EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.3.2023

SWD(2023) 128 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the documents

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on driving licences, amending Directive (EU) 2022/2561 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EU) No 383/2012







and







Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL










on the Union-wide effect of certain driving disqualifications

{COM(2023) 127 final} - {SEC(2023) 350 final} - {SWD(2023) 129 final}

Table of contents

1Introduction: Political and legal context

1.1Political context

1.2Legal context

1.3Synergies with the Directive facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences

1.4Synergies with other EU policy instruments

1.5Evaluation of the Driving Licence Directive

1.6Sustainable Development Goals

2Problem definition

2.1What are the problems?

2.1.1Problem 1: High number of unfit drivers on EU roads

2.1.2Problem 2: Barriers to the free movement of people due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures for driving licences

2.2What are the problem drivers?

2.2.1Problem driver 1: Drivers with insufficient skills, knowledge, experience and/or risk awareness are present on EU roads

2.2.2Problem driver 2: Drivers with dangerous behaviour are present on EU roads

2.2.3Problem driver 3: Drivers that are not physically or mentally fit to drive are present on EU roads

2.2.4Problem driver 4: Applicants face difficulties to obtain a driving licence due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures

2.2.5Problem driver 5: Holders of licences face difficulties to have their driving rights maintained or recognised in cross-border context due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures

2.3How likely is the problem to persist?

2.3.1Problem 1: High number of unfit drivers on EU roads.

2.3.2Problem 2: Barriers to the free movement of people due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures for driving licences.

2.3.3Foresight

3Why should the EU act?

3.1Legal basis

3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

4Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1General objectives

4.2Specific objectives

5What are the available policy options?

5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

5.2Description of the policy options

5.2.1Discarded policy measures

5.2.2Retained policy measures

5.2.3Description of the options

5.2.4Main trade-offs

6What is the impact of the policy options?

6.1Economic impact

6.1.1Impact on public administrations

6.1.2Impact on the private sector

6.1.3Impact on citizens

6.1.4Impact on SMEs

6.1.5Digital by default

6.1.6Impact on the functioning of the internal market and on competition

6.2Social impact

6.2.1Impacts on road safety

6.2.2Impact on fundamental rights

6.2.3Impact on fraud

6.3Environmental impact

7How do the options compare?

7.1Effectiveness

7.2Efficiency

7.3Coherence

7.4Subsidiarity and proportionality

8Preferred option

8.1Identification of the preferred policy option and stakeholder views

8.2REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

8.3Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach

9How will actual impact be monitored and evaluated?

Annex 1: Procedural information

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

Annex 4: Analytical methods

Annex 5: Discarded policy measures

Annex 6: Retained policy measures

Annex 7: Vehicle categories

Annex 8: Minimum ages

Annex 9: Links between main conclusions of the ex-post evaluation and the impact assessment

Annex 10: Effects on road safety – qualitative assessment

Annex 11: Effectiveness of the policy options

Glossary

11    Introduction: Political and legal context

1.11.1    Political context

This Impact Assessment accompanies a legislative proposal for the revision of Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences (hereinafter “the DL Directive” or “the Directive”) 1  and a legislative proposal for a Directive on the Union wide effect of certain driving disqualifications, which was planned as an integral part of the DL Directive but due to legal considerations has been separated and is presented as an integral, separate legislative proposal for a new directive.

1.21.2    Legal context

The Driving Licence Directive specifies the model of the Union driving licence (physical card). It defines the categories of vehicles which can be driven with a given driving licence and the minimum age for obtaining it 15 . It also provides Member States with the optional flexibility to extend certain driving rights to additional vehicles under certain conditions with an effect limited to their territories.

The Directive also defines the conditions for the issuance and renewal of driving licences, in particular:

·the normal residence of the person concerned, enabling the identification of the Member State that should issue the driving licence.

The implementation of this concept differs across the EU. In particular, it depends on whether a Member State holds or not a registry for foreigners who are EU nationals;

·the requirements on driving skills and knowledge to be met at the theoretical and practical tests.

The Directive does not lay down rules on the training to be followed before the tests. They are therefore regulated at national level;

·the requirements on physical and mental fitness to drive for applicants and drivers

The methods to assess the compliance with these requirements are not specified in detail, which results in differences among Member States. In addition, the verification is optional at the renewal of driving licences for the categories A (motorcycle) and B (car and small vans). Member States may also decide for more frequent checks when the holder is aged of 55 years or more. These requirements are minimum conditions to be met and Member States can decide to adopt stricter rules to increase road safety.

The Directive introduces the EU network for the exchange of information related to driving licences between national authorities (RESPER). It allows to verify driving rights based on the issuance number of a driving licence and to verify if an applicant has already a driving licence issued by another Member State. It also provides for the possibility of secure messages for any other matter. Such network is used for the implementation of the Directive on driving licences. Some Member States are accessing RESPER through the EUCARIS network 16 .

Based on an amendment of the Directive adopted in 2018, RESPER can also be used for the purpose of control, solely in relation to implementing the Directives on driving licences, on the qualification of professional drivers and on the cross border enforcement of road-traffic offenses.

The Directive provides also for specific rules applicable to various aspects of exchange, replacement and withdrawal of driving licences.

It should also be noted that the Directive does not cover all matters regarding driving licences (for example, the EU rules related to licences issued by a third country are very limited in scope) and provides some flexibility regarding its implementation (for example the minimum age for a driving licence of category AM – mopeds – is set to 16 but can vary from 14 to 18 years across the EU).

Regarding driving licences issued by third countries, the Directive specifies the information to be reported on the EU driving licence in the context of an exchange and restricts the recognition of the driving licence in case the holder changes his/her normal residence in the future. The Directive also establishes certain effects of a withdrawal in case the holder relocates in another Member State. However, international agreements and national laws provide for the main rules on these situations.

Indeed, rules on foreign driving licences are largely laid down in the 1968 Vienna Convention 17  in most Member States. However, in Spain, Cyprus, Malta, and Ireland, its predecessor, the 1949 Geneva Convention 18 still applies, which Germany and Latvia are not Contracting Parties of. Both the Geneva Convention and the Vienna Convention provide rules to ensure that duly issued domestic or international driving licences from one Contracting Party are recognised in another one, under certain conditions 19 . Contrary to the rules laid down in the Directive, the Conventions only establish the right to drive when in transit and do not allow for the seamless exchange of the driving licences between the Contracting Parties in case drivers change their residence. The national laws identify the foreign driving licences that can be exchanged (which issuing country, which category) and the conditions associated to the exchange (for example, to undergo a medical examination).

Finally, road traffic rules are a national prerogative, especially for what concerns thresholds and consequences of offenses such as financial penalties, penalty points or driving disqualification. In most of the cases, the effects of a driving ban affecting a non-resident are usually limited to the territory of the state where the offense has been committed.

1.31.3    Synergies with the Directive facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences

Directive (EU) 2015/413 (called hereafter the CBE Directive) aims to improve road safety by ensuring equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders. In the event of certain road-safety-related traffic offences having been committed with a vehicle registered in another Member State, it grants the Member State where the offence occurred access to the vehicle registration data (VRD) of the Member State of registration of the vehicle concerned. This should facilitate the identification of a driver suspected of committing a road-safety-related traffic offence in a Member States other than that where the vehicle is registered, which is an important element in the cross-border enforcement of traffic offences. An effective cross-border enforcement reduces impunity and hence induces a more cautious behaviour by the drivers concerned. A more cautious behaviour should lead to fewer road accidents and hence a reduction in fatalities, injuries and material damage. However, the CBE Directive does not provide for instruments enabling the mutual recognition of financial penalties or driving disqualifications.

In its Article 15 on mutual assistance, the Driving Licence Directive provides also for a network for the exchange of information related to driving licences (RESPER). It can be used for the implementation of, and to control the compliance with the Driving Licence Directive, the Directive on professional qualifications 20 and Directive (EU) 2015/413  21  (the “CBE Directive”). There is currently no legal certainty on the question whether RESPER can be used for the purposes of the CBE Directive (relying on EUCARIS) because of the formulation of Article 15 of the DL Directive and because of the fact that Article 4(4) of the CBE Directive stipulates that Member States must ensure that the exchange of information under the CBE Directive is carried out “without exchange of data involving other databases which are not used for the purposes of this Directive”. Consequently, a vast majority of law enforcement authorities are not using RESPER for the purpose of control.

The CBE Directive is being revised in parallel to the revision of the Driving Licence Directive, for both legal reasons and reasons of consistency. In this context, the removal of restrictions on the use of other databases is considered. Access to RESPER for the purpose of enforcement will be possible under the conditions specified by the Driving Licence Directive and as a result, more offences are expected to be successfully investigated. This has been assessed in the context of the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the CBE Directive. In addition, the revision of the DL Directive will provide for clarification of all the use cases which require access to RESPER in the context of law enforcement, in order to completely remove legal uncertainties. The scope of the CBE Directive does not include driving disqualifications. The procedural steps included therein only cover measures that can facilitate the identification of the offender and measures related to the content of information that the identified person (mostly the owner or holder of the vehicle) must receive and the language of this information. The revision of the CBE Directive aims to improve enforcement through measures related to the investigation and better identification of offenders. It also aims to improve the protection of the fundamental and procedural rights of the offender. However, it will not provide the necessary legal basis for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. As the CBE Directive does not regulate the procedure to the point where a legally binding decision is made, or any issues relating to such a decision or the sanction contained in it, it is not a sufficient tool for mutual recognition (i.e. there is no decision to recognize).

The Court’s recent judgement in Case C-266/21 (HV) underlines that the DL Directive not only regulates situations in which a Member State suspends, pursuant to its national legislation and on account of unlawful conduct in its territory, the right to drive of the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State insofar as it establishes that the effect of such suspension is limited to that territory alone, but that it is also the only legislation in force to do so. Consequently, the mutual recognition of driving disqualification will be addressed in the context of this initiative. The revision of the DL Directive will also build on the corresponding CBE procedures to identify and bring the potential offender to justice in cases where the sanction is driving disqualification, like it is possible today for the case of financial penalties. In fact, the most crucial elements of this cooperation are already in place as the CBE Directive includes already the type of offences, which can be mutually recognised in order to give rise to an EU-wide driving disqualification, such as excessive speed driving and driving under the influence of alcohol.

On the other hand, by using the procedures within the CBE Directive not only the effective investigation of these offences can be guaranteed but the protection of the fundamental and procedural rights of the offenders as well. In that context it is important to note that the information letter contained within the current CBE Directive will be revised. The template provided in Annex II to the CBE Directive will be removed and a mandatory minimum content will be identified. This content will include an obligation to provide the offender with information on the possible sanctions for the offence (explicitly naming driving disqualification as an example) and the available legal recourses. Certain parts of the information letter are planned to be given as information, even where the offender is not remotely detected but caught on the spot by authorities. This is important as this measure would ensure that the offender is sufficiently informed about his/her available legal possibilities in case a driving disqualification (or other sanction) would be imposed on him/her. Should the Member State of the offence not comply with the procedures of the CBE Directive, opportunities will be provided to the Member State that issued the driving licence to either refuse the recognition of the decision or to provide additional legal recourse before enforcing the driving disqualification.

1.41.4    Synergies with other EU policy instruments

The DL Directive governs driving rights according to vehicle categories. Certain categories are defined by reference to EU rules:

The DL Directive determines the minimum ages to obtain a driving licence for (future) professional drivers, which are also subject to Directive (EU) 2022/2561 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers 24 . 

In addition, rules on the protection of personal data also apply to the exchange of information related to driving licences, in particular:

Finally, the Commission has adopted on 3 June 2021 a proposal 27 for the revision of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity. This new framework provides building blocks relevant for the mobile driving licences. In particular, the electronic identity and, potentially, the electronic wallet features can be used to develop an interoperable solution for EU mobile driving licences. 

1.51.5    Evaluation of the Driving Licence Directive

An ex-post evaluation of the DL Directive has been published in 2022 28 . Despite the limitations regarding data availability, resulting in limited robustness of certain conclusions, the Directive was considered to have had a generally positive effect on improving road safety and has likely helped to facilitate the free movement of citizens inside the EU. The evaluation acknowledged that the EU transport system is changing fast, due to the impact of digitalisation, an increasing emphasis on active modes in urban transport, the emergence of new forms of mobility, developments regarding connectivity, automation and the increasing role of artificial intelligence, as well as the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles. This requires the DL Directive to be adapted, to address not only current needs but also future challenges. The main conclusions of the evaluation and how they have been considered in this impact assessment can be found in Annex 9.

1.61.6    Sustainable Development Goals

The initiative aims at improving road safety. In the context of the United Nation’s 2030 agenda for sustainable development, it hence directly contributes to sustainable development goal #11 “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” and in particular to target 11.2 “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons”.

22    Problem definition

2.12.1    What are the problems?

The ex-post evaluation found that the Directive has contributed to an improvement of road safety. However, in light of the ambitious EU targets (Vision Zero and Valletta Declaration), more efforts are needed to reduce road fatalities and serious injuries. The revision of the Directive could contribute to it. Similarly, the Directive has had a positive impact on the free movement of citizens in the EU. However, certain provisions still result in administrative burden or obstacles to the free movement of people. This is the case of, for example, rules on normal residence and on the recognition of driving licences issued in third countries. An overview of the problem drivers, problems and their implications is presented in Figure 2 Figure 2 .

2.1.1Problem 1: High number of unfit drivers on EU roads

Problem 1 is related to holders of driving licences whose presence on EU roads presents risks due to their lack of fitness to drive. In many serious crashes resulting in death, serious health loss and non‑fatal injuries, the driver’s skills, knowledge, behaviour and medical fitness play an important role.

