Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2014)476 - Facilitation of cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2014)476 - Facilitation of cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences.
source COM(2014)476 EN
date 18-07-2014


1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal

On 19 March 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety, on the basis of the transport article of the Treaty (Art. 71(1) EC Treaty, now Art. 91 TFEU). The main objective of that Directive was to put an end to the anonymity of non-resident drivers and to make sure that their road traffic offences would not go unpunished. For this reason the Directive provided the Member States with the mutual access to each other's vehicle registration data via an electronic data exchange network. This would allow them to identify drivers when they commit traffic offences abroad, thus ensuring equal treatment of non-resident and resident drivers. Once the vehicle owner's name and address are known, a letter to the presumed offender may be sent, on the basis of a model established by the Directive. The Member State of offence will have kept their right to decide on the follow up of the traffic offence.

Directive 2011/82/EU was adopted on 25 October 2011. The European Parliament and the Council chose Article 87(2) TFEU on police cooperation as its legal basis. 25 Member States had to transpose that Directive by 7 November 2013. Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland chose, in accordance with Protocols n° 21 and 22 annexed to the Treaties, not to adopt and apply that Directive.

The Commission fully supported the contents of the adopted Directive but decided to challenge its legal basis before the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgement of 6 May 2014, case C-43/12 Commission v. European Parliament and Council, the Court annulled Directive 2011/82/EU, but maintained its effects until the entry into force of a new Directive on the basis of the transport article of the Treaty within a reasonable period of time, which may not exceed twelve months from the date of delivery of the judgement.

In order to comply with the above-mentioned judgement, the Commission prepared this proposal for a new Directive based on the correct legal basis (Article 91 TFUE).

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union

As was the case of the annulled Directive, this proposal is in line with EU policies on the protection of human health and the environment. It also complements Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. The Decision sets out a mechanism for cross-border recognition and enforcement of final decisions concerning financial penalties, among others for traffic offences.

2. RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

The proposal does not contain any new elements as compared to the annulled Directive. The proposed changes adapt the previous text to its new legal basis and are therefore not substantial. For this reason renewed consultation of stakeholders and an update of the impact assessment for the original Commission proposal 1 were not required.

Before adoption of the annulled Directive, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Committee of the Regions were consulted.

The European Economic and Social Committee issued its opinion on 17 September 2008 2 . The Committee concluded that the proposal for the annulled Directive was a sound approach to dealing effectively with offences committed in another Member State. To make the Directive more effective, the list of offences was proposed to be expanded. Furthermore the Committee called on the Council and the Member States to accompany the Directive with urgent improvements on effective and efficient checks and penalties. Some of the proposed additional offences were included in the Directive that was adopted.

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued its opinion on 8 May 2008 3 . EDPS concluded that the proposal for the annulled Directive provided for sufficient justification for the establishment of the system for the cross-border exchange of information, and that it limited in an adequate way the quality of data to be collected and transferred. The EDPS gave some recommendations in order to improve the text. The EDPS had no objection to the use of an already existing infrastructure to exchange the information - as far as this limited financial or administrative burden, but insisted that this should not lead to interoperability with other databanks. Some of the proposals were included in the Directive that was adopted.

The Committee of Regions was consulted on the proposal, but decided on 17 April 2008 not to issue an opinion.

3. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

Summary of the proposed action

The proposal is almost identical to the text of the annulled Directive. Only some minor changes considered strictly necessary to comply with the judgement of the Court were introduced. Therefore, the legal basis was changed, the recitals referring to the special provisions applying to the UK, Ireland and Denmark were deleted, as well as the Commission statement on the legal basis which is no more relevant. Furthermore, a change of reference as regards rules on data protection was made in recital 20 (recital 19 of the annulled Directive) and corresponding Article 7 was modified accordingly. In Article 4 the references to the Prüm Decisions have been streamlined, without changing the substance and the paragraphs 2 and 3 are reshuffled to improve the logical structure of this Article. An update of the transposition and exercise of delegation powers dates, as well as of the reporting obligations, was made. Some minor modifications were also introduced to address issues of standard legislative drafting.

Legal basis

The legal basis for the adoption of measures at EU level in the field of road safety is Article 91(1)(c) TFEU. According to this Article "(...) the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (…), lay down: (…) (c) measures to improve transport safety." The Court considered that this legal basis was appropriate since the examination of the content of the provisions of Directive 2011/82/EU confirmed that the system for the exchange of information between the competent authorities of the Member States set up by that Directive provided the means of pursuing the objective of improving road safety and enabled the European Union to attain that aim. It concluded that since, both in respect of its aims and its content, Directive 2011/82/EU was a measure to improve transport safety within the meaning of Article 91(1) (c) TFUE, it should have been adopted on the basis of that provision (see paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment).

Deletion of recitals regarding UK, Ireland and Denmark

As referred in recitals 22 and 23 of the annulled Directive, UK, Ireland and Denmark had, in accordance with Protocols no 21 and 22 annexed to the Treaties, the possibility not to take part in adoption of, be bound by or subject to the application of that Directive. However, as this proposal is based on Article 91(1)(c) TFEU, where those Protocols do not apply since they only apply to Title V of the TFEU, those recitals should be deleted.

Data protection

As the annulled Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 87(2) TFEU, the rules on data protection were based on the data protection regime under police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters as prescribed by Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. This was also because Directive 95/46/EC does not apply to personal data processed in the course of an activity which falls within the scope of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, cf. Article 3(2) of that Directive.

However, this proposal is based on Article 91(1) (c) TFEU and the general rules on data protection provided for in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data 4 should therefore apply. Consequently, the proposal should refer to Directive 95/46/EC, both in general and for the provisions on rectification, erasure, blocking and maximum storage time as mentioned in Article 7 of the annulled Directive. There is no longer need to refer to the rules on data protection in the Prüm Decisions, since Directive 95/46/EC provides for sufficient data protection.

In light of ongoing negotiations between the co-legislators on a Commission proposal for a Regulation on Data Protection to replace Directive 95/46/EC, and depending on the time line and outcome of the procedures, a change of reference could be appropriate before the adoption of this Directive.

Subsidiarity and proportionality principles

The proposal complies with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, in the same way as does the annulled Directive.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATION

There are no other budgetary implications than those already mentioned in the annulled Directive.

5. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS

European Economic Area

The proposed Directive is EEA-relevant and should therefore be extended to the European Economic Area.