REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application by the Member States of Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the community Reporting Period 2011-2012

Contents

  1. Text
  2. 52014DC0569
  3. Full version
  4. EU Monitor

1.

Text

 

|

2.

52014DC0569

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application by the Member States of Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the community Reporting Period 2011-2012 /* COM/2014/0569 final */

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 3

2........... DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC............................................................................................ 4

3........... DATA COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES............................................... 4

4........... CONTENT OF THE INSPECTION........................................................................... 5

5........... STATISTICAL DATA................................................................................................ 5

5.1........ Percentage of vehicles inspected.................................................................................. 6

5.2........ Overall number of vehicles checked and their origin................................................... 7

5.3........ Prohibited vehicles........................................................................................................ 8

5.4........ Types of deficiencies and data by Member State....................................................... 10

6........... TYPES OF PENALTIES........................................................................................... 10

7........... SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................. 11

ANNEX I: DEFICIENCIES DETECTED PER INSPECTION POINT

ANNEX II: VEHICLES CHECKED AND PROHIBITION RATE BY MEMBER STATE

  • 1. 
    INTRODUCTION

In the interest of road safety, environmental protection and fair competition, European legislation provides for a set of measures to ensure that commercial vehicles on European roads are in good condition. These include:

  • · 
    rules on admission to the occupation, which require transport operators to have sufficient financial capacity to ensure the proper maintenance of vehicles (Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009[1]);
  • · 
    periodic roadworthiness tests of vehicles, to be carried out in Member States for vehicles registered on their territory, with a minimum frequency laid down at European level (Directive 2009/40/EC[2]);
  • · 
    technical roadside inspections — the subject of this report — ensuring that commercial vehicles are only used if they are maintained such as to ensure a high level of technical roadworthiness (Directive 2000/30/EC[3]).

Under Directive 2000/30/EC, commercial vehicles and their trailers and semi-trailers circulating on the territories of the Member States are subject to technical roadside inspections of their roadworthiness, in order to improve road safety and protect the environment.

Article 6 of Directive 2000/30/EC provides that, every two years, Member States should provide the Commission with data collected for the previous two years relating to:

the number of commercial vehicles checked, grouped into seven categories as per the Directive and further grouped by country of registration; the items checked; and the deficiencies discovered.

The Directive lists nine different points (see section 4 below) that may be subject to a technical roadside inspection. If any of the items checked do not comply with the relevant road safety requirements, the vehicle could be banned from the road. Any deficiencies in the vehicle inspected must be mentioned in the inspection reports that must be given to the vehicle’s driver. The Directive requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council and the European Parliament on how the Directive has been applied, based on data received from the Member States, together with a summary of the results obtained.

On 3 April 2014, the European Parliament and the Council revised the Directive on technical roadside inspection through Directive 2014/47/EU.[4] The revised version of the Directive introduces inter alia an EU-wide target for the number of technical roadside inspections to be carried out. To allow for the smooth implementation of this new requirement when it comes into force in 2018, this report provides information relating to the future EU-wide target of 5 % of registered heavy commercial vehicles to be checked.

  • 2. 
    DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC

Directive 2000/30/EC, as amended,[5] — which is applicable until 19 May 2018 — sets out a number of conditions for technical roadside checks on commercial vehicles circulating in the EU.

A technical roadside inspection means an unannounced examination of a commercial vehicle circulating within the territory of a Member State. The inspection is carried out by the authorities, or another body acting under their supervision, and is usually carried out on public highways.

All technical roadside inspections must be carried out without discriminating on the grounds of the driver’s nationality or the country in which the commercial vehicle was registered or entered into service. They must also be undertaken so as to minimise the costs and delay for drivers and operators.

A targeted approach should be adopted in selecting commercial vehicles for technical roadside inspection, placing particular importance on identifying vehicles that seem most likely to be poorly maintained.

Roadside inspections are carried out in a stepwise approach. An initial inspection covers a visual assessment of the vehicle’s maintenance condition when stationary. If the vehicle’s condition seems to represent a safety risk that justifies further examination, the vehicle may be subjected to a more elaborate test at a testing centre in the vicinity. The outcome of each roadside inspection must be documented in a technical roadside inspection report that follows the model set out in the Directive. This information provides the basis for the information Member States are required to communicate to the European Commission.

If a commercial vehicle with dangerous deficiencies presents a serious risk to road safety, its use may be prohibited until these deficiencies have been rectified. Foreign vehicles with serious deficiencies must be notified to the Member State of origin to allow for appropriate follow-up.

  • 3. 
    DATA COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES

This is the fourth report on how Directive 2000/30/EC is applied in Member States; it covers the period 2011-12. The data collected by Member States relating to this period was supposed to be provided to the Commission by 31 March 2013 at the latest.

However, data was not always communicated in a timely manner. Fifteen Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden) met the deadline and provided data on the number of vehicles checked, grouped by category and country of registration, as well as data on items checked and defects noted. After the Commission had entered bilateral dialogues with the remaining 12 Member States, they provided the required data. Finally, the last data from Member States was received on 6 May 2014.

In order to facilitate communication of information as required by Article 6 of Directive 2000/30/EC, the Commission and Member State experts have developed a standardised format for reporting. Use of this standardised format greatly facilitates data collection; however, this is not obligatory. The majority of reports from Member States followed the recommended format, even when printed tables were submitted. The Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Slove nia and Finland did not use the standardised format.