Monitoring of road traffic fatalities and serious injuries does not account for the cause of an accident because it is often difficult to determine it accurately, being related to multiple factors (e.g. a small hole in the asphalt, a moment of distraction and insufficient fitness to react) and it is not determined at the time of data collection. It is therefore impossible to quantify accurately the underlying cause(s) of fatalities or serious injuries resulting from road accidents. In addition, and despite the fact that the ambitious EU targets on road safety are not met, road safety in the EU is quite advanced, with only 42 road fatalities per million inhabitants in the EU, while the global average is 167 29 .

Skills, knowledge, risk awareness and experience remain limited particularly for novice drivers. This constitutes an intrinsic part of the learning curve, but also the reason for the existence of driving licences, which establishes at what point of the learning curve (i.e. the minimum requirements in terms of knowledge and experience) novice drivers are issued a licence and are allowed to drive on EU roads. The higher level of accidents and fatalities of novice drivers indicates that the requirements for issuing driving licences are not fully calibrated to road safety objectives. In 2019, young road user deaths represented around 23% of all road deaths in the EU and 2 out of 5 fatal collisions involved a young driver or rider (aged 15 to 30). 30 According to the CARE database, for every 100,000 experienced drivers 31 , on average there are 3 experienced driver fatalities per year, while for every 100,000 novice drivers 32 , there are 10 novice driver fatalities.

In addition, the progressive introduction of new technologies such as advanced driver assistance systems and, in the future, automated vehicles will have a substantial impact on the use of vehicles. Whereas such technologies have the potential to improve road safety and contribute to more inclusive mobility, they also bring new challenges for the drivers in terms of skills and knowledge of new functionalities, which are not covered by the current Directive.

Another group of drivers unfit to drive are those with dangerous behaviour. From an EU perspective, it concerns more specifically drivers committing a very serious infraction. There is currently no mutual recognition of driving disqualifications for offences committed in a Member State other than the one that issued the driving licence. When the disqualification concerns a non-resident, nothing prevents the latter from continuing to drive in all Member States, except for the one where he or she was convicted. As drivers who commit serious traffic offences in other Member States are not held accountable, there is no equal treatment of resident and non-resident offenders in the EU. This situation creates imunity and is not conducive to improving road safety.

Finally, the last category of drivers presenting risk on European roads are those that are not physically or mentally fit to drive. The ex-post evaluation has found that the current age-based screening is no longer perceived as the most relevant. Although there is evidence about potential physical deterioration connected with age, some studies have concluded that specific medical conditions, such as substance abuse, mental disorders, epilepsy and diabetes, heart conditions and sleep apnoea are not necessarily connected with age, while at the same time being more important factors when it comes to the medical fitness to drive. 33

Figure 3 Change (a) and total number (b) of road fatalities per million population in the 27 EU countries (2010-2019), reference year 2010

(a)                            (b)

Source: CADAS Data (2019)

The persistently high number of traffic fatalities and serious road traffic injuries – which in part is due to too many dangerous and unfit drivers on EU roads – remains a major societal problem, causing human suffering and losses as well as unacceptable economic costs estimated at EUR 250 billion yearly, or 2% of GDP 34 . Between 2010 and 2019, the number of road deaths in the EU decreased by 23% (from 29,600 to 22,800 fatalities per year) and the number of serious injuries by 20% 35 . The decrease in the number of fatalities has been heterogeneous by Member State (see Figure 3). However, in 2019, road crashes in the EU still claimed 22,800 lives and left more than 1.2 million people injured. In 2020, some 18,800 people were killed on EU roads. Although that number was more than 17% below 2019, this high annual reduction rate was heavily influenced by an unprecedented drop in road traffic at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic 36 . In 2021, the number of fatalities increased to 19,800.

Finally, it should be highlighted that according to the “Safe System Approach” referred to in section 1.1, many factors have to be considered when analysing a road crash: the infrastructure, the vehicle, the traffic, the driver and the emergency services. In that context, the accurate identification of underlying causes depends on the availability of relevant information gathered in the process of recording road fatalities or serious injuries. This difficulty is increased by the fact that crashes usually result from multiple causes, hence the limitations which are associated with the use of such data.

2.1.2Problem 2: Barriers to the free movement of people due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures for driving licences

A limited number of unnecessary or unjustified procedures for obtaining the licence or exercising or maintaining driving rights in another EU country remains in place when drivers obtain, use, replace, renew, or exchange driving licences. This ultimately hinders their free movement within the EU. According to the evaluation, some measures of the Directive (such as the concept of normal residence) have been difficult to apply and may have led to a high administrative burden or obstacles to free movement. In practice, citizens with well-documented driving rights that are confronted with such remaining barriers may remain without driving licences for up to 6 months or even longer. The evaluation noted progress towards digitalisation of driving licences in some Member States, but with limited effects in the absence of a European framework.

In addition, ten individual complaints addressed to the Commission have shown that the current Directive may, in certain cases, prevent EU citizens from obtaining a driving licence in countries where their knowledge of the local language is insufficient and where an interpreter is not authorised during the tests. They have also confirmed problems resulting from diverging applications of the concept of normal residence. Moreover, several cases have been brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter “the Court”) when drivers, whose driving licence was withdrawn, were abusing this situation or were facing disproportionate consequences for the offence committed.

Furthermore, there are no common rules for the exchange of driving licences issued by third countries when the holder establishes his or her residence in the European Union, and the EU licences obtained in one Member State may cease to be valid in case this person transfers his or her residence to another Member State. For example, in Sweden, only licences issued by the United-Kingdom, the Faroe Islands, Switzerland and Japan are exchanged, while Finland exchanges licences issued by more than 100 countries.

Finally, several Member States 40 have introduced, or are planning to introduce, national mobile (digital) driving licences without being accompanied by the issuance of a physical support (i.e. card). As the current Directive establishes the principle of mutual recognition only for physical licences, mobile driving licences will therefore remain valid only on the territory of the issuing State. Consequently, the current framework is an obstacle to reaping the benefits of digital transformation of road transport at European level and hinders free movement across the EU.

Barriers to the recognition, the acquisition or the renewal of driving rights can socially and financially affect the life of the drivers concerned in a profound way. Though the issues at stake are limited in scope 41 , the impact on the affected citizens is extremely important. Several studies have identified the lack of car access as an important barrier to accessibility to, and uptake of, employment. Studies with such findings have been conducted in, amongst others, Belgium 42 , Czechia 43 , France 44 , Ireland 45 and Spain 46 . Other studies 47 find a clear link between holding a driving licence, access to cars and gainful employment for young persons.

In the open public consultation for this impact assessment, 59% of respondents (4,462 out of 7,532) indicated that removing unjustified obstacles to obtaining driving licences (first issuance) in the Directive is very important. A lack of mutual recognition of theoretical driving tests is another example of a possible obstacle to free movement, and indeed it was assessed as an important problem by 12 out of 20 respondents from Member State authorities in the survey. Similarly, regarding medical exams taken in one Member State and not being recognised in another Member State, 11 out of 20 respondents from national authorities considered it as an important problem. Likewise, 14 out of 20 respondents from national authorities find that applicants moving to another Member State and not being able to take their licence in the Member State of residence as they do not speak the language, nor English, to be an important problem and a possible barrier to the free movement of citizens.

Regarding driving licence tourism, the problem has significantly reduced with the introduction of RESPER (EU network for the exchange of information on driving licences) which enables authorities to verify if driving rights exist or have been revoked in another country. Regarding fraud and forgery, the fraudsters also benefit from the evolution of technologies and while the risk remains present, it is mainly linked to forged driving licences using the old models. The obligation of the current Directive for all driving licences to comply with the new model (plastic card) by 2033 is expected to significantly mitigate the issue.

2.22.2    What are the problem drivers?

2.2.1Problem driver 1: Drivers with insufficient skills, knowledge, experience and/or risk awareness are present on EU roads

For the period 2017-2020, for every 100,000 novice drivers 49 , there are 10 novice driver fatalities, whereas for every 100,000 experienced drivers 50 , there are just 3 experienced driver fatalities, based on most recent CARE data available from 18 EU countries 51 . 

2.2.2Problem driver 2: Drivers with dangerous behaviour are present on EU roads

Based on an amendment of the DL Directive adopted in 2018, RESPER can also be used for the purpose of control, however exchanges in the context of the Committee on driving licences have shown that the 2018 amendment to the Directive does not specify the use cases for law enforcement in a way that allows for a clear mapping with the practices on the field. It creates a risk that certain uses of RESPER by law enforcement authorities could be challenged before the Court. In addition, these consultation activities have shown that the response time is not always satisfactory, and the data quality could be improved.

The share of speeding offences committed by drivers in foreign vehicles differs greatly across Member States. For example, holiday and transit countries (e.g. Austria, Luxembourg and France) attract a lot of non-resident drivers, while the more remote countries are likely to attract less foreign traffic. Although the share of detected offences with foreign registered vehicles differs significantly between Member States (Hungary 91%, Luxembourg 42%), on average around 18% of all speeding offences are committed by drivers in foreign vehicles. This means that there is a material group of drivers who commit serious traffic offences in other Member States but are not (fully) held accountable for them. The investigation of offenses potentially resulting in driving disqualifications committed by non-residents is not covered by the CBE Directive. The procedural steps included therein only cover measures that can facilitate the identification of the offender and measures related to the content of information that the identified person (mostly the owner or holder of the vehicle) must receive and the language of this information. The revision of the CBE Directive aims to improve enforcement through measures related to investigation and better identification of offenders, and to improve the protection of the fundamental and procedural rights of the offender. However, it will not provide the necessary legal basis for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications.

The evaluation of the Driving Licence Directive 74 concluded that the absence of a clear EU framework for the mutual recognition of driving disqualification poses challenges when it comes to preventing abuses by drivers that commit offences on the territory of one Member State but then can continue to drive in other Member States without bearing consequences of the offences. This was corroborated by the views of 16 out of 21 respondents representing national authorities who saw the fact that residents and non‑residents in the EU do not face the same consequences regarding driving disqualification as a generally important problem. Also, respondents identified as an important problem the fact that residents and non-residents do not face the same consequences regarding penalty/demerit points (11 out of 21 respondents). When asked about the absence of a mutual recognition of driving disqualification, some Member States 75 confirmed that it renders difficult the enforcement of disqualification across borders and hence poses a risk to road safety in the EU, especially in cases where the banning from driving resulted from serious offences (e.g. driving under the influence of alcohol among others).

2.2.3Problem driver 3: Drivers that are not physically or mentally fit to drive are present on EU roads

According to results of the survey conducted in the context of the support study, a range of 5-15% of all traffic accidents were attributed to driver’s medical condition. This range is confirmed by multiple sources: the ETSC PIN Flash Report 40 (2021) indicates that, in Finland, 16% of all fatal collisions are attributed to a driver illness 76 . In France, close to 4% of total accidents was attributed to medication 77 . A Danish report 78 revealed that, during the period 2017-2019, 9% of traffic accidents was attributed to impaired physical conditions and 1% to an unbalanced state of mind 79 . Ageing is an important factor when considering the mental and physical ability to drive. Elderly drivers are more prone to be involved in a car accident. 80 Currently, more than 20% of road fatalities in the EU are caused by drivers over 60 years old, while they represent approximatively 30% of all licence holders. In particular, the presence of cognitive dysfunction due to the ageing process, especially in the case of neurocognitive disorders of high prevalence, such as Alzheimer’s disease, may critically compromise a person’s fitness to drive 81   82 . Finally, apart from functional limitations, physical vulnerability is also a factor which contributes to the relatively high fatality rate and increased crash severity for elderly road users in road crashes. 83

In the survey among national authorities 84 , 8 out of 22 respondents (36%) considered the problem of inadequate medical screening of all drivers as important, while 4 out of 22 (18%) did not identify it as a problem for road safety. 10 out of 22 respondents (45%) from other groups of stakeholders considered that insufficient medical screening constitutes an important or very important problem for road safety. Overall, stakeholders other than national authorities argued that the focus on medical requirements in Annex III of Directive 2006/126/EC is too narrow and that there is a lack of clinical guidelines and scientifically validated criteria. They believed that the focus should be placed on functional requirements to drive rather than age-related requirements and argued that there should be a standardised set of procedures for screening medical fitness to drive across the EU to help medical professionals detect medical/fitness to drive issues. 

During the interviews 85 , Member States authorities 86 expressed the need for changes to minimum standards for physical and mental fitness to drive. In the survey, most respondents from national authorities (68% or 15 out of 22) acknowledged the insufficiency or inadequacy of standards for medical fitness as a problem. This view was concurred by respondents other than national authorities who considered insufficient or inadequate standards on physical and mental fitness to be a very important (24%) or important (44%) problem for road safety. Regarding the age-related medical screening, some Member States 87 during the interviews did not think of aging as a problem and opposed the idea that more frequent medical screening for older drivers would be needed. According to one Member State 88 , this would in fact restrict elders’ right to mobility too soon. Another MS 89 instead remained open to the idea of limiting older drivers’ mobility under certain conditions (e.g., driving during the night, a limit of kilometres that can be driven).

However, while there is evidence about the potential physical deterioration connected with age, some studies have concluded that specific medical conditions, such as substance abuse, mental disorders, epilepsy and diabetes, heart conditions and sleep apnoea are not necessarily connected with age. At the same time, they are more important factors when it comes to medical fitness to drive. 90 Consequently, mandatory age‑based screening of drivers has not been shown to be effective in preventing severe collisions.

2.2.4Problem driver 4: Applicants face difficulties to obtain a driving licence due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures

Complaints addressed by citizens to the Commission 91 , 92 , the ex-post evaluation and consultation activities in the frame of this impact assessment have shown that obtaining a driving licence may be hindered by inadequate or unnecessary procedures.

The current rules under the DL Directive on normal residence provide for a strong framework to fight against fraud but may not be fully adequate anymore due to the changes in mobility patterns within the EU during the past two decades.

