(1)

Progress towards achieving the goal set by the Commission in its White Paper of 28 March 2011 entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’, namely to move towards the full application of the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘user pays’ principles, to generate revenue and ensure financing for future transport investments, has been slow and inconsistencies persist in the application of road infrastructure charging across the Union.

(2)

In that White Paper, the Commission advocates proceeding ‘to the full and mandatory internalisation of external costs (including noise, local pollution and congestion on top of the mandatory recovery of wear and tear costs) for road and rail transport’.

(3)

The movement of goods and passenger vehicles is a factor that contributes to the release of pollutants into the atmosphere. Such pollutants, which have a very serious impact on people’s health and lead to the deterioration of ambient air quality in the Union, include PM2,5, NO2, and O3. In 2018, prolonged exposure to those three pollutants caused 379 000, 54 000, and 19 400 premature deaths, respectively, in the Union, according to European Environment Agency estimates, produced in 2020.

(4)

According to the World Health Organization, noise from road traffic alone ranks second among the most harmful environmental stressors in Europe, exceeded only by air pollution. At least 9 000 premature deaths a year can be attributed to heart disease caused by traffic noise.

(5)

According to the European Environment Agency’s 2020 report on air quality in Europe, road transport, in 2018, was the sector with the highest NOx emissions and the second largest emitter of black carbon pollution.

(6)

In its communication of 20 July 2016 entitled ‘A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility’, the Commission announced that it would propose the amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) to enable charging also on the basis of CO2 differentiation, and the extension of some of its principles to buses and coaches as well as to passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.

(7)

Taking into account the vehicle fleet renewal time and the need for the road transport sector to contribute to the Union climate and energy targets for 2030 and beyond, Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) set the CO2 emission reduction targets for new heavy-duty vehicles for 2025 and 2030 at 15 % and respectively 30 % lower than an established average of CO2 emissions.

(8)

To establish an internal market in road transport with a level playing field, rules should be applied uniformly. One of the main aims of this Directive is to eliminate distortions of competition between users.

(9)

Notwithstanding the importance of the road transport sector, all heavy-duty vehicles have a significant impact on road infrastructure and contribute to air pollution. In spite of their economic and social importance, light-duty vehicles are at the origin of the majority of the negative environmental and social impacts from road transport related to emissions and congestion. In the interest of equal treatment and fair competition, it should be ensured that vehicles so far not covered by the framework set out in Directive 1999/62/EC, in respect of tolls and user charges, are included in that framework. The scope of that Directive should therefore be extended to heavy-duty vehicles other than those intended for the carriage of goods and to light-duty vehicles, including passenger cars.

(10)

In order to prevent traffic from switching to toll-free roads, which may have a serious impact on road safety and the optimum use of the road network, Member States should be able to levy tolls on all sections of their network of motorways.

(11)

In order to ensure the consistent, harmonised application of the infrastructure charging system across the Union and a level playing field for the freight transport market, it is important that different tolling arrangements calculate costs in a similar way. Taking into account the fact that existing concession contracts may contain different arrangements than the ones set out in this Directive, Member States should, in order to ensure the financial viability of existing concession contracts, be allowed to exempt them from certain obligations set out in this Directive, until those contracts are substantially amended. Member States may equally opt to seek to bring existing concession contracts into line with changes to the Union or national regulatory framework or to assess the possibility of applying an external-cost charge for CO2 and for air pollution and/or discounts related to those emissions, where concession tolls are not varied in accordance with this Directive.

(12)

Time-based user charges do not, by nature, accurately reflect the real costs of road use and, for similar reasons, are not effective when it comes to incentivising cleaner and more efficient operations, or reducing congestion. Nevertheless, in order to secure user acceptance of future road charging schemes, Member States should be allowed to introduce adequate systems for the collection of charges as part of a wider package of mobility services. Such systems should ensure a fair distribution of infrastructure costs and reflect the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Any Member States introducing such a system should ensure that it complies with the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Due to the significant impact that they have on road infrastructure and their contribution to air pollution, the targeting of heavy-duty vehicles by accurate charging systems should be prioritised. In particular, in order to promote cleaner and more efficient transport operations, time-based user charges should, in principle, be gradually phased out on the core trans-European transport network, since that network contains the strategically most important nodes and links in the trans-European transport network.

