940 people lost their lives on EU roads, compared with 24 358 in 2015. To meet the Union’s road safety targets for 2030, further direct, meaningful, and evidence-based measures are required. A robust roadworthiness testing regime constitutes an essential component of a safe road transport system.

At the same time, its design must reflect causality and real-world evidence. The Commission’s own impact assessment confirms that technical defects contribute to only a small share of road accidents. Any reinforcement of testing obligations must therefore be justified by demonstrable safety or environmental benefits and calibrated in line with proportionality. The Commission proposal envisaged several measures that, upon closer analysis, do not meet the proportionality requirement. Foremost among these is the proposed shortening of inspection intervals for vehicles older than ten years. While inspection standards vary among Member States, evidence linking more frequent inspections to a measurable reduction in accident causation remains inconclusive. The measure would also disproportionately affect vehicle owners from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds, for whom older vehicles are often a necessity. Additionally, Member States already have the discretion to impose shorter intervals in justified circumstances; imposing a mandatory Union-wide reduction is therefore neither necessary nor proportionate and has been deleted.

Similarly, the proposal to require annual inspections for N1 vehicles would impose significant administrative and financial burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises, which rely heavily on such vehicles for daily operations. Emission control systems in modern vehicles have to fulfil high standards in terms of durability. In addition, the Commission acknowledges that reliable data on the prevalence of tampered or defective emission control systems remain limited. In the absence of substantiated benefits, the measure is not proportionate and has therefore been deleted.

The report also addresses concerns arising from the weight-based classification of zero-emission vehicles. Due to their batteries, M1 and N1 zero-emission vehicles tend to be heavier than their combustion counterparts and would risk falling into the stricter inspection regime applicable to M2 or N2 vehicles. This outcome would neither reflect the underlying safety risk nor be technologically justified. The report therefore clarifies that such vehicles should not be subject to more stringent regimes solely due to their battery-related mass.

At the same time, several measures to enhance safety and environmental protection are strongly supported. The report also endorses regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³. Given their higher speeds and greater kinetic energy compared with smaller mopeds, safety-critical components such as brakes, tyres, and lighting require regular verification. These inspections will contribute materially to rider safety, overall road safety, and environmental protection.

Regarding remote sensing, the report recognises its long-term potential for improving the detection of high-emitting vehicles and supporting more targeted enforcement. However, given the current stage of technological maturity, remote sensing should remain optional for Member States until its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness are demonstrated. At the same time, Member States should be encouraged to conduct pilot projects to build experience and support the development of a harmonised approach at Union level.

Overall, the report strikes a balanced and proportionate approach: modernising the Union framework in light of technological progress; ensuring that new obligations rest on sound evidence; maintaining legal certainty; and avoiding disproportionate burdens on citizens, SMEs, and inspection operators. The resulting framework strengthens the Union’s capacity to improve road safety, enhance environmental protection, and support the transition to cleaner and more digital mobility, while remaining fair, workable, and economically justified.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the draft report, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.