The Directive (Article 12) defines normal residence as “the place where a person usually lives, that is for at least 185 days in each calendar year, because of personal and occupational ties, or, in the case of a person with no occupational ties, because of personal ties which show close links between that person and the place where he is living”. It allows to determine the Member State competent to issue a driving licence for a person. The conditions of establishment of a normal residence differ however from one Member State to another and are mainly linked to national fiscal rules, but also the respective registration rules. In addition, the normal residence may also be determined based on the personal ties of the person, irrespective of his or her place of residence. The current concept results in a situation where a person can have multiple normal residences or where the normal residence cannot be identified (usually during the six first months after a person relocates from one MS to another). During interviews, when asked about whether the current implementation of normal residence in Member States impacts the free movement of people in the European Union, most interviewed Member State authorities found the definition of normal residence problematic, to the extent that some 93 called for guidance or a clarification of normal residence from the EU to ensure uniform application of the principle. Other Member States 94 reported issues with residents caught in between Member States, who cannot apply (or renew) for a licence in the Member State they are living as normal residents nor in their new Member State as they have not passed the 185-days threshold in that country. The importance of the problem was also confirmed by 12 out of the 20 representatives of national authorities responding to the survey.

Difficulties may also occur when a person establishes his or her normal residence in another Member State and should pass the tests in the new country of residence, while that person does not have a sufficient level of skills of the languages available for the tests. It is especially true when national rules do not allow for an interpreter and when no/limited tests in another language are provided. Such a situation arises in particular in the case of the theoretical tests for which the testing time is limited and questions require an advanced knowledge of the language used. It may also affect practical tests when a quick reaction is expected. The impact assessment support study 95 has shown that in 2021, there were between 40,000 and 80,000 potential applicants that could not conduct the test due to language barriers. This language issue was generally perceived as an important problem by 14 out of the 20 respondents representing national authorities in the survey, although to different degrees. This was however seen as less of a problem when applicants for graduated access for motorcycles have to pass through cumbersome and costly procedures to obtain their licence (7 out of 20 respondents).

Additionally, existing rules limit the right to drive vehicles with an automatic transmission gear only when the test has been passed on such a vehicle. A procedure for extending the right to drive also manual transmission gear vehicles once a licence for automatic transmission gear vehicles is obtained is not foreseen. Consequently, the holder of a driving licence subject to this restriction has to undergo the complete curriculum required from any applicant, including the driving test, to have the restriction removed. With the progressive electrification of the car fleet and the phasing out of conventional fuel vehicles, and in particular the proposed phasing out of new conventional fuel cars and vans (part of the “Fit for 55” package 96 ), automatic transmission gear is expected to be the norm in new vehicles in the future. Certain vehicle manufacturers also indicated that they are even considering to stop placing on the market new vehicles with manual transmission gear earlier than previously thought 97 , 98 . By 2030, around 15% of the car fleet is projected to be equipped with automatic gear transmission, going up to over 90% by 2050.

Moreover, the lifetime of vehicles in driving schools is usually of 2 or 3 years 99 and, thus, it is expected that the fleets of driving schools will change to automatic transmission gear vehicles much faster than the overall fleet. Therefore, the existing DL Directive does not seem sufficiently aligned with the European Climate Law and with technological developments. In the survey 100 , respondents from national authorities were divided on this issue: 8 out of 20 respondents did not consider it a problem, whereas 7 did consider it as an important problem to different degrees. Respondents outside the national administration were slightly more convinced that this could be a problem, 9 out of 22 respondents identified the issue of drivers tested on automatic gear not being allowed to drive a manual gear unless they pass another examination to be an important problem. 

Another obstacle resulting from the transition to zero-emission vehicles is related to their mass. The increased mass of some of these vehicles (e.g. because of batteries) may exceed the maximum mass of vehicles authorised to be driven with a driving licence of category B and require a licence of category C.

Finally, the consultation activities have underlined that road transport operators consider the minimum age for categories C and D (18 and 21 years) an obstacle for pupils leaving the school at 16 years old to access the profession of drivers because of the resulting time to obtain a licence, which is too long. The 2022 report 101 of the International Road Transport Union (IRU) on the shortage of drivers identifies for 2021 3 million truck drivers and 425 thousand unfilled positions, as well as 234 thousand bus and coach drivers and 30 thousand jobs unfilled. One third of current professional drivers are 55 years old or more. They are expected to retire in the coming years. In parallel, young people (25 years and below) represent only a very limited share of professional drivers (3% for buses and coaches, 7% for trucks). While the underlying causes for the shortage of drivers are related to many other issues which negatively affect the attractiveness of the profession, road transport operators report that the minimum age to obtain a driving licence presents an obstacle for some of out-of-school young people, considering that compulsory school obligation ends often at 16 years. Indeed, training curricula and/or waiting times for access to the driver profession appear significantly longer than for other professions.

According to EUROSTAT 2020 data, there are 545,000 out of school young people aged 16 or 17 years in the EU. It is not possible to assess the share of young people that would decide to become a professional driver but an estimate of 5% applied to young people out of school would result in 27,000 new drivers if the minimum age for category C/D was decreased to 16 years (respectively 13,500 for a minimum age of 17 years). While it cannot be concluded that the access to the profession due to long training and age limitations is one of the main underlying causes of the shortage of professional drivers, considering how critical the shortage of drivers is becoming and the likely effects on the functioning of the internal market, reducing the minimum age cannot be disregarded as a complementary measure that could contribute to mitigating the issue of driver shortage.

2.2.5Problem driver 5: Holders of licences face difficulties to have their driving rights maintained or recognised in cross-border context due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures 

The ex-post evaluation has shown that the current rules may not be adequate regarding certain specific aspects of the recognition or maintenance of driving rights. The open public consultation confirmed these findings, as removing obstacles to renewing, replacing or exchanging driving licences issued by EU/EEA Member States was perceived as extremely or very important to the respondents (4,428 out of 7,532 respondents, or about 58%). Also, removing of obstacles to renewing, replacing or exchanging driving licences issued by non-EU countries was considered as either extremely/very important (3,612 out of 7,532 respondents, or 48%) or important (1,818 out of 7,532 respondents, or 24%).

Firstly, the same issues apply regarding the national implementing rules to establish the normal residence of a person as for problem driver 4. It concerns a person unable to have a normal residence identified who is therefore not in a position to renew his or her driving licence in the event of a loss or a theft. It concerns also persons having two or more normal residences who may abuse this situation to avoid the consequences of road traffic offences.

Secondly, the current rules provide the optional possibility for driving a motorcycle of category A1 with a licence of category B but the resulting rights are only valid on the territory of the State of issuance. Complaints addressed by citizens to the Commission and the European Parliament questioned the limitation, especially in case of two countries applying this same optional equivalence 102 .

Thirdly, the mutual recognition of driving licences established by the DL Directive is strictly limited to physical documents. Digital transformation has improved the daily life of citizens and has become a tool for administrative simplification. Currently, five Member States 103 allow for the possibility to hold a driving licence in digital format. Many other Member States have initiated projects to deliver similar services. Under the current DL Directive, these digital licences are not mutually recognised and therefore remain valid on the territory of the issuing State only. A citizen with a digital driving licence wanting to drive in another Member State needs to carry the physical licence (card). In this context, citizens are not able to fully reap the benefits of the digital transformation. The same applies to administrations both when issuing driving licences and for the purpose of enforcement. 10 out of 18 respondents to the survey 104  among national authorities considered the fact that drivers cannot make use of their digital driving licence when driving on the territory of another Member State a problem. Only one respondent did not consider it a problem. Interviewed Member States 105 generally agreed that the lack of mutual recognition of mobile driving licences impacts the free movement of those EU drivers that currently hold one. According to two Member States 106 , the fact of having to carry both a physical and digital driving licence when driving across the EU means that drivers have to bear additional costs. In the survey, 7 of the 22 respondents not belonging to national authorities considered the fact that drivers cannot make use of their mobile driving licence when driving on the territory of another Member State as an important problem and 4 of 22 respondents as a very important problem that imposes unnecessary administrative burden and costs on drivers.

Fourthly, as regards driving disqualifications in case the offender changes residence, the Court has held that outside of an explicit period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence, if drivers change their normal residence and apply for a new driving licence, their new licence must be recognised in all Member States, and even in a Member State that imposed a driving disqualification on them previously 107 . Whether the condition of normal residence was fulfilled can only be assessed by the Member State of issuance. Therefore, other Member States can only refuse to recognise the validity of the new driving licence within their territory based on non-compliance with the normal residence criteria, if it is established based on entries on the driving licence or other indisputable information from the issuing Member State that such condition has not been satisfied 108 .

Finally, three types of issue concern driving licences issued by third countries

-The holder of a driving licence issued by a third country is subject to different rules, depending on the Member State where he/she establishes his/her residence in the EU. Indeed, in certain Member States, he/she may be able to obtain an EU driving licence by means of an administrative exchange while in others, he/she will have to pass the theoretical and practical tests. 11 of the 22 respondents from national authorities in the stakeholder survey considered the issue of third countries’ driving licence holders who encounter difficulties in exchanging their licence in Member States as an important problem.

-EU driving licences issued in exchange of a third-country driving licence are marked with the harmonised Union code 70. This code restricts the rights of the holder in case he/she later establishes his/her residence in another EU Member State. The new Member State of residence may refuse to recognise and exchange the EU driving licence with a code 70 109 . In that case, the holder would have to pass the theoretical and practical tests to maintain his/her driving rights. During the workshop of 22 April 2022, most of the Member States and stakeholders have acknowledged that this hampers the free movement of persons while road safety is very unlikely to be at risk.

-A driver who passed the driving test in the EU may not be able to regain his/her EU driving licence if he/she leaves the EU, exchanges his/her EU driving licence for a foreign one and returns in an EU Member State other than the one where he/she passed the driving test. The current EU rules do not create an obligation on that Member State to consider the rights previously acquired in the EU. Consequently, these persons are likely to be required to pass the driving test again if an exchange is not possible. This problem has been raised several times in SOLVIT and has been confirmed by the competent authorities.

2.32.3    How likely is the problem to persist?

2.3.1Problem 1: High number of unfit drivers on EU roads. 

Without further EU level intervention, the high number of unfit drivers on EU roads is likely to persist. New vehicles will incorporate advanced safety technologies: from 7 July 2024, all new vehicles will be required to have certain safety technologies installed in accordance with the General Safety Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/2144). Other safety technologies will follow later (July 2026 / January 2029). Member States may adapt the content of the tests while remaining in compliance with the EU rules. However, without a general focus on these technologies, drivers’ skills will be only partially adapted and drivers may lack training to safely operate them. In addition, by 2030, around 15% of the car fleet is projected to be equipped with automatic gear transmission, going up to over 90% by 2050. The current rules, relevant for a fleet mainly consisting of vehicles with manual gear transmission, will be rapidly outdated. While Member States may adopt certain simplifications applicable on their national territory to address this issue, these solutions may result in additional obstacles to the free movement of people and goods.

Moreover, the vehicle fleets will remain heterogeneous and the initially lower levels of automation will still require the driver’s intervention in case of a risky road situation. The ageing of the population will on the one hand contribute to fewer fatalities due to the lower share of young drivers in the overall driver population, but on the other hand it will likely result in an increase in the number of drivers that are physically or mentally unfit to drive.

Finally, in absence of further EU level intervention, the behaviour of drivers will not significantly improve. The number of offences committed abroad will likely decrease by 2040 due to the gradual introduction of new safety features in the vehicle fleet, based on the General Safety Regulation 110 . However, as the effect of the introduction of new safety features in the vehicle fleet is expected to peter out by 2040, the number of detected offences is projected to increase again post-2040. Member States could in theory establish bilateral or multilateral frameworks for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications or simply rely on information exchanged within RESPER to enforce sanctions on holders of a driving licence issued by their authorities when an offence is committed abroad. However, the set-up would be sub-optimal, notably because of the complexity to achieve a complete European geographical coverage and the risk of different rules and rights applicable to drivers. In the past, multiple Conventions (1964, 1976) tried to address the issue in the framework of the Council of Europe. However, they were not ratified by enough Member States to result in a significant impact.

In this context, the number of fatalities is projected to decrease by 3% by 2030 relative to 2020 (15% reduction for 2020-2050) and the number of serious injuries to remain relatively stable by 2030 (10% decrease for 2020-2050). Neither the 50% reduction of fatalities by 2030, nor zero fatalities on European roads by 2050 will be achieved.

2.3.2Problem 2: Barriers to the free movement of people due to inadequate or unnecessary procedures for driving licences. 

Without further EU level action, applicants will continue to experience difficulties in obtaining their driving licences in Member States other than the Member State of origin, due to the barriers and extra costs related to the knowledge of the local language when taking a driving exam in another Member State, to different medical fitness practices and to different requirements by Member States for accessing driving licences. The problem is expected to persist also in relation to the establishment of normal residence and the misalignment of the provisions related to automated transmission and to the maximum mass of vehicles that can be driven with a category B licence, given the increasing number of electric vehicles that are generally heavier.

In addition, holders of driving licences will likely continue to see their driving rights limited because of the lack of mutual recognition of certain rights entrusted by driving licences, and the additional costs they have to bear when moving to another Member State, resulting from the change of administrative validity periods and the need for additional medical fitness checks. Holders of driving licences will likely also continue to experience difficulties renewing or exchanging their driving licences in other Member States due to divergent interpretations of ‘normal residence’ and the lack of a uniform approach to check ‘normal residence’ across Member States.

The number of Member States issuing mobile driving licences is expected to increase over time. Without further EU level action, drivers holding mobile driving licences will however not be able to fully benefit from the advantages as the validity of the digital licence will be limited to the territory of the Member State issuing it. Drivers will therefore continue to see their freedom of movement restricted in case they only carry a digital driving licence.

Finally, regarding the shortage of professional (bus, coach and truck) drivers, the current rules on minimum age result in an earliest entry into the profession at 18 years.