In light of the historical circumstances and taking into account the challenges and significant administrative burdens associated with introducing tolls, Member States should benefit from a sufficiently long transitional period during which they should be able to introduce or maintain time-based user charges. Following that transitional period, Member States should only have the possibility of applying wholly time-based user charges for heavy-duty vehicles on sections of their core trans-European transport network in duly justified cases. Such duly justified cases should be limited to cases where the application of a toll on heavy-duty vehicles would involve disproportionate administrative, investment and operating costs compared to the expected revenue or benefits generated, for example due to the limited length of the road sections concerned or the relatively low population density or the relatively low traffic, or where the application of a toll would lead to the diversion of traffic with negative impacts on road safety or on public health. That possibility for Member States in duly justified cases is necessary for key considerations of public interest, such as taking into account the difficult situation and isolation of areas having a low population density, road safety or public health. In addition, the application of time-based user charges in these duly justified cases should be subject to compliance with procedural requirements: an obligation to assess the need for such a system and an obligation to notify the Commission of its application. Such notification should include reasons detailing the specific circumstances related to the sections of the core trans-European transport network where time-based user charges are applied.

(13)

Member States that, at the entry into force of this Directive, apply tolls on their core trans-European transport network or on part of it should be able to establish a combined charging system for all heavy-duty vehicles or for some types of heavy-duty vehicles. However, that option should only be open as a continuation of and supplementary to a tolling system on the core trans-European transport network where the strategically most important nodes and links of the trans-European transport network are located, or on part of it. That system would allow the Member States to extend and broaden the implementation of the ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ principles beyond the tolled network, by applying user charges on those sections of the core trans-European transport network which are not covered by tolls or to some types of heavy-duty vehicles, such as those falling under a specific tonnage, that are not subject to tolls. The combined charging system would thus help Member States make further progress and ensure greener road transport, in particular where no charging system is in place and where tolls are not an economically viable or socially acceptable option. Additionally, in order to fully respect sustainable mobility principles, the maximum amount of those user charges should vary according to both the Euro emission class and the CO2 emission class of the vehicle. Based on all those considerations, it is undeniable that the application of such system combining a time-based and a distance-based approach would entail many benefits; therefore, its application should be possible also after the end of the transitional period for wholly time-based systems. At the latest five years after the entry into force of this Directive, Member States should, when imposing road charges on heavy goods vehicles, impose tolls or user charges on all heavy goods vehicles.

(14)

When strengthening the user and polluter pays principles, certain characteristics of the Member States or their tolling and user charge systems should be taken into consideration. For example, in respect of particularly sparsely populated areas or a particularly large network of tolled or charged roads, the option of providing for exemptions of road sections should be available.

(15)

Some Member States have large toll networks that include many more motorways and roads than just the ones which are part of the trans-European transport network. Applying tolls or user charges to all heavy goods vehicles would therefore result in significantly more extensive burdens, especially for small and medium-sized craft businesses (many of which are involved in construction work, and which typically do not provide transport services). Those burdens would in turn lead to higher prices for example in the area of construction. Price increases could mean that future investments in particular, such as the energetic renovation of houses and apartments as well as the modernisation of house technology, are postponed or even cancelled. Also, craft businesses sometimes travel long distances with vehicles in order to provide their services, and those journeys cannot easily be carried out using other modes of transport. In addition, companies from rural regions, which due to the reduced population density and demand in those regions, are dependent on their ability to provide services and construction activities in metropolitan areas, find themselves in a competitive disadvantage compared to companies operating in large cities or on the outskirts of metropolitan areas. Therefore, Member States should be given the option to provide for certain charging exemptions, such as that on vehicles used for carrying materials, equipment or machinery for the driver’s use in the course of the driver’s work or used for the delivery of goods produced on a craft basis.

(16)

The possibility to use roads subject to road charging, such as motorways, tunnels or bridges, instead of challenging local roads can be important for persons with disabilities. In order to allow persons with disabilities to use roads subject to road charging without an additional administrative burden, Member States should be allowed to exempt vehicles of persons with disabilities from the obligation to pay a toll or user charge.

(17)

Member States should be encouraged to take into account socioeconomic factors when applying road infrastructure charging schemes for passenger cars. For example, charges for passenger cars could be adjusted so as to avoid excessive penalisation of frequent users.

(18)

It is of particular importance that the Member States establish a fair charging system, and in particular one which does not penalise users of private vehicles which, due to their place of residence in the countryside or in areas that are difficult to access or isolated, are forced to make more regular use of roads subject to charging.