The various Member States provided the data at varying levels of completeness. Only a few Member States — the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Austria, Poland and Slovenia — submitted data on vehicles registered outside the EU. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia and Slovenia provided statistics for 2011 and 2012 separately. Some Member States (Denmark, Spain, France, Poland and Slovenia) did not report key data on all vehicle categories, inspection points or the origin of vehicles checked. Spain and Finland were the only Member States which did not provide information on prohibited vehicles at all. Also, some Member States provided multiple data sets, for instance data reported by their Ministry of Transport and their national police department. In general, those Member States using the standardised format for collecting information provided a more complete set of data to the Commission.

  • 4. 
    CONTENT OF THE INSPECTION

The points likely to be checked and to be included in the data sent by Member States are, at a minimum, those referred to in point 10 of the specimen report set out in Annex I to Directive 2000/30/EC, as amended. These are:

  • · 
    identification;
  • · 
    braking equipment;
  • · 
    steering;
  • · 
    visibility;
  • · 
    lighting equipment and electric system;
  • · 
    axles, wheels, tyres, suspension;
  • · 
    chassis and chassis attachments;
  • · 
    other equipment, including tachograph and speed limitation devices;
  • · 
    nuisances, including emissions and spillage of fuel and/or oil.
  • 5. 
    STATISTICAL DATA

In order to get comparable information on the vehicles checked by Member States, it was necessary to break down the numbers for road trains and articulated vehicles into lorries and trailers, and lorries and semi-trailers, respectively. Figures resulting from this split are shown in italics throughout this report.

5.1.        Percentage of vehicles inspected

The total number of vehicles checked was 8 145 984 vehicles for 2011-12. During this period, the number of registered commercial vehicles in the EU was 8 830 451 vehicles. The ratio of vehicles checked in 2011-12 to the overall fleet is 92.25 %, which corresponds to 46.12 % of the overall fleet being subject to roadside checks each year.

Among the Member States, the ratio of the average number of vehicles inspected each year to the number of registered commercial vehicles differs significantly, covering a range from 0.3 % up to more than 100 %. These differences may be partly explained by the various reporting methods used: for example, some Member States (such as Germany, France and Poland) reported data including initial inspections, while others reported only the more elaborate checks they carried out. The variations could also be explained by the different systems of checks used by Member States, ranging from basic inspections without any equipment to highly sophisticated, elaborate tests using mobile inspection units or test centres in close vicinity.

Table 1: Percentage of vehicles inspected

Member State || Vehicles checked  (2011–12) || Registered vehicles category N2, N3, M2, M3, O3 and O4 || Ratio total per annum*

Belgium || 18 799 || 253 440 || 3.71 %

Bulgaria || 595 905 || 293 930** || 101.37 %

Czech Republic || 160 285 || 211 794** || 37.84 %

Denmark || 27 781 || 92 911 || 14.95 %

Germany || 2 881 859 || 963 763** || 149.51 %

Estonia || 1 791 || 44 596** || 2.01 %

Ireland || 11 988 || 107 610** || 5.57 %

Greece || 28 276 || 472 955** || 2.99 %

Spain || 388 505 || 869 934** || 22.33 %

France || 1 431 117 || 758 788** || 94.30 %

Italy || 65 053 || 1 070 184** || 3.04 %

Cyprus || 1 133 || 27 178 || 2.08 %

Latvia || 5 822 || 47 272** || 6.16 %

Lithuania || 83 342 || 109 019** || 38.22 %

Luxembourg || 901 || 18 615** || 2.42 %

Hungary || 328 202 || 160 112** || 102.49 %

Malta || 3 852 || 10 994** || 17.52 %

Netherlands || 11 471 || 310 833 || 1.85 %

Austria || 32 227 || 98 897 || 16.29 %

Poland || 1 710 675 || 914 776** || 93.50 %

Portugal || 709 || 116 455** || 0.30 %

Romania || 22 260 || 346 418** || 3.21 %

Slovenia || 4 534 || 45 673** || 4.96 %

Slovakia || 18 074 || 271 770** || 3.33 %

Finland || 23 609 || 189 447 || 6.23 %

Sweden || 39 597 || 148 528 || 13.33 %

United Kingdom || 248 217 || 874 564** || 14.19 %

Total || 8 145 984 || 8 830 451 || 46.12 %

  • * 
    Ratio total per annum equals the average number of individual Member State checks each year divided by the total number of vehicles registered in this Member State.

** Numbers are derived from data provided by Eurostat.

5.2.        Overall number of vehicles checked and their origin

Article 3 of Directive 2000/30/EC sets out the non-discriminatory spirit of inspections to be performed. Several Member States, especially Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, reported higher proportions of foreign vehicles having been subject to roadside inspection, while other Member States with significant transit traffic reported a more balanced distribution of inspections of resident and non-resident vehicles. While this may be due to other factors, unrelated to the nature of the inspection, the findings for Belgium and Luxembourg were similar in the previous report on implementation of the Directive.[6]

Table 2: Origin of vehicles checked

Reporting Member State (MS ) || Registered in the MS || Registered in another MS || Registered outside the EU || Total || Vehicles of the MS (%)