With costs remaining an obstacle to the modal shift away from road operations and the automation of vehicles, it is expected that the shortage of professional drivers will remain a relevant issue in the long term. This trend is confirmed by the increase in traffic as illustrated in the Staff Working Document accompanying the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (section 5) 111 and the increase of the demand for commercial road transport reported by IRU 112 .

2.3.3Foresight

The analysis incorporates throughout all its dimensions relevant foresight tools. It does so to anticipate trends and issues that may affect the initiative and build a robust, future-proof evidence base for its likely impact. Megatrends 113 and strategic foresight report findings 114 are used throughout the problem definition, baseline, policy objectives and options sections of the document.

The megatrend “Accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity” will affect significantly the problem affecting road safety with the progressive introduction of automation and connectivity in the sector of road transport. International policy work is still on-going regarding automated driving, in particular in the context of the UN Economic Commission for Europe 115 . The ex-post evaluation has identified the need to update the standards on skills and knowledge to be met in order to obtain a driving licence. Moreover, the 2022 Strategic Foresight Report points to the potential of future digital technologies to render road transport more efficient and sustainable, if used properly 116 . For example, the use of data from vehicles and their environment can optimise charging. This in turn requires training driving licence holders to use new technologies as they reach the market.

Another megatrend that impacts how the problems will likely evolve is “Shifting health challenges”. As Europeans are living longer and healthier lives, the challenges that come with it affect their fitness to drive at different ages. This has been taken into account in the analysis in the following sections.

Finally, the significance of migration is changing too. In 2020, an estimated 281 million people were living outside their country of birth worldwide. 117 As their numbers are higher than ever and continue to grow, the problems related to obtaining or exchanging driving licences outside one’s country of origin will continue to persist and possibly worsen.

33    Why should the EU act?

3.13.1    Legal basis

Title VI (Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) establishes the EU’s prerogative to make provisions for the Common Transport Policy. Article 91(1)(c) TFEU provides that the European Union has competence in the field of transport to lay down measures to improve transport safety, while Article 91(1)(d) TFEU provides the same competence as regards “any other appropriate provisions”.

It is the longstanding practice of the Court that the European Union enjoys broad legislative powers within the remit of the common transport policy 118  , and most of the policy measures clearly fall within the scope of this competence. However, in the case of mutual recognition of driving disqualifications (PM 4), additional legal examinations were carried out in order to determine whether Article 91(1) TFEU is the correct legal basis to adopt such measure on. It was concluded that Article 91(1) TFEU can be considered the correct legal basis, as long as the conduct is considered an offence, which is sanctioned with driving disqualification in both the Member State of the offence and the Member State of the normal residence (principle of ‘dual disqualification’). Furthermore, the legal examination concluded that it is not possible to use a dual legal basis, i.e. common transport policy legal basis together with the legal basis contained within Title V of Part Three of the TFEU (judicial and police cooperation).

3.23.2    Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the EU shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States. Matters related to driving licences contain transnational aspects that cannot be covered by individual Member States alone. While the DL Directive represents an important step in the process of harmonising the rules on driving licences and contributes to the implementation of Union policies, it has so far been amended eleven times to harmonise common standards and requirements, as well as to adapt the rules to the scientific and technical progress that has occurred since 2006. The Directive’s 2022 ex-post evaluation has identified the need for its thorough review to ensure that all elements are in place to fulfil the policy objectives.

In light of the EU targets on road safety and the insufficient progress projected in reducing road fatalities and serious injuries’, further EU action is needed to deliver on the set targets. For example, the fight against dangerous behaviour on roads can only deliver fully in case non-resident road traffic offenders face the same sanctions for their conduct as residents.

EU level action is needed also to remove unnecessary and unjustified barriers to the free movement of people due to inadequate procedures for issuing and renewing driving licences. These problems need to be addressed at EU level because they have a cross-border dimension. A prominent example are the mobile driving licences which can only be mutually recognised across the EU if the solutions used by Member States are interoperable.

3.33.3    Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

The 2022 ex-post evaluation underlined the added value of the DL Directive, particularly in terms of its effectiveness and efficiency. The Directive is found to have had a positive effect on road safety, the free movement of EU citizens, the reduction of driving licence fraud and of driving licence tourism, and it also led to a reduction of the administrative burden, in particular for driving licence holders.

Without EU intervention, cooperation on driving licences between Member States would have continued probably via bi- or multilateral agreements which, in turn, would probably have resulted in higher complexity of the licensing system and a higher administrative burden for the licence holders. Administrative issues may also have been faced by drivers when travelling to Member Statesthat are not Contracting Parties to the Vienna Convention 119 , for example the requirement to hold an international driving permit. Finally, when changing residence in the EU, holders of EU driving licences would have to obtain a new driving licence issued by their new country of residence, either by means of an administrative exchange or by passing the driving test like any other applicant.

Similarly, in the absence of EU action only multi- and bilateral agreements between the Member States could be applied to enable mutual recognition of driving disqualifications of non-resident drivers. However, despite the relatively broad support shown by the stakeholders for mutually recognising the driving disqualifications of the perpetrators of offences that are usually punishable with a disqualification in the EU (e.g. driving under the influence), only one such existing agreement currently in force was identified 120 . This in turn means, that there are no driving disqualifications for committing even the most serious road traffic offences in other EU countries, if the decision is not taken by the Member State which issued the driving licence. 

In the absence of EU intervention, the integration of foreign professional drivers in the EU road transport sector will remain limited because of administrative difficulties for foreign drivers to maintain their driving rights. Removing this barrier could contribute to solving the driver shortage issue in the EU together with other actions, for example in relation to driver qualifications.

44    Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.14.1    General objectives

In view of the problems identified in Section 2.1, the initiative should improve road safety and facilitate the free movement of persons in the European Union. It should also contribute to sustainable road transport and to its digital transformation as well as support Sustainable Development Goals “making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” 121 and in particular “by 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons” 122 .

4.24.2    Specific objectives

The specific objectives (SOs) and their correspondence with the problem drivers are presented in Figure 3 .

SO1: Improve driving skills, knowledge and experience, and reduce and punish dangerous behaviour. This specific objective addresses problem drivers 1 and 2. The rules on driver training, testing and probation have to ensure that especially young and novice drivers obtain the skills, knowledge, experience and risk awareness needed to drive safely. Also, all drivers should benefit from improved skills and knowledge on advanced technologies, using the safety and environmental potential of innovation to the full extent, as well as on ensuring a safe coexistence of motorised traffic and active modes. Drivers should be held accountable for their dangerous driving behaviour in all Member States, in order to create an environment conducive to improving road safety.

SO2: Ensure adequate physical and mental fitness of drivers across the EU. This specific objective addresses problem driver 3. Rules concerning physical and mental fitness to drive for non‑professional drivers have to be improved and updated to the latest technological development. In addition, the medical screening process across the EU should be better aligned to contribute to the delivery of the road safety targets.

SO3: Remove inadequate or unnecessary barriers affecting applicants and holders of driving licences. This specific objective addresses problem drivers 4 and 5. Notwithstanding the current levels of harmonisation, a number of barriers still persist related to drivers' access to licences and to the recognition of their driving rights, which in turn hinder freedom of movement in the EU: difficulties with the driving tests resulting from the knowledge of languages, different rules to determine normal residence for the residents in the EU or absence of continuity of certain driving rights when travelling and when changing residence in the EU. In addition, further harmonisation e.g. with regard to the validity of the driving licence and of mobile driving licences should be introduced.

55    What are the available policy options?

5.15.1    What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

The EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020) is the starting point for the impact assessment of this initiative. The REF2020 takes into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the transport sector. More detailed information about the preparation process, assumptions and results are included in the Reference scenario publication 123 . Building on REF2020, the baseline scenario for this impact assessment has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package proposed by the Commission on 14 July 2021. The baseline assumes that there is no further EU level intervention beyond the current Diving Licence Directive. More details on the baseline scenario are provided in Annex 4. The baseline scenario is common with that of the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the Directive (EU) 2015/413 on facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, to ensure consistency.

The baseline also incorporates foresight megatrends 124 (see section 2.3.3) and developments captured in the 2022 Strategic Foresight Report. 125  Among others, it captures the trend of increasing demand for transport as population and living standards grow, the links between digital technologies and greening road transport by making it more efficient, and the shift towards zero-emission vehicles, etc.

The baseline scenario assumes the achievement of the milestones of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 126  in terms of using more sustainable transport modes, thus reflecting in a stylised way other initiatives that are currently in preparation. Nevertheless, this still implies an increase in the road transport activity by 2030 and 2050 relative to the current levels. 

In the baseline scenario, the number of fatalities is projected to decrease by 23% by 2030 relative to 2015 and by 30% by 2050 relative to 2015 127 . The number of serious and slight injuries is projected to decrease at a lower rate (by 18% between 2015 and 2030 and by 25% for 2015-2050). This is despite the increase in traffic over time. Relative to 2020, the number of fatalities and slight injuries is projected to decrease by 3% by 2030 while the number of serious injuries is projected to remain relatively stable. The lower growth rates in relation to 2020 reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. By 2050, the number of fatalities would be 13% lower relative to 2020 while the number of serious injuries would be 10% lower and that of slight injuries 11% lower. In particular, the number of fatalities in which novice drivers driving a car are involved are projected to increase by 3% until 2030 (to around 3,900) and to then decrease to around 3,400 by 2050 (i.e. an overall 10% decrease for 2020-2050). This is because, despite the fact that novice drivers are more prone to accidents, the ageing of the population will lead to a decrease in the share of young drivers in the overall driver population. In the baseline scenario, the targets of the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Next steps towards “Vision Zero” of reducing the number of road deaths by 50% between 2020 and 2030 as well as reducing the number of serious injuries by 50% in the same period, would not be met. In addition, this is still far from the goal of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy of a close-to-zero death toll for all modes of transport in the EU by 2050. 

The number of driving licences (A to D categories) is projected to increase by around 5% by 2030 relative to 2019 (from around 250 million in 2019 to 263 million licences in 2030) and to remain relatively stable by 2050 (at around 260 million in 2050). Without further EU level action on the mutual recognition of mobile driving licences, the physical licences are projected to remain dominant in the EU by 2050. Indeed, while most of the Member States are likely to implement mobile driving licences, they would remain valid only on the territory of the State issuing them. To travel abroad within the EU, drivers would still have to keep their physical driving licences.

In the baseline scenario, the number of theoretical and practical driving tests is projected to increase by 7% by 2030 (from 21.2 million in 2019 to 22.7 million in 2030) and by 12% by 2050 (at around 23.8 million), relative to 2019. The costs associated to the theoretical and practical driving tests would go up from EUR 1.47 billion in 2019 to EUR 1.55 billion in 2030 and EUR 1.64 billion by 2050.

The total number of offences committed by drivers in foreign registered vehicles is aligned with those used in the impact assessment supporting the revision of the CBE Directive as there should be no difference between the numbers of detected speeding and drink-driving offences as regards whether they are detected for the purposes of the CBE Directive (i.e. to issue financial penalties) or to pursue the cases and issue a driving ban. In the case of the impact assessment supporting the revision of the CBE Directive however, the relevant number of offences are the ones that are connected to remote detection. For the purpose of this impact assessment, all the offences which are detected are relevant, regardless of the method of detection, as long as they reach a level of seriousness that leads to a driving disqualification under the law of the Member State that detected the offence.

The number of EU exchanged licences would increase by 3% by 2030 and 4% by 2050, while the number of third country exchanged licences are projected to go up by 2% by 2030 and 7% by 2050. Without further EU level intervention, holders of foreign driving licences (including EU citizens) will likely continue to see their driving rights limited. Indeed, the restrictions when moving to another Member State will remain applicable to them. The Russian aggression of Ukraine is not expected to have an impact on the baseline. In particular, its possible effects in relation to driving licences have already been addressed and mitigated through Regulation (EU) No 2022/1280 128 .

5.25.2    Description of the policy options

As a first step, a comprehensive list of possible policy measures was established after extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent research and the Commission’s own analysis. This list was subsequently screened based on the likely effectiveness, efficiency and proportionality of the proposed measures in relation to the given objectives, as well as their legal, political and technical feasibility.

5.2.1Discarded policy measures

Not taking action has been discarded, considering the need to adapt the current rules to technological, societal and scientific developments. Among others, the current framework on driving licences does not allow for accommodating mobile driving licences. Consequently, it is becoming a barrier to the digital transformation, including the significant benefits it can bring in terms of cost savings and simplification. Several possible policy measures were also considered during the impact assessment process but were discarded because proposing an action to address the issue at EU level would not yield additional results. Further details on the discarded policy measures and the reasons for discarding them are set out in Annex 5.

5.2.2Retained policy measures

The retained policy measures have been grouped in 3 policy options: policy option A (PO-A), policy option B (PO-B) and policy option C (PO-C). Table 1 Table 1 presents the list of policy measures included in the policy options with the problem drivers and specific objectives. A more detailed description of the policy measures is included in Annex 6.

All three policy options include 12 common policy measures (“PMc”) that are presented in Table 1 . These policy measures reflect the necessary changes due to technological, scientific and societal evolutions in the EU and will be included in each policy option.

Table 2  includes the additional policy measures for PO-B (7) and PO-C (13). These policy options represent an additional level of ambition and scope, as explained below.

5.2.3Description of the options

Three policy options (PO-A, PO-B and PO-C) have been designed to address all problem drivers identified in relation to road safety and to the free movement of persons. All options contribute to the general objectives by removing obstacles for applicants and for holders of driving licences, and by reducing the number of road traffic accidents.

PO-A reflects the basic update of the Directive, taking into account the lessons learnt from the evaluation and integrating societal, technological and scientific evolutions. It does not change the scope of the Directive and it contains measures which are also included in PO-B and PO-C.

PO-B includes additional efforts to meet EU road safety objectives, targeting all drivers (including novice drivers) in three important domains: skills and knowledge, medical fitness and dangerous behaviour. It also removes some barriers on the free movement of persons faced by holders of foreign licences and applicants.