(19)

As in the case of heavy-duty vehicles, it is important to ensure that, if Member States introduce any time-based charges applied to light-duty vehicles, they are proportionate, including in respect of periods of use shorter than one year. In that regard, account needs to be taken of the fact that light-duty vehicles have a use pattern that differs from the use pattern of heavy-duty vehicles. The calculation of proportionate time-based charges could be based on available data on trip patterns.

(20)

Pursuant to Directive 1999/62/EC, an external-cost charge may be imposed at a level close to the social marginal cost of the usage of the vehicle in question. That method has proven to be the fairest and most efficient way to take account of negative environmental and health impacts of air pollution and noise generated by heavy-duty vehicles, and would ensure that heavy-duty vehicles make a fair contribution to meeting air quality standards for Europe set out by Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) and any applicable noise limits or targets. The application of such charges should therefore be facilitated. External-cost charging should be applied more systematically. To help the move towards the full application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, Member States should apply external-cost charging to heavy-duty vehicles at least for air pollution, on networks covered by an infrastructure charge.

(21)

To that end, the maximum weighted average external-cost charges should be replaced by readily applicable reference values updated in light of inflation, the scientific progress made in estimating the external costs of road transport and the evolution of the fleet composition.

(22)

Varying the infrastructure charges according to the Euro emission class has contributed to the use of cleaner vehicles. However, with the renewal of vehicle fleets, the variation of charges on that basis on the inter-urban network is expected to become less effective in the medium-term. Member States should therefore be allowed to discontinue toll variation on that basis.

(23)

At the same time, since the share of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is increasing, a variation of infrastructure charges and user charges according to the CO2 emission class, should be introduced that is capable of contributing to improvements in that area. In the case of common systems of user charges, which could contribute to further harmonisation, the implementation of the variation is more complex, notably because of the conditions to be fulfilled by such common systems. Since participating Member States have to agree on the distribution of the revenues accruing from the user charge, while its levels are limited by the provisions introduced by this Directive, as well as amend international agreements, allowing additional time for the implementation of the variation according to CO2 emission is justified in such a specific case. In all cases, the variation should be designed in a way that is consistent with Regulation (EU) 2019/1242.

(24)

Until CO2 emissions are addressed by more suitable instruments, such as harmonised fuel taxes including a carbon component or until road transport is covered by an emission trading system, Member States should also be allowed to apply an external-cost charge reflecting the cost of CO2 emissions. Where justified by scientific evidence, Member States should have the possibility to apply higher external-cost charges for CO2 emissions than the reference values set out in this Directive.

(25)

In order to promote the move towards a cleaner vehicle fleet of heavy-duty vehicles, the variation of the infrastructure and user charges according to their CO2 emissions should be mandatory, except where an external-cost charge for CO2 emissions is applied.

(26)

In order to reward the best performing heavy-duty vehicles, Member States should be allowed to apply the highest level of reductions in charges to vehicles operated without tailpipe emissions. To further promote the rollout of zero-emission vehicles, Member States should be allowed to temporarily exempt them from road charges. For the same reasons and to ensure that the share of vehicles benefitting from toll reduction remains stable throughout the years, guaranteeing long-term planning certainty for Member States in terms of toll revenue, new vehicles should be allocated to CO2 emission classes based on their performance against the linear emission reduction trajectory between 2021 and 2030, as defined in Regulation (EU) 2019/1242.

(27)

In order to ensure the effectiveness and coherence of the variation of charges according to CO2 emissions and of external-cost charging for CO2 emissions, which are both meant to unlock the deployment of low- and zero-emission vehicles, as well as to ensure a coherent application of Directive 1999/62/EC with any other carbon-pricing instrument related to road transport that is adopted in the future, the Commission should evaluate their effectiveness and necessity in a timely manner. Based on that evaluation, the Commission should, where appropriate, propose the amendment of provisions on variation of charges according to CO2 emissions and of external-cost charging for CO2 emissions, in order to prevent double charging through different carbon-pricing instruments. While the future measure should ensure legal certainty and the coherent application of the different rules, this Directive should clarify that the Member States should not be obliged to apply the CO2 variation system provided for in this Directive beyond the date of application of another carbon-pricing instrument applicable to road transport, that might be adopted at Union level, for example on the basis of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 and Regulation (EU) 2015/757 [2021/0211(COD)]. In the event that another carbon-pricing instrument applicable to road transport is adopted in the meantime, the level of external-cost charges for CO2 emissions should be limited to what is necessary to internalise those external costs, and the Commission should be empowered to adjust, by means of delegated acts, the reference values set out in Annex IIIc.