Belgium || 6 887 || 11 430 || 482 || 18 799 || 36.6 %

Bulgaria || 520 477 || 75 428 || || 595 905 || 87.3 %

Czech Republic || 103 641 || 53 401 || 3 243 || 160 285 || 64.7 %

Denmark* || || || || 27 781 ||

Germany || 1 833 789 || 921 213 || 126 857 || 2 881 859 || 63.6 %

Estonia || 1 732 || 53 || 6 || 1 791 || 96.7 %

Ireland || 11 988 || || || 11 988 || 100.0 %

Greece || 22 569 || 4 779 || 928 || 28 276 || 79.8 %

Spain || 366 205 || 22 300 || || 388 505 || 94.3 %

France || 721 796 || 694 157 || 15 164 || 1 431 117 || 50.4 %

Italy || 46 958 || 14 846 || 3 249 || 65 053 || 72.2 %

Cyprus || 1 133 || || || 1 133 || 100.0 %

Latvia || 4 781 || 1 041 || || 5 822 || 82.1 %

Lithuania || 55 201 || 28 141 || || 83 342 || 66.2 %

Luxembourg || 112 || 789 || || 901 || 12.4 %

Hungary || 252 209 || 75 993 || || 328 202 || 76.8 %

Malta || 3 820 || 32 || || 3 852 || 99.2 %

Netherlands || 6 999 || 4 472 || || 11 471 || 61.0 %

Austria || 14 019 || 16 650 || 1 558 || 32 227 || 43.5 %

Poland || 1 574 898 || 64 572 || 71 205 || 1 710 675 || 92.1 %

Portugal || 657 || 52 || || 709 || 92.7 %

Romania || 21 987 || 273 || || 22 260 || 98.8 %

Slovenia || 3 298 || 1 236 || || 4 534 || 72.7 %

Slovakia || 14 825 || 3 249 || || 18 074 || 82.0 %

Finland || 13 156 || 2 102 || 8 351 || 23 609 || 55.7 %

Sweden || 32 656 || 6 941 || || 39 597 || 82.5 %

United Kingdom || 126 502 || 121 715 || || 248 217 || 51.0 %

Total || 5 762 295 || 2 124 865 || 231 043 || 8 145 984 || 70.7 %

  • * 
    Denmark did not provide information on origin for the majority of vehicles checked.

5.3.        Prohibited vehicles

Vehicles with dangerous deficiencies that present a serious risk to its occupants or other road users may be prohibited from further use until those deficiencies have been rectified. According to the information sent by Member States, the proportion of vehicles prohibited in relation to all vehicles checked varies considerably from one Member State to another, from a high of 87.6 % in Estonia to just 0.6 % in Poland.

The figures seem to indicate that targeting technical roadside inspections on poorly maintained vehicles, as currently done in Luxembourg, Austria and the United Kingdom, increases operational effectiveness and decreases administrative burden. Member States adopting this approach seem to have a higher capture rate of faulty vehicles with fewer checks than other Member States that conduct a higher number of inspections. This is the case for Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta, which have the highest prohibition rate, while Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland show the lowest rates for the prohibition of vehicles registered in the EU. Member States reporting particularly high numbers of checks tend to show low rates of prohibitions or defects detected.

Table 3: Proportion of prohibited vehicles in relation to all vehicles checked

Reporting Member State || Vehicles registered in the reporting Member State || Vehicles registered in the EU (including reporting Member State)

Number of vehicles checked || Number of prohibitions || Ratio of prohibitions (%) || Number of vehicles checked || Number of prohibitions || Ratio of prohibitions (%)

Belgium || 6 887 || 589 || 8.6 % || 18 317 || 1 140 || 6.2 %

Bulgaria || 520 477 || 10 043 || 1.9 % || 595 905 || 12 584 || 2.1 %

Czech Republic || 103 641 || 2 595 || 2.5 % || 157 042 || 3 340 || 2.1 %

Denmark || || || || 27 781 || 211 || 0.8 %

Germany || 1 833 789 || 13 772 || 0.8 % || 2 755 002 || 31 817 || 1.2 %

Estonia || 1 732 || 1 517 || 87.6 % || 1 785 || 1 544 || 86.5 %

Ireland || 11 988 || 5 200 || 43.4 % || 11 988 || 5 200 || 43.4 %

Greece || 22 569 || 1 266 || 5.6 % || 27 348 || 1 378 || 5.0 %

Spain || 366 205 || || || 388 505 || ||

France || 721 796 || 76 448 || 10.6 % || 1 415 953 || 191 896 || 13.6 %

Italy || 46 958 || 6 710 || 14.3 % || 61 804 || 7 960 || 12.9 %

Cyprus* || 1 133 || 1 684 || 148.6 % || 1 133 || 1 684 || 148.6 %

Latvia || 4 781 || 317 || 6.6 % || 5 822 || 403 || 6.9 %

Lithuania || 55 201 || 827 || 1.5 % || 83 342 || 1 142 || 1.4 %

Luxembourg || 112 || 82 || 73.2 % || 901 || 531 || 58.9 %

Hungary || 252 209 || 4 314 || 1.7 % || 328 202 || 6 239 || 1.9 %

Malta || 3 820 || 1 895 || 49.6 % || 3 852 || 1 900 || 49.3 %

Netherlands || 6 999 || 166 || 2.4 % || 11 471 || 134 || 1.2 %

Austria || 14 019 || 5 851 || 41.7 % || 30 669 || 14 477 || 47.2 %

Poland || 1 574 898 || 9 228 || 0.6 % || 1 639 470 || 9 228 || 0.6 %

Portugal || 657 || 15 || 2.3 % || 709 || 16 || 2.3 %

Romania || 21 987 || 8 815 || 40.1 % || 22 260 || 8 875 || 39.9 %

Slovenia || 3 298 || 52 || 1.6 % || 4 534 || 83 || 1.8 %

Slovakia || 14 825 || 3 515 || 23.7 % || 18 074 || 4 093 || 22.6 %

Finland || 13 156 || || || 15 258 || ||

Sweden || 32 656 || 3 812 || 11.7 % || 39 597 || 7 043 || 17.8 %

United Kingdom || 126 502 || 40 022 || 31.6 % || 248 217 || 87 563 || 35.3 %

Total || 5 762 295 || 198 735 || 3.4 % || 7 914 941 || 400 481 || 5.1 %

  • * 
    Cyprus reported the number of failures instead of number of prohibitions.