Finally, PO-C reinforces the road safety measures introduced with PO-B regarding medical fitness and dangerous behaviour. It also extends the scope of the Directive to new vehicles (tractors, e-scooters with a maximum speed of 25 km/hour).

Policy option A

Policy option A (PO-A) includes policy measures that are common to all three policy options. The measures under PO-A aim at aligning the Directive on driving licences to the technological, scientific and societal developments in the EU. While the current scope of the Directive remains the same, improvements are brought to its main provisions answering to the market needs and opportunities.

PO-A will contribute to road safety. To address Specific Objective 1 “Improve driving skills, knowledge and experience and reduce and punish dangerous behaviour”, the range of issues subject to testing will be extended, in particular to check drivers’ knowledge of new vehicle features and to introduce hazard perception tests (PMc1).

In addition, improvements to RESPER (the network for the exchange of information related to driving licences) will support further cooperation between issuing authorities, in particular in relation to law enforcement, and thereby better fight against fraud and dangerous behaviour (PMc4). For that purpose, requirements on the response time and data quality of RESPER will be introduced and the use cases will be better specified in order to avoid legal uncertainty. It will result in a system relevant to support the control of driving licences.

PO-A will also ensure adequate levels of skills and knowledge to accompany the uptake of zero‑emission vehicles. Today’s driving licence rules reflect the fact that the EU vehicle fleet still uses predominantly conventional fuels. The rules will be updated to take into account the increased uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles with automatic gear transmission (PMc2) and the excess of mass resulting from electric vehicles’ propulsion systems (PMc3).

In addition, to support Specific Objective 2 “Ensure adequate physical and mental fitness of drivers across the EU”, the standards on physical and mental fitness to be met by applicants (PMc5) and the rules on the use of technologies to mitigate unfitness to drive (PMc6) will be updated in line with technological and scientific developments 129 . Also, a new dedicated information platform will be established to allow for wider sharing of information and to improve knowledge management between authorities by means of annual meetings (PMc7).

Furthermore, to support specific objective 3 “Remove inadequate or unnecessary barriers affecting applicants and holders of driving licences”, the same administrative validity of driving licences for category A and B (non-professional) should be applied in all MS. The issue of validity periods for licences is resulting from the possibility for Member States to select two durations (10 or 15 years). When a person changes normal residence and asks for an exchange of driving licences, the administrative validity of his or her driving rights may be reduced. This poses a problem for the free movement of people by setting unnecessary administrative barriers to the holders of EU driving licences, and the objective here is to remove the barriers related to the recognition of their rights (SO3). Measure PMc11 (Improvement and simplification of rules on administrative validity) will simplify the procedure for the citizens currently holding a driving licence of 10 years’ administrative validity. Lessons learned from the COVID‑19 pandemic will also be considered and authorities could waive requirements on administrative validity in exceptional circumstances. Optional equivalences 130  will be mutually recognised (PMc12). Specific implementing rules will be introduced to develop the concept of normal residence which will specify how the normal residence should be determined during the six first months of establishment in a new country, including special cases where two or more Member States consider they can be issuing authority. (PMc8), in particular to avoid that a person is not able to have his or her normal residence determined. Additional equivalence will be introduced allowing the holder of a licence of category D1 and CE to drive a small bus with a trailer (PMc12).

Finally, the free movement of persons will be ensured also in the digital era, through the introduction of the EU mobile driving licence (PMc9). In parallel, it will be possible to add a QR code on physical driving licences to improve security of documents. It will allow administrations, law enforcement and potentially private bodies to verify the authenticity of the information printed on the driving licences (similar mechanisms as for the EU covid certificate). It will also reduce costs compared to the chipset currently foreseen under the existing Driving Licence Directive (PMc10).

Policy option B

Policy option B (PO-B) represents an increase of policy intervention as regards road safety, as well as the reduction of administrative burden affecting professional drivers, holders of foreign driving licences, EU citizens not fluent in the language of their state of residence and young persons in remote areas.

Regarding Specific Objective 1 “Improve driving skills, knowledge and experience and reduce and punish dangerous behaviour”, besides the measures included in PO-A, new rules on training and probation periods will ensure that novice drivers are better prepared for driving safely in complex traffic situation. Lifelong training will be promoted to keep the skills of experienced drivers up to date, also in the advent of new technologies (PM1). Moreover, road safety is expected to be further improved also by introducing the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications for major road safety-related offences (such as driving under the influence of alcohol) (PM4).

Regarding Specific Objective 2 “Ensure adequate physical and mental fitness of drivers across the EU”, in addition to the updated standards on physical and mental fitness to be met by applicants and drivers introduced under PO-A, a simple fitness screening based on a self-assessment will become mandatory at first issuance and at renewal together with the possibility for more frequent screening of drivers’ medical fitness for drivers above 70 years old. A training programme to support general practitioners will be set up to support the introduction of these new screening rules (PM6).

In relation to Specific Objective 3 “Remove inadequate or unnecessary barriers affecting applicants and holders of driving licences”, in addition to the measures under PO-A, the issuance of the driving licence document will be simplified.

Applicants who are EU nationals will be able to obtain their first driving licence of category B either in their country of residence or in their country of citizenship in the event their country of normal residence does not allow interpreters and their native language is not available for test there (PM9). This will be possible due to the adaptation of the rules on normal residence and it will address the problems faced by persons not sufficiently at ease with the official languages of their country of residence. This measure has been designed by considering the risk of fraud (driving licence tourism). It is therefore limited to cases where the set-up related to test languages can be problematic, and limited to category B licences.

To mitigate the shortage of professional drivers, existing rules on bus and truck drivers would be simplified, to enable more flexibility between these professions (PM8). The measure will remove the requirement to hold a driving licence of category C (truck) or D (bus) to obtain a driving licence of category CE or DE (same vehicles but with a trailer) (PM8).

Rules on the exchange of driving licences issued by third countries applying licensing schemes of similar performance as the EU will be introduced (PM14). They will allow holders of driving licences issued by the third country whose licensing system guarantees a level of road safety equivalent to the one in the EU to obtain an EU driving licence by means of an administrative exchange. The driving licences issued in that context will not be marked with the harmonised Union code 70. This right will be also be provided to holders of licences issued by third countries who have previously obtained a driving licence following a test in the EU (e.g. an expatriate returning to the EU). In addition, Member States will keep the bilateral competence to determine other third countries with which an administrative exchange is possible, as it is the case now.

Finally, to cater for mobility issues in remote areas, it will be possible for Member States to extend driving rights of the holder of a B1 driving licence by allowing them to drive vehicles of a higher mass with a maximum speed up to 45 km/h, but only on the national territory of the relevant Member States (PM11).

Policy option C

Policy option C (PO-C) represents a further increase in harmonisation and scope compared to option PO-B, notably by introducing rules on the recognition of penalty points for non-residents, by requiring a driving licence for micro mobility vehicles with a speed beyond 25 km/h and by laying down rules on the mutual recognition of a physical and mental fitness assessment.

On Specific Objective 1 “Improve driving skills, knowledge and experience and reduce and punish dangerous behaviour”, the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications will be reinforced and complemented by rules on penalty points’ systems and rehabilitation (PM5). Furthermore, the categories of vehicles for which a driving licence is required would be amended to include new smart mobility vehicles of a maximum speed between 25 and 45 km/h (PM2). This issue is mainly related to problem driver 1 (insufficient skills, knowledge, experience and/or risk awareness) and it is due to an increasing use of e-scooters and other forms of micro-mobility in cities, resulting in an increase of accidents affecting their users. Stakeholders’ consultations and desk research 131 have underlined that users of these vehicles are exposed to similar risks as other vulnerable road users (i.e. cyclists and moped riders). It has also been noted that the risk profile of certain micro mobility means can be very similar to the one of mopeds, especially when the design speed is between 25 and 45 km/hour. Consequently, the drivers of these vehicles will be subject to tests similar to the ones for mopeds (category AM), ensuring a minimum level of driving skills and knowledge of the road traffic rules. Finally, the mutual recognition of national licences required to drive agricultural vehicles will be introduced to solve problems faced by cross-border farming activities, and the definition of category D1 (for small buses) will be updated (PM 3) by increasing the number of authorised passengers from 16 to 22 in order to better align it with the market opportunities and needs. Regarding tractors, licences for agricultural or forestry tractors are governed at national level. Consequently, there is no mutual recognition resulting in obstacles affecting notably posted workers, agricultural contractors and cross-border agricultural activities. Regarding small buses, the definition of the category D1 includes buses of a maximum length of 8 meters with 9 to 16 passenger seats. The ex-post evaluation has identified that the current market supply provides for buses of such dimension with up to 22 passenger seats.

Regarding Specific Objective 2 “Ensure adequate physical and mental fitness of drivers across the EU”, option PO-C requires that the mandatory screening of medical fitness at first issuance or renewal be carried out by a general practitioner and it foresees more frequent screening of drivers’ medical fitness from the age of 65 years and onwards. A training programme to support general practitioners will be set up to support the introduction of these new screening rules (PM7).

In relation to Specific Objective 3 “Remove inadequate or unnecessary barriers affecting applicants and holders of driving licences”, in addition to the measures under policy option B, the mutual recognition of physical and mental fitness assessment (PM 10) will be introduced as a consequence of the harmonised medical screening. In addition, former holders of driving licences issued by a third country should be able to continue to drive when changing their residence to another Member State, provided they have a positive road safety track record of at least 5 years (PM12). For that purpose, the initiative will specify that the restrictions associated to code 70 will not apply once these conditions are met.

Finally, rules relevant to professional drivers will be further simplified, allowing MS to authorise the holder of a driving licence of category C (truck) to drive a bus without passengers on their territory. This will mainly affect employees in charge of maintenance and the repair of buses and trucks and with the measure, the workers will not have to obtain the licences for both trucks (category C) and buses (category D) (PM13).

All policy options fully encompass the ‘digital by default’ principle, reflecting the 2030 Digital Compass Communication. 132  They enable smooth digital policy implementation and foster digital transformation, as they have been designed with digitalisation as the first-best option, where available. For example, mobile driving licences have the end user at the centre of digitalisation, will be issued by default from 2028 and will be interlinked with the EU Digital Identity Wallet, 133 the use of RESPER ensures interconnectivity for MS authorities, while training and testing of drivers’ knowledge of ADAS systems levers digital and technological innovation to improve road safety.

5.2.4Main trade-offs

To identify the measures which may require trade-offs between the objectives, measures with a likely negative impact on road safety while having positive impact on green transition, free movement of persons and administrative simplification, have been considered. Multiple consultation activities have been conducted to confirm for each of these measures the problem driver they would address and to identify potential mitigation actions, in particular when similar provisions exist at national level.

When no mitigation action was available to control the negative impact on road safety, or when the risk of negative impacts on road safety was considered too high, the measures have been discarded. This applies for example to measures such as reducing the minimum age required for obtaining a driving licence, removal of the graduated access scheme for category A licences and removal of code 70 (see also Annex 5 on discarded measures).

The analysis of the main trade-offs has been performed for the cases discussed below: regarding the rules on driving vehicles with automatic gear transmission, increase of vehicles’ mass due to the transition to alternative fuels, optional equivalence in case of vehicles with limited speed and the minimum age requirement to drive.

Regarding the rules applicable to vehicles with automatic gear transmission, and related possible trade-offs between green transition and road safety, it should first be underlined that the skills and knowledge required to drive cover both the control of the vehicle and behaviour in traffic. This is reflected in the skills to be assessed during the driving test, as specified in Annex II to the Directive. During the consultation activities and in particular the first workshop, it has been underlined that the easiness to operate vehicles with automatic transmission allows for better results regarding behaviour in traffic of novice drivers having passed the test with automatic gear transmission.

Measure PMc 2 (Introduction of rules to remove restrictions associated to automatic gear transmission) has been designed in a way to avoid negative effects on road safety. Therefore, an additional certified training or a short practical test would be required to remove the restrictions on drivers having passed the test on a vehicle with automatic gear transmission (licences marked with code 78). It will focus on the skills and knowledge specific to manual gear transmission. A similar scheme is already in place in Germany with an effect limited to its national territory, and the competent authority has not reported specific road safety issues with its implementation.

Regarding the increase of vehicles’ mass resulting from the shift to alternative fuels, and the related possible trade-off between green transition and road safety, category B driving licences includes vehicles with a maximum mass up to 3.5 tons, according to the Directive. Battery technologies have significantly evolved during the last years. The weight of electric cars remains now on average below 2 tons 134 . Consequently, vans are the vehicles for which the shift to alternative fuels would require a higher category of driving licences. The total number of vans in the EU was about 29 million in 2020, while the alternatively fuelled vans accounted for only 1.9% of all vans on the road 135 . In addition, new vehicles are required by the General Safety Regulation 136 to be equipped with advanced safety technologies (such as advanced driving assistance systems), which will significantly improve road safety 137 .

The increase of the maximum mass for category B to 4.25t (PMc 3) is therefore expected to have a very limited negative impact on road safety, mainly because of a higher risk for other vulnerable road users compared to lighter vehicles. Indeed, the expected negative effect resulting from a higher mass will be largely mitigated by the scope of application of the measure (only alternatively fuelled vehicles) and the fact that almost all the vehicles concerned will benefit from advanced technologies regarding road safety.

Regarding the minimum age requirements to drive, and related possible trade-offs between simplification and road safety, two measures are likely to increase the presence of young drivers on the road:

·With the introduction of rules on accompanied driving (PM 1), applicants to licences of category B and C will have the possibility to pass the driving test at 17 years of age. However, they will not be authorised to drive alone before 18 years of age. Such a system is already available for category B in some Member States (e.g. Germany, Austria) and has shown very positive effects on road safety. The learner is acquiring experience under the supervision of an adult and is more capable to drive when he/she reaches 18 years of age. The effect on road safety for this measure is expected to be positive.