(28)

To help safeguard the Union’s automobile heritage, Member States should be able to place vehicles of historical interest in a special category for the purposes of adjusting the various charges payable under this Directive.

(29)

Currently, Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 does not define emission reduction trajectories for groups of heavy-duty vehicles not covered by Article 2(1), points (a) to (d), of that Regulation. In light of its Article 15, it is possible that that Regulation will be amended in the future and that emission reduction trajectories will be defined for such groups of vehicles. If such an amendment is adopted, the variation of infrastructure charges and user charges for heavy-duty vehicles according to CO2 emission classes 2 and 3 should apply also to those groups of vehicles. If such an amendment is not adopted, the variation for those groups of vehicles should only be made for CO2 emission classes 1, 4 and 5.

(30)

The Commission should consider proposing, where appropriate, an amendment to Directive 1999/62/EC introducing CO2 emission classes 2 and 3 for all heavy-duty vehicles following the principles applied for heavy-duty vehicles currently regulated by Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 for their CO2 emissions if the scope of that Regulation is extended to other heavy-duty vehicles.

(31)

This Directive should promote the reduction of CO2 emissions through technical improvements of combinations of heavy goods motor vehicles and their trailers and semi-trailers. Therefore, this Directive provides for a reduction of road charges of heavy goods motor vehicles with low CO2 emissions. For full regulatory consistency, once legally certified values for the effect of trailers and semi-trailers on the CO2 emissions of heavy goods vehicle combinations are available, the Commission should, where appropriate, submit a legislative proposal to amend Directive 1999/62/EC to include such certified values when determining the reduction of road charges provided for by this Directive.

(32)

In order to continue to promote the renewal of the fleet and to avoid the distortion of the second-hand market of heavy-duty vehicles, the classification of vehicles belonging to CO2 emission classes 2 and 3 should be reassessed every six years from their first registration. In order to minimise the administrative burden, the validity of user charges valid before the date of reclassification should not be affected.

(33)

As regards the entry into force of the reclassification in the user charge systems, the choice of an appropriate model depends on specific considerations concerning the administrative consequences of that reclassification and its effects on revenue. Therefore, the decision on how to implement the reclassification in the user charge systems should be left to the Member States (or, in the case of common systems, to the group of Member States concerned).

(34)

In order to ensure the coherent application of toll variation according to CO2 emissions, it is necessary to amend Council Directive 1999/37/EC (8) to require, where available on their certificate of conformity, that the specific CO2 emissions of heavy-duty vehicles be indicated on their registration certificate. If Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 is amended in a way that affects the accounting of CO2 emissions resulting from the use of low-carbon fuels, it might be appropriate for the Commission to assess the need to enhance coherence between this Directive and those amendments. It is important to ensure that on-board equipment used as part of a toll service contains the data relating to the CO2 emissions and the CO2 emission class of heavy-duty vehicles, and that such data are available for the exchange of information between Member States, as set out in Directive (EU) 2019/520.

(35)

Light-duty vehicles generate two thirds of the negative environmental and health impacts of road transport. It is therefore important to promote the use of the cleanest and most fuel-efficient vehicles through the differentiation of road charges according to their specific CO2 emissions and their pollutant emissions determined in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (9) and in relation to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10). In order to promote the use of the cleanest and most efficient vehicles, Member States should be allowed to apply significantly reduced road tolls and user charges to such vehicles. Member States should be allowed to take into account the improvement of the environmental performance of the vehicle, which is linked to its conversion to alternative fuels. While doing so, Member States should be allowed to exclude fuels produced from high indirect land-use change (ILUC)-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high-carbon stock is observed. A standing subscription or any other mechanism approved by the toll system’s operator should allow users to benefit from a variation in tolls or user charges corresponding to the improved environmental performance of the vehicle, after conversion.

(36)

In order not to penalise the development and use of zero-emission light-duty vehicles because of the additional weight related to the zero-emission technology, Member States should be allowed to apply reduced rates or exemptions in respect of such vehicles.