5.4.      Types of deficiencies and data by Member State

The most frequent deficiencies detected during inspections concern the roadworthiness condition of:

  • - 
    lighting equipment and electric system (47.0 %);
  • - 
    axles, wheels, tyres, suspension (24.6 %); and
  • - 
    chassis and chassis attachments (11.8 %).

As shown in Annex I, these figures highlight the importance of roadside inspections for road safety. Comparing data with the previous reporting period shows that similar problematic areas were also identified then.

For deficiencies relating to emissions and leakages — which, in addition to being a road safety hazard, can also have an impact on the environment — there has been a decrease of three percentage points (from 4.1 % to 1.0 %) in the ratio of spillage of fuel and/or oil since the previous reporting period.

Even within the different items to be tested — such as braking equipment for example — considerable differences in deficiency rates were reported, ranging from 1.9 % in Estonia to 47.3 % in the United Kingdom. This may be due to the different testing methods applied by Member States. When it becomes applicable, Directive 2014/47/EU will introduce greater harmonisation in testing methods, assessment of deficiencies and use of test equipment for more detailed technical roadside inspections.

Data submitted by Member States on the number of inspections made on vehicles registered in non-EU countries is still not sufficient to draw significant conclusions on their roadworthiness condition.

Annex II to this report provides an overview of the number of vehicles checked in Member States by country of registration and the ratio of prohibitions issued.

  • 6. 
    TYPES OF PENALTIES

The Directive does not set out a system of penalties for any infringements discovered. Penalties are to be set by Member States, without discrimination on the grounds of the driver’s nationality or of the country in which the vehicle was registered or entered service.

If it becomes evident that a commercial vehicle presents a serious risk to its occupants or other road users, the authority or inspector carrying out the inspection is empowered under Directive 2000/30/EC to prohibit the use of a vehicle until the dangerous deficiencies discovered have been rectified.

Serious deficiencies found in a commercial vehicle belonging to a non‑resident, in particular those that lead to its use being prohibited, must be notified to the competent authorities of the Member State where it is registered.

The competent authorities of the Member State that found the serious deficiency may ask the competent authorities of the Member State where the vehicle is registered to take appropriate measures, such as subjecting the vehicle to a further roadworthiness inspection. However, no reporting is required on such cases.

  • 7. 
    SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with reporting obligations has improved, although reports from Member States still lack some key statistical data, notably on vehicle categories, inspection points, origin of vehicles checked and number of prohibitions imposed. Member States did not always meet the deadline set in legislation for providing data; in some cases, these were only provided when the Commission had launched bilateral inquiries with the relevant Member State authorities. Some Member States continue not to use the standardised electronic format that the Commission has recommended for submitting data. The Commission continues to recommend that the standardised electronic format be used, as this will support the submission of more complete data.

Several conclusions can be drawn from this report on roadside inspections of commercial vehicles circulating within the EU.

The annual total number of vehicles checked in the EU represents more than 40 % of the commercial vehicle fleet for the EU as a whole, ranging from less than 1 % in Portugal to more than 100 % in Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria. The future EU target of 5 % — stipulated in the new roadside inspection Directive 2014/47/EU — should therefore be easily reachable for all Member States. However, 11 Member States remain substantially below the EU target and should therefore increase their technical roadside inspection activity.

The proportion of domestic vehicles out of the total number of vehicles checked also varies substantially. In Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, where the proportion of checks on domestic vehicles is below 50 %, efforts should be made to ensure a more balanced rate of checks, more in line with those in other Member States with significant transit traffic.

The proportion of vehicles prohibited in relation to all vehicles checked shows sizeable variations, from less than 1 % in Poland to more than 80 % in Estonia. The figures reported suggest that the efficiency of technical roadside inspections can be increased by better targeting the checks that are carried out. The administrative burden for both enforcement authorities and transport operators could also be reduced through better targeting. The new roadside inspection Directive 2014/47/EU requires Member States to change their inspection systems, moving from carrying out purely random checking to a more targeted approach.

The most frequent deficiencies detected during inspections concern the roadworthiness condition of lighting equipment, wheels, tyres and chassis. However, significant variations in these deficiency rates can be seen across Member States. The European Commission encourages Member States to pay particular attention to the categories of deficiencies that continue to be most problematic and to adjust the inspection methods they use accordingly.

[1]               Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast), OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72.

[2]               Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (Recast), OJ L 141, 6.6.2009, p. 12.

[3]               Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community, OJ L 203, 10.8.2000, p. 1.

[4]               Directive 2014/47/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union, OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 134.

[5]               Commission Directive 2010/47/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2000/30/EC, OJ L 173, 8.7.2010, p. 33.

[6]COM(2013) 303.

ANNEX I: DEFICIENCIES DETECTED PER INSPECTION POINT

ANNEX II: VEHICLES CHECKED AND PROHIBITION RATE BY MEMBER STATE

NOTE: The figures reported below do not take into account the splitting up of road trains and articulated vehicles.