·The optional possibility to allow driving vehicles with maximum speed and mass limitations with a licence of category B1 instead of category B (PM 11) is expected to improve the mobility of young people, especially in rural areas. The measure may pose an additional road safety risk, notably for vulnerable road users. However, the measure is proposed to be optional (it requires a decision of the concerned Member State), the maximum speed and the mass of the vehicles are significantly limited (45 km/hour and 2.5 tons) in order to reduce the consequences of an accident, and the category of concerned drivers is narrowed down to the strict need (applicable only to drivers aged up to 21 years). Finally, the requirements on skills and knowledge to be met at the driving test for a licence of category B1 are the same as for category B but for a lower speed (60 km/hour 138 ).

66    What is the impact of the policy options?

This section summarises the main expected economic, social and environmental impacts of each policy option 139 . The proposed measures included in the policy options are assumed to be implemented from 2025 onwards, so that the assessment has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period, and it refers to EU27. Costs and benefits are expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period, using a 3% discount rate. As the analysis covers a long-term future, it incorporates foresight analysis described in section 2.3.3 and in the baseline section. Further details on the methodological approach are provided in Annex 4.

6.16.1    Economic impact

The assessment of the economic impacts includes the costs which the various policy options entail for public administrations, the private sector and citizens. In addition, this section covers the impacts on SMEs, digital by default 140 and the functioning of the internal market and competition.

6.1.1Impact on public administrations

Adjustment costs for Member States administrations. The adjustment costs for Member States administrations are the same in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C, driven by three policy measures (PMc1, PMc4 and PMc9) included in all options. More specifically, the update of standards on skills and knowledge for the first issuance of a driving licence (PMc1) requires the development of (animated) videos for the driver hazard perception test (HPT). These videos are assumed to be developed and updated every 5 years, starting from 2025. At EU level, the costs for implementing PMc1 are estimated at EUR 3.5 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 3 ) 141 . In addition, the improvement of RESPER for the purpose of enforcement (PMc4) is estimated to lead to one-off costs of EUR 50,000 on average per Member State, i.e. EUR 1.4 million for the whole EU in 2025. Furthermore, the introduction of the EU mobile driving licence (PMc9) requires the development of an IT system for mobile driving licences 142 . Such an IT system would involve one-off costs of EUR 12.9 million in 2025 plus annual maintenance costs estimated at EUR 1.9 million relative to the baseline (see  Table 3 ). The other measures included in the three options do not have a significant impact on the adjustment costs for Member States administrations. The detailed impacts on costs by policy measure are provided in Annex 4.

Overall, PO-A, PO-B and PO-C are estimated to result in one-off adjustment costs for EU Member States’ administrations of EUR 14.3 million in 2025 and to recurrent adjustment costs of EUR 5.5 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 3 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), the total adjustment costs for the Member States administrations (including one-off costs) are estimated at EUR 63.2 million in all policy options. 

143 Table 3. Recurrent costs and costs savings for Member States administrations in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in million EUR (2021 prices) 

Enforcement costs for Member States administrations. In PO-B the driving disqualifications resulting from specific offenses (for example driving under the influence of alcohol) would be mutually recognised (PM4). The increase in the number of driving disqualifications for such offences is estimated at 182,514 in 2030 and 225,000 in 2050 relative to the baseline. Total enforcement costs for Member States authorities are estimated at EUR 1.5 million in 2030 and EUR 1.1 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 3 ). These costs are related to the time required for investigations 144 and mailing costs. More details on the estimation of the costs are provided in Annex 4, including detailed results by Member State. 

In PO-C, penalty points will also be applied to non-residents and driving disqualification resulting from penalty points system should be mutually recognised (PM5). The total number of cases where the penalty points need to be applied is estimated at 525,288 in 2030 and 606,915 in 2050 relative to the baseline. Total enforcement costs for Member States authorities are estimated at EUR 4.5 million in 2030 and EUR 3 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 3 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), the enforcement costs for Member States administrations are estimated at EUR 26.3 million in PO-B and EUR 75.3 million in PO-C.

Enforcement cost savings for Member States administrations. The three policy options entail enforcement cost savings for the Member States administrations. They are driven by three common policy measures (PMc9, PMc10 and PMc11) included in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C and are thus the same for all options. More specifically, the introduction of the EU mobile driving licences (PMc9) is expected to lead to cost savings related to the production of driving licences, estimated at EUR 129 million in 2030 and EUR 145.5 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 3 ). The enforcement cost savings due to the introduction of a QR code on the physical licence in the areas reserved for a microchip (PMc10) are estimated to be limited (EUR 0.03 million in 2030 and 0.04 million in 2050) relative to the baseline. This is because only the Netherlands makes use of microchips (and would thus be affected by PMc10) and most driving licences would become digital in PO-A, PO-B and PO‑C as an effect of PMc9. In addition, PMc11 (improvement and simplification of rules on administrative validity) is estimated to lead to enforcement cost savings of EUR 16.9 million in 2030 and EUR 35.7 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table   3 ). This is because, in PMc11, the 15 year long administrative validity of driving licences for A and B categories will be made mandatory and exclusive. The Directive currently requires an administrative validity period of 10 years but allows Member States to also issue licences for 15 years. Thus, PMc11 would only lead to cost savings for the 15 Member States that issue licences with an administrative validity period of 10 years 145 . The detailed impacts on costs by policy measure are provided in Annex 4, also accounting for the synergies between the measures included in each option.

Overall, PO-A, PO-B and PO-C are estimated to result in enforcement cost savings for EU Member States administrations of EUR 145.9 million in 2030 and EUR 181.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 3 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), the total enforcement cost savings for the Member States administrations are estimated at EUR 2,830.6 million in all policy options.

Administrative cost savings for Member States administrations. For all policy options, the introduction of the EU mobile driving licence (PMc9) is also expected to lead to administrative cost savings for Member States administrations estimated at EUR 90.8 million in 2030 and EUR 133.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 3 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), the total administrative cost savings for the Member States administrations are estimated at EUR 1,969.3 million in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C. These costs are related to the time spent to ensure that the physical licences are issued to the right person, and thus the time spent to validate the identity of the person to which a new licence is provided. When procedures are digitised, the time spent on such procedures and the associated costs are overcome. The other measures included in the three options do not have a significant impact on the administrative costs or cost savings for Member States administrations. The detailed impacts on costs savings for PMc9 are provided in Annex 4.

Net cost savings for Member States administrations. Overall, when considering the adjustment costs (both one-off and recurrent), the enforcement costs, the enforcement cost savings and the administrative cost savings, the net cost savings for Member States administrations are estimated at EUR 4,736.6 million in PO-A, EUR 4,710.4 million in PO-B and 4661.4 million in PO-C, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices) relative to the baseline. The net cost savings for Member States administrations are largely driven by the introduction of the EU mobile driving licences (PMc9). The difference between net savings between policy options is explained by PM4 and PM5 which are included only in PO-B and PO-C, respectively.

Adjustment costs for the European Commission. Three policy measures included in the options are expected to lead to adjustment costs for the European Commission: PMc7 (common to PO-A, PO-B and PO-C), PM6 (included in PO-B) and PM7 (included in PO-C). The costs for the European Commission of PO-B (due to PM6) and PO-C (due to PM7) are expected to be the same.

PMc7 (establishment of an information platform for authorities to exchange on the physical and mental fitness to drive) would involve the organisation by the Commission of one meeting per year between national experts, to exchange knowledge and best practices regarding physical and mental fitness to drive, complemented by other online events. The cost of the meeting is estimated at EUR 30,000 per year (from 2025 onwards) and includes the reimbursement of the national experts. In addition, both PM6 (rules on simple medical screening) and PM7 (rules on advanced medical screening) would require the development of an (online) training programme for general practitioners. The costs for developing the online content of the training programme are estimated at EUR 33,500 to EUR 142,000, depending on the level of detail. The training programme is assumed to be updated regularly (once every five years), starting from 2025. More detailed explanations are provided in Annex 4.

Overall, PO-A is estimated to result in adjustment costs for the European Commission of EUR 0.03 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline, while PO-B and PO-C would lead to costs of EUR 0.06 to 0.17 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), the total adjustment costs for the European Commission are estimated at EUR 0.6 million in PO-A, and at EUR 0.7 to 1.1 million in PO-B and PO-C.

6.1.2Impact on the private sector 

Hassle costs savings for road transport operators. PMc9 (introduction of the EU mobile driving licences), included in all three policy options, is estimated to lead to a reduction in hassle costs for the renewal of category C and D licences 146 . A World Bank study 147 on the Estonian e‑Government system conservatively estimated that each renewal request saved 15 minutes on average compared to the case where the system was not in place. C and D licences are mainly used by professional drivers and the cost savings are thus expected to benefit transport operators, mainly SMEs in the road transport sector (SMEs represent 99% of the road transport operators) 148 . The hassle cost savings are derived by using the average labour costs by Member State 149 , and are estimated at EUR 32.8 million in 2030 and EUR 38.7 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 4 ) 150 . Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), total hassle cost savings for road transport operators are estimated at EUR 587 million in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C relative to the baseline.

Adjustment costs for general practitioners. In PO-B, the measure related to rules on simple medical screening (PM6) is expected to lead to 4,515 additional (online) training courses for general practitioners in 2030 and 5,057 courses in 2050, relative to the baseline 151 . The adjustment costs for general practitioners in PO-B are estimated at EUR 3.1 million in 2030 and EUR 3.4 million in 2050 relative to the baseline 152 (see Table 4 ). In PO-C the measure related to rules on advanced medical screening (PM7) has the same impact as PM6 in terms of costs for (online) training courses for general practitioners. Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), total adjustment costs for GPs are estimated at EUR 57.7 million in PO-B and PO-C.

Table 4: Costs and cost savings for the private sector in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in million EUR (2021 prices) 153

Administrative cost savings for road transport operators. In PO-B and PO-C, the removal of the requirement to hold a licence of category C or D to obtain a licence of category CE or DE (PM8) is expected to lead to administrative cost savings for professional drivers that benefit road transport operators. The removal of this requirement would lead to a reduction in the number of theoretical and practical tests required to obtain a CE or DE category licence, estimated at 469,349 in 2030 and 572,082 in 2050, relative to the baseline. The administrative cost savings for road transport operators in PO-B and PO-C are thus estimated at EUR 44.8 million in 2030 and EUR 53.8 million in 2050 relative to the baseline 154 (see Table 4 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), total administrative cost savings for road transport operators are estimated at EUR 875.3 million in PO-B and PO-C.

For the purpose of reporting on the application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach 155 , the annual average reduction in the number of theoretical and practical tests for 2025-2050 has been estimated at 510,474 relative to the baseline in both PO-B and PO-C and the annual average cost savings for 2025-2050 at EUR 48.5 million 156 , which implies an average cost per theoretical and practical test for a C and D category licence of 95 EUR.

6.1.3Impact on citizens 

In terms of benefits for citizens, the initiative will increase the assurance that drivers on EU roads have the skills, knowledge, experience, and risk awareness, are physically and mentally fit to drive and that their behaviour is not dangerous. Ensuring a high level of safety is important for all road users. It will also have positive effects on road transport operators, driving schools and law enforcement authorities, since their employees and civil servants will be less exposed to safety risks.

The initiative will also remove barriers affecting persons when obtaining or exercising driving rights, and the most important effect will result from the introduction of mobile driving licences, which is common to all policy options. It will allow the drivers seamless interaction with authorities when exchanging information on driving rights. Regarding the risk of exclusion for certain category of population potentially resulting from the introduction of the EU mobile driving licences, the measure has been designed according to the “digital by default” principle. It envisages that physical driving licences will continue to be issued upon request and without conditions. Persons with less access to digital technology will continue to be able to prove their driving rights with physical driving licences. This would also be the case for drivers who travel abroad in countries where the EU mobile driving licence is not recognised.

In addition, PO2 and PO3 will include other measures that will affect targeted groups of citizens, in particular holders of driving licences transferring to other EU countries, applicants that are not fluent in the language of their host country, or young persons willing to become professional drivers. PO2 and PO3 will also introduce measures allowing faster access to licences of category CE or DE for professional drivers across the EU, which will reduce barriers to access to the driver profession.

The specific rules related to the concept of normal residence, which are included in all three policy options, will also help persons transferring their normal residence to another Member State. Even if the number of persons facing unnecessary or unjustified procedures is rather low, consequences for each individual can be significant. Clarification of the concept of normal residence should solve the problem of determining the issuing authority just after the transfer of residence and it is expected to contribute positively to the freedom of movement.

Simplification of rules on administrative validity will put the holders of EU driving licences on equal footing, regardless in which country they apply for or extend the licence and facilitate the exchange of driving licences by issuing authorities that will not be faced with driving licences with validity periods different from those they apply (included in PO1, PO2 and PO3). The mutual recognition of optional equivalences will allow holders of driving licences to enjoy rights granted by an optional equivalence also in other Member States applying the same rules (all three policy options include this measure).

Due to the alignment to the latest legislation on the protection of personal data and the use of the eIDAS features for the EU mobile driving licence, which will be included in all three policy options, citizens will benefit from a high level of security and privacy of the information handled. Regarding the possible introduction of a QR code (included in in PO1, PO2 and PO3), the same approach on data protection as the one for the microchip on a physical driving licence will apply: the QR code will provide access to the same information as the one on the physical driving licence. In any case, it will not be possible to access the information without a visual access to the physical driving licence.

The mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, provided in PO2 and PO3, will give procedural safeguards to non-resident drivers who commit road safety traffic offences and ensure that their fundamental rights are respected. PO2 and PO3 will also have a positive impact on the right of non-discrimination, given they will provide flexibility for the first issuance of driving licences in case of restrictions related to languages which will allow applicants to choose where to take the tests.

Administrative cost savings for citizens. Two policy measures lead to administrative cost savings (PM2c and PM12). PM2c (introduction of rules to remove restrictions associated to automatic gear transmission) is common to the three policy options, while PM12 (rules on the removal of Code 70) is only included in PO-C.