(37)

Road congestion, to which all motor vehicles contribute in different proportions, represents a cost of about 1 % of GDP. A significant part of that cost can be attributed to interurban congestion. A specific congestion charge should therefore be allowed, on condition that it is applied to both heavy and light vehicle categories. In view of their potential contribution to reducing congestion, Member States may exclude collective means of transport, namely minibuses, buses and coaches, from such a congestion charge. In order to be effective and proportionate, the charge should be calculated on the basis of the marginal congestion cost and differentiated according to location, time and vehicle category.

(38)

Road charges can mobilise resources that contribute to the financing of the maintenance and development of high quality transport infrastructure. It is therefore appropriate to require Member States to adequately report on the use of such revenues. That should in particular help to identify possible financing gaps, and increase public acceptance of road charging. In the interests of transparency, it would be appropriate for Member States to disclose to road users certain information on tolls and user charges levied on their territory, such as, information concerning the use of revenues generated by applying Directive 1999/62/EC, the variation of infrastructure charges, external-cost charges and the total revenue raised through congestion charges per category of vehicle.

(39)

Congestion charges should reflect the actual costs imposed by each vehicle directly on other road users, and indirectly on society at large, in a proportionate manner. In order to prevent them from disproportionately hindering the free movement of people and goods, they should be limited to specific amounts reflecting marginal social costs of congestion in near capacity conditions, namely when traffic volumes approach road capacity. For the same reason, a congestion charge should not be applied in combination with an infrastructure charge that varies in accordance with the time of day, type of day or season for the purpose of reducing congestion. In order to maximise the positive effect of congestion charges, the revenues that they raise should be allocated to projects that address the sources of congestion.

(40)

Taking into account the fact that existing concession contracts may contain different arrangements than the ones set out in this Directive and in order to ensure their financial viability, it is appropriate to require existing concession contracts to comply with the requirement of varying the infrastructure charge only once they are substantially amended.

(41)

Mark-ups added to the infrastructure charge could also make a useful contribution to addressing problems related to significant environmental damage or congestion caused by the use of certain roads, not only within mountainous areas. The current restriction, which limits the use of mark-ups to such areas, should therefore be removed. In the case of two or more Member States levying higher mark-ups in the same corridor, it is necessary to take into account that those mark-ups might have negative effects on other Member States on the same corridor. In addition, in order to avoid double charging of users, mark-ups should be excluded on road sections on which a congestion charge is applied. To that end, in order to avoid adverse effects on the economic development of peripheral regions and to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to reject or request amendment to the plans, submitted by the Member State, to add a mark-up to the infrastructure charge levied on specific road sections which are regularly congested, or of which the use by vehicles causes significant environmental damage. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11).

(42)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing acts to specify the reference CO2 emissions for the sub-groups of heavy-duty vehicles not covered by Article 2(1), points (a) to (d), of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242. The Commission should reproduce the data relevant for such vehicle groups published in the report referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12). In light of the limited nature of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, it is not necessary to provide for control by a committee composed of Member State representatives prior to their adoption.

(43)

Where a Member State introduces a system of road charging, compensations granted could in certain cases result in the discrimination of non-resident road users. The possibility of granting compensation should therefore be limited to the cases of tolls and should no longer be available in the case of user charges.

(44)

In order to exploit potential synergies among existing road charging systems, and to reduce operating costs, the Commission should be fully involved in the cooperation among Member States intending to introduce common road charging schemes.

(45)

It is necessary to allow Member States to finance the construction, operation, maintenance, and development of installations for energy or fuel to low- and zero-emission vehicles, with a view to facilitate road electrification. In particular, where a Member State intends to finance these electrical installations independent of the financing of road infrastructure, this Directive should not prevent that Member State from levying charges for the use of such installations.

(46)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure that national charges of vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure are applied within a coherent framework that secures equal treatment across the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the cross-border nature of road transport and of the problems this Directive is intended to address, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(47)

It is necessary to ensure that external-cost charges continue to reflect the cost of air pollution, noise and climate change generated by heavy-duty vehicles as accurately as possible without rendering the charging scheme excessively complex, in order to promote the use of the most fuel-efficient vehicles, and to keep the incentives effective and the differentiation of road charges up-to-date.

(48)

Therefore, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission to adapt the reference values for external-cost charging set out in Annexes IIIb and IIIc to Directive 1999/62/EC to scientific and technical progress. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (13). In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(49)

Directives 1999/62/EC, 1999/37/EC and (EU) 2019/520 should therefore be amended accordingly,