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

AT || || BE || || BG || || CY || || CZ || || DE || || DK ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

AD || || || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || ||

AL || 3 || 66.7 % || || || || || || || 3 || || || || ||

AR || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AT || 14 019 || 41.7 % || 121 || 1.7 % || 1 174 || 1.4 % || || || 701 || 2.3 % || || || || 0.0 %

AZ || 1 || 0.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BA || 169 || 59.2 % || || || || || || || 66 || 3.0 % || || || ||

BE || 61 || 47.5 % || 6 887 || 8.6 % || 155 || 5.2 % || || || 54 || 3.7 % || || || 3 || 33.3 %

BG || 761 || 60.4 % || 244 || 8.2 % || 404 750 || 2.5 % || || || 816 || 3.2 % || || || 6 || 33.3 %

BL || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BR || 1 || 0.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BY || 66 || 42.4 % || || || || || || || 255 || 2.4 % || || || ||

CA || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CH || 103 || 44.7 % || || || || || || || 13 || || || || ||

CS || 338 || 62.4 % || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || ||

CY || 21 || 52.4 % || 8 || 0.0 % || 1 438 || 0.0 % || 1 054 || 159.8 % || 9 || || || || || 0.0 %

CZ || 2 212 || 44.3 % || 534 || 5.1 % || 2 437 || 1.9 % || || || 73 191 || 3.5 % || || || || 0.0 %

DE || 1 903 || 35.3 % || 1 608 || 2.6 % || 1 363 || 1.6 % || || || 2 917 || 1.6 % || 1 266 270 || 1.1 % || 11 || 18.2 %

DK || 31 || 41.9 % || 56 || 5.4 % || 113 || 0.0 % || || || 20 || || || || 404 || 33.9 %

EE || 27 || 59.3 % || 43 || 4.7 % || 252 || 1.6 % || || || 165 || 1.2 % || || || 2 ||

EI || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EL || 104 || 59.6 % || 19 || 15.8 % || 8 087 || 4.7 % || || || 81 || 1.2 % || || || || 0.0 %

ES || 104 || 51.9 % || 689 || 6.5 % || 305 || 4.3 % || || || 299 || 1.0 % || || || 2 ||

FI || 15 || 33.3 % || 18 || 5.6 % || 39 || 0.0 % || || || 14 || || || || 2 ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

AT || || BE || || BG || || CY || || CZ || || DE || || DK ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

FR || 34 || 44.1 % || 1 278 || 5.0 % || 289 || 0.0 % || || || 38 || || || || || 0.0 %

GE || 8 || 75.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HR || 288 || 50.0 % || || || || || || || 136 || 3.7 % || || || ||

HU || 3 590 || 59.1 % || 313 || 2.9 % || 4 962 || 3.8 % || || || 2 912 || 2.1 % || || || || 0.0 %

IE || 35 || 48.6 % || 60 || 6.7 % || 20 || 0.0 % || || || 22 || || || || 2 || 50.0 %

IR || 6 || 50.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IS || || || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || ||

IT || 814 || 36.2 % || 409 || 5.4 % || 878 || 4.6 % || || || 234 || || || || || 0.0 %

KG || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

KZ || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LI || 19 || 36.8 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LT || 243 || 56.0 % || 392 || 3.3 % || 614 || 1.6 % || || || 1 082 || 0.8 % || || || 6 ||

LU || 8 || 25.0 % || 470 || 1.7 % || 2 || 0.0 % || || || 25 || || || || 3 ||

LV || 91 || 52.7 % || 70 || 5.7 % || 456 || 0.2 % || || || 254 || 0.4 % || || || 5 || 60.0 %

MC || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

MD || 51 || 68.6 % || || || || || || || 15 || 0.0 % || || || ||

ME || 13 || 84.6 % || || || || || || || 3 || || || || ||

MK || 75 || 56.0 % || || || || || || || 134 || 3.0 % || || || 1 ||

MT || 6 || 50.0 % || 3 || 0.0 % || 1 || 0.0 % || || || 3 || || || || || 0.0 %

NL || 284 || 34.9 % || 2 069 || 5.1 % || 976 || 1.1 % || || || 237 || 1.3 % || || || 16 ||

NO || 2 || 0.0 % || || || || || || || 5 || || || || ||

Non EU || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Other EU MS || || || || || || || || || || || 623 308 || 2.9 % || ||

Other Non-EU MS || || || 482 || 5.6 % || || || || || || || 87 859 || 2.6 % || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

AT || || BE || || BG || || CY || || CZ || || DE || || DK ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

PL || 1 392 || 54.5 % || 1 413 || 5.2 % || 7 981 || 2.8 % || || || 12 112 || 2.4 % || || || 20 || 30.0 %

PT || 68 || 58.8 % || 342 || 9.4 % || 494 || 1.2 % || || || 177 || 0.6 % || || || 2 || 50.0 %

RO || 2 072 || 63.9 % || 485 || 7.4 % || 17 149 || 7.6 % || || || 2 844 || 2.6 % || || || 6 || 33.3 %

RS || || || || || || || || || 585 || 1.7 % || || || ||

RU || 47 || 55.3 % || || || || || || || 249 || || || || ||

SE || 22 || 22.7 % || 28 || 3.6 % || 93 || 0.0 % || || || 48 || || || || 2 || 50.0 %

SI || 1 054 || 52.2 % || 165 || 3.0 % || 1 138 || 11.3 % || || || 271 || 2.2 % || || || || 0.0 %

SK || 1 656 || 53.5 % || 404 || 3.2 % || 2 074 || 6.4 % || || || 8 403 || 2.5 % || || || 6 ||

SM || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SV || 1 || 100.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TJ || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TM || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TN || 2 || 0.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TR || 262 || 40.8 % || || || || || || || 257 || 0.4 % || || || ||