In the baseline scenario, the applicants for a B licence need to conduct a complete test with a vehicle with manual transmission if they want to remove the restrictions (Code 78) on their driving licences issued following a driving test with a vehicle with an automatic transmission. In PMc2 it is assumed that the conditions to remove Code 78 will be lighter (shorter test or certified training). PMc2 is expected to only affect holders of a Code 78 licence 157 that would like to have this code removed. In the baseline scenario, the number of practical tests for a Code 78 licence is projected to increase to 1.6 million at EU level by 2030 and 8.1 million by 2050, driven by the uptake of zero-emission vehicles with automatic transmission. In Germany, some 450 tests are conducted annually to have Code 78 removed. This represents around 0.9% of the Code 78 tests 158 . In PMc2 the number of practical tests for removing Code 78 would decrease by 0.9% in 2025, 0.1% in 2030 and 0% by 2050 relative to the baseline. The reduction is significantly lower post-2025 because of the increasing share of vehicles with automatic transmission and thus the limited need to be able to drive a vehicle with manual transmission. PMc2 would result in a decrease in the number of practical tests at EU level by 1,019 in 2030 and 714 in 2050 relative to the baseline. The administrative cost savings for citizens are estimated at EUR 0.09 million in 2030 and EUR 0.07 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 5 ). Altogether, citizens are expected to benefit from administrative cost savings due to removing restrictions associated to automatic gear transmission, estimated at EUR 2.3 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline in all three policy options.

For the purpose of reporting on the application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, the annual average reduction in the number of practical tests for 2025-2050 has been estimated at 1,184 relative to the baseline in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C for PMc2 and the annual average decrease in the administrative costs for 2025‑2050 at EUR 0.1 million 159 , implying an average cost per practical test of EUR 92.

In the baseline, holders of a third country licence are restricted via code 70. Other EU Member States may decide not to recognise the licence. As such, these holders may have to conduct a driving test (theoretical and practical) to be able to obtain an EU licence when changing residence. In PM12 (included in PO-C), code 70 is assumed to be removed from the licence when the driver has been holding an EU licence for at least 5 years and has not committed serious road traffic offenses. By implementing PM12, it is expected that fewer holders of a third country licence would conduct a driving test to obtain an EU licence that can also be exchanged when the holder changes residence. Thus, the number of tests is estimated to decrease by 7,235 in 2030 and 7,552 in 2050 relative to the baseline. The administrative cost savings for citizens are estimated at EUR 1 million in 2030 and EUR 1.1 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 5 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period, they are estimated at EUR 19.3 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices) in PO-C.

For the purpose of reporting on the application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, the annual average reduction in the number of theoretical and practical tests for 2025-2050 has been estimated at 7,353 relative to the baseline in PO-C for PM12 and the annual average reduction in the administrative costs for 2025‑2050 at EUR 1.1 million 160 , which implies an average cost for the theoretical and practical test of 143 EUR.

Table 5: Costs and cost savings for applicants/holders of driving licences in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in million EUR (2021 prices) 161

Adjustment costs for citizens. In all policy options (PO-A, PO-B and PO-C), the update of standards on skills and knowledge for the first issuance of a driving licence (PMc1) is expected to lead to adjustment costs for applicants for a B category licence. PMc1 will extend the range of issues subject to testing, including knowledge of new vehicle features (safe use of Advanced Driving Assistance System/automation) as well as perception of hazardous situations, understanding of risk factors in normal traffic situations (including the presence of new vulnerable road users such as e-scooters) and knowledge of the safety of zero emission vehicles (e.g. chemical and explosion risks in the event of fire affecting an electric vehicle). It is likely to result in adjustment costs for applicants, especially concerning the theoretical test. This is because applicants are to be tested on more subjects. Especially the Hazard Perception Test (HPT) that is conducted separately from a theoretical test might result in fewer passing the test and the need to retake the test. Belgium, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have already introduced the HPT and they are assumed to continue to implement it in the baseline scenario. At EU level, PMc1 is estimated to lead to an increase in the number of theoretical tests, due to a drop in the passing rate and the need to retake the test, by 74,174 in 2030 and 75,382 in 2050. This would lead to an increase in the costs for the first issuance of the licence for those that need to retake the test (estimated at EUR 2.8 million in 2030 and EUR 2.9 million in 2050 relative to the baseline 162 (see Table 5 163 ). As acknowledged in the evaluation support study 164 , the data collected on the costs of driving licences for the first application cover both the theoretical and practical tests, as well as the cost of the licence itself 165 . Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period, the adjustment costs for consumers in PO‑A, PO-B and PO-C are estimated at EUR 52.5 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices).

Two additional measures (PM6 and PM7), included in PO-B and PO-C respectively, lead to adjustment costs for citizens. Both PM6 (rules on simple medical screening) and PM7 (rules on advanced medical screening) include the screening of fitness to drive for each driver renewing its driving licence independent of age, possible or mandatory more frequent screening for elderly drivers and a vision test for applicants. In PO-B, the adjustment costs for citizens are estimated at EUR 24 to 47.8 million in 2030 and EUR 43.8 to 68.3 million in 2050 relative to the baseline, while in PO-C they are estimated at EUR 369.9 to 502.5 million in 2030 and EUR 404.4 to 578.8 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 5 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025‑2050 period, the adjustment costs for citizens are estimated at EUR 663.6 to 1,106.6 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices) in PO-B and EUR 7,472.4 to 9,960.9 million PO-C. The significant difference between PO-B and PO-C comes from the rules related to the administrative validity of driving licences for category A and B for elderly drivers. In PO-C the administrative validity of driving licences for drivers above 65 years old is shortened to 5 years, which results in an increase in the number of medical checks at EU level (i.e. by 2.6 million in 2030 and 3.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline) and thus significant adjustment costs for citizens. On the other hand, in PO-B more frequent medical screening for drivers above 70 years old results in a reduction in the number of medical checks at EU level (i.e. by 3.6 million in 2030 and 3.4 million in 2050 relative to the baseline) and is thus reported in the following section. The reduction in the number of medical checks results from the change of the minimum age from which a more frequent assessment of elderly drivers can be required. The current Directive specifies a minimum age of 50 years while PM6 and PM7 specify respectively an age of 70 and 65 years. The requirement of mandatory frequent tests will have a limited effect considering the number of drivers aged 65 and above, and the fact that a number of Member States currently apply more frequent assessments of elderly drivers at ages higher than 50 years.The impact of these two measures on the number of medical checks depends on the baseline situation in each Member State. The differences between adjustment costs for the screening of fitness to drive when renewing the driving licence independent of age and the vision test also play a role in the difference between PO-B and PO-C. Detailed explanations for PM6 and PM7 at Member State level are provided in Annex 4. 

Adjustment cost savings for citizens. Two measures (PMc5 and PM6) lead to adjustment cost savings for citizens. PMc5 (update of standards on physical and mental fitness to be met for the issuance of driving licences) is common to the three policy options, while PM6 is included in PO-B. In PMc5, less frequent medical checks of drivers suffering from diabetes (every 10 years instead of 5) taking into account the evolution of medical care for this disease, are estimated to lead to a reduction in the number of medical tests by 2.3 million in 2030 and 2.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. The adjustment cost savings for citizens are estimated at EUR 136 million in 2030 and EUR 130.3 million in 2050 relative to the baseline, in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C. The changes in the rules for the consultation of the GP for elderly people (above 70 years old) lead to adjustment cost savings estimated at EUR 131 million in 2030 and EUR 124.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline for PM6 (PO-B), due to the reduction in the number of medical checks (i.e. by 3.6 million in 2030 and 3.4 million in 2050 relative to the baseline). Citizens are expected to benefit from adjustment cost savings due to less frequent medical checks for drivers suffering from diabetes (every 10 years instead of 5) and changes in the rules for the consultation of the general practitioners for elderly people (above 70 years old), estimated at EUR 2,477.5 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices) in PO-A and PO-C and at EUR 4,891.4 million PO-B.

Hassle cost savings for citizens. PMc9 (introduction of the EU mobile driving licence), included in all three policy options, is estimated to lead to a reduction in hassle costs for the renewal of category A and B licences 166 . A World Bank study 167 on the Estonian e-Government system conservatively estimated that each renewal request saved 15 minutes on average compared to the case where the system was not in place. The hassle cost savings for citizens are estimated at EUR 72.7 million in 2030 and EUR 116 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 5 ). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), total hassle cost savings for citizens are estimated at EUR 1,697.2 million in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C.

Overall, PO-A and PO-B would result in net cost savings (i.e. benefits) for citizens estimated at EUR 4,124.4 million in PO-A and at EUR 5,431.8 to 5,874.7 million in PO-B, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon. On the other hand, PO-C would result in net costs for citizens estimated at EUR 3,328.7 to 5,817.2 million expressed as present value relative to the baseline.

6.1.4Impact on SMEs

The initiative is relevant for SMEs, specifically for road transport operators, general practitioners and driving schools.

As explained in section 6.1.2, all policy options are expected to result in a reduction of hassle costs for road transport operators, 99% of them being SMEs (enterprises employing up to 250 people and with a turnover of less than EUR 50 million 168 , 169 , 170 ), due to the implementation of the introduction of the EU mobile driving licence for the C and D categories.

The hassle cost savings are estimated at EUR 32.8 million in 2030 and EUR 38.7 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see section 6.1.2). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), total hassle cost savings for road transport operators are estimated at EUR 587 million in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C. In addition, PO-B and PO-C would result in administrative cost savings for road transport operators due to the removal of the requirement to hold a licence of category C or D to obtain a licence of category CE or DE (PM8). The administrative cost savings for road transport operators in PO-B and PO-C are estimated at EUR 44.8 million in 2030 and EUR 53.8 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see section 6.1.2). Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), the cost savings are estimated at EUR 875.3 million in PO-B and PO-C relative to the baseline. Thus, all policy options would lead to a reduction in costs for road transport operators, although the impacts of PO-B and PO-C would be higher than those of PO-A.

On the other hand, PO-B and PO-C are expected to result in additional costs for general practitioners, linked to the need to follow training on fitness to drive. Indeed, general practitioners are usually working as independent or as part of a health centre that employs less than 250 persons. Therefore, they fall under the EUROSTAT definition of SMEs. The adjustment costs for general practitioners are estimated at EUR 3.1 million in 2030 and EUR 3.4 million in 2050 relative to the baseline in PO-B and PO-C. Expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon (in 2021 prices), total adjustment costs for general practitioners are estimated at EUR 57.7 million in both PO-B and PO-C (see section 6.1.2).

Another group of small and medium-sized businesses to be affected by the initiative will be the driving schools’ sector. Driving schools will continue to have the opportunity to offer training to applicants for a driving licence but with further harmonisation of the different categories of driving licences they are expected to gain additional work opportunities in all policy options (PO-A, PO-B and PO-C). The overall impact of the initiative on driving schools is expected to result from the combination of two direct effects:

-The update of standards and rules will result in costs to update the curricula. However, introducing rules on training has been discarded (see Annex 5). Consequently, the changes will be limited and could be dealt with at a limited cost via the periodic updates performed notably to align with new traffic rules;

-The actions taken to facilitate the access to categories of licence relevant to professional drivers will increase marginally the number of persons passing the tests and therefore the opportunity to supply training services.

In addition, the rule related to automatic gear transmission (PMc2), included in the three policy options, is expected to indirectly have a positive impact on SME. On the one hand, according to views provided by driving schools in the context of the consultation activities, applicants are not willing to train and pass the driving test on a vehicle with an automatic gear transmission because of the need to undergo an additional complete test to be able to drive vehicles with manual gear transmission. On the other hand, as underlined in the section on problems, the offer has already started to decrease for first-hand vehicles with manual gear transmission considering the target of 100% of new cars to be zero emission in 2035, as proposed by the Commission as part of the “Fit for 55” package. PMc2, included in all options, will address this inconsistency between the evolution of the vehicle market and of customer demand. It will allow for a simpler removal of restrictions on driving licences obtained following a driving test on a vehicle with automatic gear transmission with a training or a test focusing strictly on skills and knowledge that are different when driving vehicles with manual or automatic gear transmission. It will have a positive impact on driving schools allowing them to adapt their business and their vehicle fleet, in line with the EU policy on alternative-fuelled vehicles.

6.1.5Digital by default 

All policy options will have a positive impact on the application of the 'digital by default' principle, introduced by the common measure on the EU digital driving licence (PMc9). The driving licence under all options will be issued in digital format by default from 2028. Therefore, the administrative procedures involving driving licences will be conducted digitally and the private sector will also be able to develop on-line solutions when driving rights should be proven. However, it should be noted that it will remain necessary to keep the possibility to issue physical driving licences (for example when the driver is to travel to a third country where the digital driving licence is not recognised). Another measure which will also contribute to the digital principle is the introduction of a possible QR code on the physical licence in the areas currently reserved for a microchip (PMc10), which will provide access to additional information, not displayed on the physical driving licence, and is also common to all three options. This measure will benefit from the infrastructure to be implemented to support the mobile driving licences (PMc 9). It will indeed rely on the same type of API for licence registry as used by the mobile driving licences. In addition, the improvement of RESPER (PMc4) will increase the use of digital means by administrations with indirect benefits for the holders of driving licences. Finally, a special attention will be given to removing potential obstacles to digital training and testing, when it does not negatively affect road safety, notably when updating the standards on skills and knowledge (PMc1), introducing training of general practitioners (PM6 and PM7) and the rules to remove Code 78 related to gear transmission (PMc2).

6.1.6Impact on the functioning of the internal market and on competition

Internal market. All policy options are expected to have a positive impact on the functioning of the internal market, by removing unnecessary barriers for applicants and holders of driving licences and facilitating the free movement of people. All options will specify how the normal residence should be determined during the first six months of establishment in a new country (PMc8). They will also include the mutual recognition of the new equivalence applicable to small buses combined with a trailer (PMc12) and introduce mobile driving licences (PMc9), which will rely on the ISO/IEC 18013-5 standard. This will ensure interoperability of the mobile driving licences issued by each EU Member State and their recognition in the EU and abroad.