UA || 96 || 63.5 % || || || || || || || 373 || 2.4 % || || || 2 || 50.0 %

UK || 42 || 59.5 % || 189 || 8.5 % || 103 || 0.0 % || || || 18 || || || || 5 ||

US || 1 || 100.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UZ || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

VA || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

XK || 5 || 60.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ZM || 1 || 100.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

EE || || EL || || ES || || FI || || FR || || HU || || IE ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

AD || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AL || || || 247 || 5.3 % || || || || || || || || || ||

AR || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AT || || || 137 || 4.4 % || || 0.0 % || 4 || || 2 207 || 17.9 % || 3 008 || 0.6 % || || 0.0 %

AZ || || || || || || || 4 || || || || || || ||

BA || || || 5 || || || || || || || || || || ||

BE || || || 25 || || || 0.0 % || 20 || || 57 393 || 18.0 % || 39 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

BG || || || 2 325 || 2.5 % || || 0.0 % || 50 || || 17 094 || 15.7 % || 3 144 || 3.9 % || || 0.0 %

BL || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BR || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BY || || || || || || || 47 || || || || || || ||

CA || || || || || || || 4 || || || || || || ||

CH || || || || || || || 3 || || || || || || ||

CS || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CY || || || 6 || || || 0.0 % || || || 71 || 28.2 % || 0 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

CZ || || || 14 || || || 0.0 % || 52 || || 19 722 || 12.5 % || 3 729 || 1.6 % || || 0.0 %

DE || 1 || 100.0 % || 44 || 2.3 % || || 0.0 % || 98 || || 59 102 || 18.1 % || 1 239 || 2.3 % || || 0.0 %

DK || || || || || || 0.0 % || 59 || || 1 745 || 22.0 % || 38 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

EE || 1 647 || 92.1 % || || || || 0.0 % || 600 || || 1 487 || 15.7 % || 151 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

EI || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EL || || || 18 726 || 6.8 % || || 0.0 % || 2 || || 2 893 || 32.6 % || 67 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

ES || || || 4 || || || 0.0 % || 2 || || 171 093 || 18.0 % || 202 || 6.4 % || || 0.0 %

FI || 1 || 100.0 % || || || || 0.0 % || 10 284 || || 421 || 14.7 % || 18 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

EE || || EL || || ES || || FI || || FR || || HU || || IE ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

FR || || || 2 || || || 0.0 % || 9 || || 721 796 || 10.6 % || 84 || 13.1 % || || 0.0 %

GE || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HR || || || 3 || || || || 5 || || || || || || ||

HU || 1 || 100.0 % || 18 || || || 0.0 % || 12 || || 13 622 || 12.5 % || 252 209 || 1.7 % || || 0.0 %

IE || || || || || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 2 406 || 14.9 % || 69 || 11.6 % || 11 988 || 43.4 %

IR || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IS || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IT || || || 36 || || || 0.0 % || 3 || || 66 779 || 19.1 % || 1 012 || 1.4 % || || 0.0 %

KG || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

KZ || || || || || || || 2 || || || || || || ||

LI || || || || || || || 2 || || || || || || ||

LT || 7 || 57.1 % || || || || 0.0 % || 96 || || 12 650 || 14.7 % || 1 404 || 2.8 % || || 0.0 %

LU || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || 11 246 || 19.3 % || 3 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

LV || 12 || 75.0 % || 2 || || || 0.0 % || 105 || || 7 660 || 12.7 % || 400 || 2.0 % || || 0.0 %

MC || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

MD || || || 19 || 5.3 % || || || 9 || || || || || || ||

ME || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

MK || || || 126 || || || || || || || || || || ||

MT || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || 58 || 8.6 % || 0 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

NL || || || 6 || || || 0.0 % || 78 || || 41 669 || 19.1 % || 494 || 3.8 % || || 0.0 %

NO || || || || || || || 4 || || || || || || ||

Non-EU || 6 || 100.0 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Other EU MS || || || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || ||

Other Non-EU MS || || || || || || || || || 15 164 || 16.6 % || || || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

EE || || EL || || ES || || FI || || FR || || HU || || IE ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

PL || 12 || 58.3 % || 91 || 1.1 % || || 0.0 % || 264 || || 64 920 || 12.9 % || 16 794 || 1.4 % || || 0.0 %

PT || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || 65 603 || 13.8 % || 32 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 %

RO || || || 1 416 || 3.2 % || || 0.0 % || 23 || || 35 842 || 15.7 % || 24 107 || 4.3 % || || 0.0 %

RS || || || 91 || 2.2 % || || || || || || || || || ||

RU || || || 11 || || || || 5 359 || || || || || || ||

SE || 3 || 100.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 89 || || 269 || 16.7 % || 155 || 3.9 % || || 0.0 %

SI || || || 16 || || || 0.0 % || 9 || || 5 023 || 15.2 % || 4 030 || 2.0 % || || 0.0 %

SK || || || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 11 || || 21 614 || 14.9 % || 15 728 || 1.3 % || || 0.0 %

SM || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SV || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TJ || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TM || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TN || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TR || || || 129 || 0.8 % || || || 18 || || || || || || ||

UA || || || 14 || || || || 223 || || || || || || ||

UK || 1 || 100.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 12 || || 11 568 || 12.9 % || 46 || 34.8 % || || 0.0 %

US || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UZ || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

VA || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

XK || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ZM || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

IT || || LT || || LU || || LV || || MT || || NL || || PL ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

AD || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AL || || || || || || || || || || || || || 2 ||

AR || || || || || || || || || || || || || 7 ||

AT || 30 || 6.7 % || || 0.0 % || 6 || 116.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 18 || 0.0 % || 286 ||

AZ || || || || || || || || || || || || || 74 ||

BA || || || || || || || || || || || || || 442 ||

BE || 40 || 20.0 % || || 0.0 % || 77 || 57.1 % || 2 || || || 0.0 % || 252 || 2.0 % || 97 ||

BG || 57 || 29.8 % || 127 || 6.3 % || 25 || 120.0 % || 14 || 14.3 % || || || 51 || 0.0 % || 2 547 ||

BL || || || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || ||

BR || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BY || || || || || || || || || || || || || 12 295 ||

CA || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CH || || || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || 36 ||

CS || || || || || || || || || || || || || 1 ||

CY || 1 || 100.0 % || || 0.0 % || 2 || 100.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 8 || 0.0 % || 5 ||

CZ || 60 || 13.3 % || 345 || 0.3 % || 13 || 53.8 % || 8 || 12.5 % || || 0.0 % || 82 || 1.2 % || 9 082 ||

DE || 106 || 10.4 % || 254 || || 161 || 67.7 % || 10 || || 7 || 0.0 % || 297 || 2.4 % || 3 126 ||

DK || 8 || || 30 || || 5 || 0.0 % || 9 || || || 0.0 % || 32 || 0.0 % || 133 ||

EE || 6 || 16.7 % || 1 438 || 1.3 % || 1 || 100.0 % || 106 || 6.6 % || || 0.0 % || 12 || 0.0 % || 3 345 ||

EI || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || || || ||

EL || 13 || 15.4 % || || 0.0 % || 4 || 75.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 12 || 0.0 % || 53 ||

ES || 37 || 51.4 % || 1 || || 60 || 71.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 104 || 1.9 % || 597 ||

FI || 5 || || 4 || 50.0 % || 8 || 87.5 % || 10 || 10.0 % || || 0.0 % || 23 || 4.3 % || 112 ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

IT || || LT || || LU || || LV || || MT || || NL || || PL ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

FR || 254 || 29.1 % || 2 || || 56 || 76.8 % || 1 || || || 0.0 % || 42 || 0.0 % || 83 ||

GE || || || || || || || || || || || || || 103 ||

HR || || || || || || || || || || 0.0 % || || || 813 ||

HU || 75 || 13.3 % || 81 || 2.5 % || 20 || 40.0 % || 2 || || || 0.0 % || 37 || 2.7 % || 2 912 ||

IE || 5 || 40.0 % || 2 || || 6 || 16.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 15 || 0.0 % || 88 ||

IR || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IS || || || || || || || || || || || || || 18 ||

IT || 8 118 || 62.2 % || || 0.0 % || 16 || 37.5 % || || 0.0 % || 13 || 38.5 % || 52 || 3.8 % || 633 ||

KG || || || || || || || || || || || || || 62 ||

KZ || || || || || || || || || || || || || 230 ||

LI || || || || || || || || || || || || || 2 240 ||

LT || 42 || 2.4 % || 46 220 || 1.8 % || 23 || 43.5 % || 497 || 11.9 % || || 0.0 % || 162 || 1.2 % || 22 710 ||

LU || 29 || 13.8 % || || 0.0 % || 106 || 77.4 % || || 0.0 % || 2 || 0.0 % || 4 || 0.0 % || 49 ||

LV || 7 || || 4 693 || 0.5 % || 8 || 37.5 % || 3 974 || 8.0 % || || 0.0 % || 15 || 0.0 % || 7 430 ||

MC || || || || || || || || || || || || || 1 ||

MD || || || || || || || || || || || || || 820 ||

ME || || || || || || || || || || || || || 10 ||

MK || || || || || || || || || || || || || 608 ||

MT || 3 || 66.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 3 513 || 53.9 % || 2 || 0.0 % || 51 ||

NL || 35 || 20.0 % || 6 || || 41 || 24.4 % || 14 || || 2 || 0.0 % || 2 724 || 1.3 % || 770 ||

NO || || || || || || || || || || || || || 14 342 ||

Non EU || 24 || 4.2 % || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Other EU MS || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Other Non-EU MS || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

IT || || LT || || LU || || LV || || MT || || NL || || PL ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

PL || 156 || 12.2 % || 16 513 || 1.5 % || 56 || 71.4 % || 202 || 7.9 % || || 0.0 % || 392 || 2.0 % || 1 033 995 || 0.9 %

PT || 29 || 10.3 % || 2 || || 11 || 9.1 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 49 || 2.0 % || 428 ||

RO || 152 || 27.6 % || 44 || 4.5 % || 54 || 90.7 % || 2 || || || 0.0 % || 60 || 0.0 % || 3 399 ||

RS || || || || || || || || || || || || || 1 056 ||

RU || || || || || || || || || || || || || 17 543 ||

SE || 3 || || 3 || || 5 || || 3 || || || 0.0 % || 15 || 0.0 % || 147 ||

SI || 52 || 11.5 % || 12 || || 10 || 60.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 21 || 0.0 % || 934 ||

SK || 100 || 13.0 % || 97 || 4.1 % || 24 || 41.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 56 || 0.0 % || 5 462 ||

SM || || || || || || || || || || || || || 126 ||

SV || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TJ || || || || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0.0 %

TM || || || || || || || || || || || || || 1 774 ||

TN || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TR || || || || || || || || || || || || || 2 935 ||

UA || || || || || || || || || || || || || 15 649 ||

UK || 19 || 5.3 % || || 0.0 % || 13 || 69.2 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 35 || 0.0 % || 93 ||

US || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UZ || || || || || || || || || || || || || 9 ||

VA || || || || || || || || || || || || || 9 ||

XK || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ZM || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

PT || || RO || || SE || || SI || || SK || || UK ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

AD || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AL || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AR || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AT || || 0.0 % || 2 || 0.0 % || 26 || 53.8 % || 19 || 0.0 % || 115 || 7.8 % || 242 || 61.6 %

AZ || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BA || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BE || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 42 || 54.8 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 1 245 || 65.5 %

BG || || 0.0 % || 66 || 7.6 % || 525 || 54.9 % || 117 || 2.6 % || 65 || 36.9 % || 3 731 || 84.0 %

BL || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BR || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BY || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CA || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CH || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CS || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CY || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 74 || 108.1 %

CZ || || 0.0 % || 6 || 16.7 % || 222 || 56.3 % || 16 || 0.0 % || 374 || 29.7 % || 3 155 || 65.4 %

DE || 1 || || 4 || 25.0 % || 392 || 28.6 % || 5 || 20.0 % || 58 || 13.8 % || 3 350 || 50.7 %

DK || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 930 || 40.5 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 118 || 66.1 %

EE || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 405 || 36.0 % || 2 || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 238 || 52.9 %

EI || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EL || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 2 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 239 || 92.5 %

ES || 26 || || 0 || 0.0 % || 45 || 57.8 % || 7 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 6 826 || 82.8 %

FI || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 989 || 26.3 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 6 || 83.3 %

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

PT || || RO || || SE || || SI || || SK || || UK ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

FR || 2 || || 2 || 50.0 % || 18 || 44.4 % || 2 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 1 596 || 57.7 %

GE || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HR || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HU || || 0.0 % || 51 || 49.0 % || 93 || 53.8 % || 165 || 2.4 % || 387 || 41.1 % || 3 354 || 66.8 %

IE || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 22 || 50.0 % || || 0.0 % || 1 || 0.0 % || 6 666 || 75.3 %

IR || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IS || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IT || || 0.0 % || 4 || 0.0 % || 10 || 80.0 % || 34 || 8.8 % || 3 || 33.3 % || 2 511 || 76.1 %

KG || || || || || || || || || || || ||

KZ || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LI || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LT || || 0.0 % || 1 || 0.0 % || 391 || 62.9 % || 24 || 8.3 % || 25 || 20.0 % || 3 256 || 70.9 %

LU || 1 || || 0 || 0.0 % || 3 || 33.3 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 127 || 57.5 %

LV || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 250 || 46.0 % || 15 || 6.7 % || 17 || 17.6 % || 359 || 72.7 %

MC || || || || || || || || || || || ||

MD || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ME || || || || || || || || || || || ||

MK || || || || || || || || || || || ||

MT || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 2 || 100.0 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 83 || 104.8 %

NL || || 0.0 % || 7 || 14.3 % || 382 || 31.9 % || 1 || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 3 871 || 55.0 %

NO || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Non EU || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Other EU MS || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Other Non-EU MS || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Country of origin || Checking countries (number of checks carried out; prohibition %)

PT || || RO || || SE || || SI || || SK || || UK ||

Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || % || Checks || %

PL || 2 || 50.0 % || 61 || 41.0 % || 1 905 || 58.4 % || 145 || 2.1 % || 605 || 30.6 % || 11 679 || 73.0 %

PT || 463 || 3.2 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 21 || 66.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 2 900 || 84.7 %

RO || 1 || || 19 319 || 45.6 % || 143 || 64.3 % || 189 || 6.3 % || 216 || 31.5 % || 5 567 || 86.6 %

RS || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RU || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE || || 0.0 % || 1 || 0.0 % || 32 656 || 11.7 % || || 0.0 % || || 0.0 % || 55 || 63.6 %

SI || || 0.0 % || 3 || 0.0 % || 33 || 45.5 % || 2 805 || 1.9 % || 9 || 33.3 % || 1 068 || 73.7 %

SK || || 0.0 % || 3 || 33.3 % || 67 || 70.1 % || 90 || 2.2 % || 11 215 || 31.3 % || 2 743 || 70.9 %

SM || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SV || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TJ || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TM || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TN || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TR || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UA || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK || || 0.0 % || 0 || 0.0 % || 25 || 64.0 % || || 0.0 % || 1 || 200.0 % || 97 536 || 41.0 %

US || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UZ || || || || || || || || || || || ||

VA || || || || || || || || || || || ||

XK || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ZM || || || || || || || || || || || ||

 
 

3.

Full version

This page is also available in a full version containing de juridische context.

The full version is available for registered users of the EU Monitor by ANP and PDC Informatie Architectuur.

4.

EU Monitor

The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.