The positive impact of PO-B and PO-C is however expected to be higher than that of PO-A, as these two options will introduce measures allowing faster access to licences of category CE or DE (PM8). They also include additional optional equivalences (PM11 and PM13) that will apply only on the territories of Member States implementing them and are not expected to distort the market. PO-C would have further positive impact on the functioning of the internal market by introducing rules for the exchange of driving licences issued by a third country whose licensing system guarantees a level of road safety equivalent to the one in the EU (PM14). In addition, this policy option introduces a mutual recognition of physical and mental assessments (PM10), with a potential positive impact, albeit indirect, on the free movement of people.

The implementing rules related to the concept of normal residence would also avoid specific cases when a person transferring his or her normal residence to another Member State may have to wait several months to have his or her issuing authority identified. While there is no direct impact of these last measures on the functioning of the internal market and on competition, a positive indirect impact can be expected.

Competitiveness. As explained in section 6.1, all policy options are expected to lead to hassle cost savings for road transport operators since the introduction of the EU mobile driving licence (PMc9), included in all three policy options, is estimated to lead to a reduction in hassle costs for the renewal of the category C and D licences. In addition, in PO-B and PO-C, the removal of the requirement to hold a licence of category C or D to obtain a licence of category CE or DE (PM8) is expected to lead to administrative cost savings for professional drivers that benefit road transport operators. Therefore, it can be concluded that all three policy options improve the competitiveness of the road transport operators, the expected impact being higher in PO-B and PO-C than in PO-A.

6.26.2    Social impact

The social impact is assessed in terms of impacts on road safety and impacts on the protection of fundamental rights.

6.2.1Impacts on road safety

With regard to the impacts in terms of lives saved and serious injuries avoided, the estimates take into account the overlapping impacts between measures.

In addition, conservative assumptions have been used for deriving the impacts, as explained in Annex 4 (section 7). The multiple causes of accidents and the limited availability of a complete dataset leads to uncertainty, as already explained in section 2.1.1. Moreover, Member States play an important role in the implementation and enforcement of the rules on driving licences.

Table 6 provides the expected reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries relative to the baseline in 2030 and 2050, while Table 7 shows the cumulative number of lives saved and injuries avoided relative to the baseline over the 2025-2050 horizon.

Table 6: Reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries in the POs relative to the baseline, in 2030 and 2050 171

In PO-A, the updated standards on skills and knowledge (PMc1) are estimated to have a significant positive impact on road safety. On the other hand, the harmonisation of the administrative validity of category A and B licences to 15 years (PMc11) would reduce the frequency of certain medical tests and thus result in limited negative effects. Overall, PO-A results in 3 lives saved in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline, and 28-29 serious injuries avoided (see  Table 6 ). Cumulatively, over the 2025-2050 horizon 48 lives are estimated to be saved (less than 0.1% reduction relative to the baseline) and 466 serious injuries avoided.  

The positive impact on road safety would be higher in PO-B, due to the introduction of rules on training and probation period, with a probation period for novice drivers (PM1), the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications (PM4) and the rules on medical screening and assessment (PM 6). In PO-B, the number of lives saved are estimated at 51 in 2030 and 44 in 2050 relative to the baseline, and the number of serious injuries avoided at 488 in 2030 and 419 in 2050. Cumulatively, over the 2025-2050 horizon 1,153 lives are estimated to be saved (0.3% reduction relative to the baseline) and 11,020 serious injuries avoided in PO‑B relative to the baseline.

PO-C goes one step further with more advanced rules on driving disqualifications (PM5) and medical fitness (PM7), resulting in 79 lives saved in 2030 and 68 lives saved in 2050. In addition, the number of serious injuries avoided is estimated at 755 in 2030 and 649 in 2050 relative to the baseline. Cumulatively, over the 2025-2050 horizon 1,837 lives are estimated to be saved (0.5% reduction relative to the baseline) and 17,562 serious injuries avoided in PO-C relative to the baseline.

The other measures included in the policy options are expected to have a marginal positive or neutral effect on road safety and their impacts are not further quantified. A detailed qualitative assessment is provided in Annex 10.

Thus, all policy options result in a reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries relative to the baseline scenario. PO-C shows the highest reduction relative to the baseline, followed by PO-B and PO-A. The impact in 2025 (the first year of the assumed application of the revised Directive) is assumed to be zero as the behavioural change is only expected in the year following that of a successfully implementation. As the number of road victims in the baseline is decreasing over time (mainly due to the deployment of intelligent speed assistance systems which is expected to lead to fewer speed-related accidents), the impact of the revised Directive in relation to the baseline also decreases over time.

Table 7: Cumulation reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries in the POs relative to the baseline, for 2025-2050 172

Table 8  provides the reduction in the external costs of accidents relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon, in 2021 prices. The 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport 173 has been used to monetise the costs. According to the Handbook, the external cost of a fatality in 2021 prices is estimated at around EUR 3.6 million and that of a serious injury at around EUR 0.5 million.

Table 8: Reduction in the external costs of accidents in the POs relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon, in 2021 prices (million EUR) 174

As a result of the positive impacts on lives saved and injuries avoided presented above, PO-C shows the highest impact in terms of reduction in the external costs of accidents relative to the baseline (expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 horizon), estimated at EUR 11.3 billion. It is followed by PO-B with EUR 7.1 billion and PO-A with EUR 0.3 billion.

6.2.2Impact on fundamental rights

The policy options were assessed to determine if they have an impact on the fundamental rights and equal treatment of EU citizens. The starting point of the assessment of the fundamental rights is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 175 . The assessment identified several potentially relevant fundamental rights: protection of personal data (Article 8), non-discrimination (Article 21) and freedom of movement and residence (Article 45). In addition, the assessment was also made regarding equal treatment, which goes beyond the fundamental right of non‑discrimination and ensures that resident and non-resident offenders are treated in the same way.

All policy options will be aligned with the latest legislation on the protection of personal data (GDPR and Regulation (EU) No 2018/1725) through the improvement of RESPER, the network for the exchange of information on driving licences (PMc4) and through establishing the EU digital driving licence (PMc9). The clear definition of the cases where RESPER can be used will remove the existing legal ambiguities which constitute a risk on the personal data of drivers. The use of the eIDAS features for the EU driving licence, in particular the electronic identity for enrolment and the EU Wallet for the storage and exchange of data will ensure a high level of security and privacy of the information handled. It should be however highlighted that the increased use of digital tools will result in new privacy risks.

The transition to the EU digital driving licence is not expected to exclude certain categories of the population. Indeed, while the digital driving licence will be issued by default, everyone will be able to obtain a physical driving licence by choice.

Although the number of persons having their freedom of movement hindered because of unnecessary or unjustified procedures related to driving licences may be low, the consequence for individuals can be significant, when they cannot obtain or keep their driving rights. In that respect, all policy options are expected to contribute positively to the freedom of movement. The clarification of the concept of normal residence (PMc8) should solve the problem of determining the issuing authority just after the transfer of residence. The simplification of the rules on administrative validity (PMc11) will put the holders of EU driving licences on an equal footing, regardless in which country they apply for an extension of the licence. The mutual recognition of optional equivalences (PMc12) will allow holders of driving licences to enjoy rights granted by an optional equivalence also in other Member States applying the same rules. The mutual recognition of driving disqualifications (PM4) and of rules on penalty points (PM5) will give procedural safeguards to non-resident drivers who commit road safety traffic offences and ensure that their fundamental rights are respected. A positive impact on the freedom of movement is foreseen also in the case of holders of driving licences issued by third countries (in case the licensing system of the third country concerned is similar to the one in the EU in terms of road safety), which will allow for easier access to EU driving licences. This latter could positively affect around 25,680 to 27,100 persons each year 176 .

Besides these impacts on fundamental rights which are common to all three policy options, PO-C is expected to bring a positive impact to drivers from third countries holding an EU licence for at least 5 years and not having committed serious road traffic offenses, as well as EU drivers with licences issued in third countries (but formerly holding an EU one). Code 70, which will be removed in such cases, concerns 7, 235 and 7,552 persons in 2030 and 2050 respectively 177 .

PO-B and PO-C are also expected to have a positive impact on the right of non-discrimination, given they will provide flexibility for the first issuance of driving licences in case of restrictions related to languages (PM9), which will allow applicants to choose where to take the tests; it concerns between 41,816 and 75,951 persons each year 178 .

In conclusion, all policy options contribute to the protection of fundamental rights and to equal treatment of road users. However, given the number of drivers that are concerned by the additional measures on drivers from third countries and those concerned by the language provisions, PO-B and PO-C are expected to bring a higher positive impact.

6.2.3Impact on fraud 

Regarding driving licence tourism, RESPER enables authorities to verify if driving rights exist or have been revoked in another country. In addition, the measure related to normal residence (PMc 8) would contribute to a reduction in the number of cases where a person can justify a normal residence in more than one country and abuse this situation to escape from the consequences of a road-traffic offense.

Regarding fraud and forgery, the fraudsters also benefit from the evolution of technologies and the risk remains present, mainly linked to forged driving licences using old models. The obligation of the current Directive for all driving licences to comply with the new model (plastic card) by 2033 is expected to significantly mitigate the issue. In addition, the improvement of RESPER (PMc 4), in particular in terms of responsiveness, should help the police in the verification of driving rights, notably when suspecting a case of forgery.

However, it should be stressed that the introduction of the EU mobile driving licence (PMc 9) is expected to have the biggest contribution to the fight against fraud and forgery. A wide deployment would indeed result in less time for verification (almost immediate with a digital driving licence) and therefore more time to assess the authenticity of physical driving licences.

6.36.3    Environmental impact 

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact on the environment, albeit a small one. By including new rules on automatic gear transmission and increasing the maximum mass for most of the zero-emission vehicles in category B 179 , they will facilitate the uptake of such vehicles, thus contributing to the objectives of the EU Smart and Sustainable Mobility Strategy 180 and the European Climate Law 181 .

Currently only large vans (including camper vans) over 3,500 kg are technically classed as a heavy goods vehicle (HGV), requiring a higher class of licence (category C or C1 instead of B). However, the same type of alternatively fuelled vehicles have an increased mass compared to their petrol and diesel counterparts. This is due to the additional weight of their powertrain, for example the battery. The amendment of the definitions of vehicle categories for cars and vans regarding maximum mass (PMc3) will allow holders of a category B driving licence to use alternatively fuelled vehicles (vans and campers) of up to 4,25t, without a trailer. It is expected to have a positive impact on the transition from fossil-fuelled vehicles for this category of road users.

In addition, new rules on automatic gear transmission (PMc2) should contribute positively to the transition to zero-emission vehicles. Indeed, the development of alternatively fuelled vehicles (hybrid, electric and hydrogen) will gradually lead to the prevalence of automatic transmission in vehicles. Consultation activities have shown that driving schools have no incentives to include automatic gear box cars for training, while the candidates do not want to undergo an additional full practical exam with a manual gear box to have removed the restriction on automatic gear only. Over time, automatic gear transmission will become the norm in the EU in line with the baseline scenario projections. Learners will do their driving training and tests increasingly in an automatic transmission vehicle while the need for an additional driving test to use manual transmission will decrease. Consequently, the new rule on automatic gear transmission (PMc2) will allow for more training on zero-emission vehicles during the transition from fossil-fuelled vehicles, indirectly contributing to this change.

Finally, a marginal positive impact is expected from the introduction of digital driving licences by default from 2028 (PMc9), which means that drivers will no longer have to carry a physical licence anymore for driving in the EU (or in a third country recognising the EU digital driving licence). It was estimated 182 that approximatively 130 tonnes of plastic (polycarbonate) can be saved annually because of the introduction of the digital licence. Moreover, the possibility to print a QR code in the space reserved on physical driving licences for a microchip (PMc10) is expected to reduce the amount of silicon used to produce the microchip by 0.2 tonnes per year. This development is also in line with the EU’s objective to become more independent in terms of supply chains of raw materials, as stated in the 2022 Strategic Foresight Report. Moreover, the initiative’s objective to increase the uptake of mobile driving licences is also likely to spur the twinning between the digital and green transitions 183 .

The impact on the environment of the other policy measures is not expected to be significant and has not been quantified. Following the analysis above, no significant harm is expected on the environment by any of the policy options.

77    How do the options compare?

7.17.1    Effectiveness

The assessment of effectiveness looks at the extent to which the general and specific objectives (SO) of the intervention are met. Table 9  provides the link between policy objectives and assessment criteria.

Table 9: Link between objectives and assessment criteria

All options contribute to the general objectives by facilitating the free movement of all EU residents and by reducing the number of road traffic accidents, notably those involving novice drivers. PO-B is expected to result in a higher decrease of the number of accidents than PO-A for all drivers, and especially for novice drivers. All policy options will remove more obstacles to free movement, for applicants and for holders of driving licences. PO-C is more effective than PO-B and PO-A, because it is expected to bring an additional decrease of the number of road accidents and to facilitate the free movement also for former holders of licences issued in third countries having their residence in the EU.

Concerning SO1, all options are expected to reduce road fatalities, notably those of novice drivers, with the update of the standards on skills and knowledge to be met at the driving test. PO-B and PO-C are expected to perform better than PO-A with the expected reduction of road accidents for novice drivers due to the introduction of a probation period and related stricter rules in this period. In addition, both PO-B and PO-C will introduce a recommendation on lifelong training for all drivers. They are also expected to address impunity for dangerous behaviour on the road while driving in another Member State by introducing the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. PO-C is however expected to be the most effective, albeit only marginally, as an additional reduction of road accidents is expected due to rules on the recognition of penalty points for drivers committing offenses abroad.

Concerning SO2, the effects of PO-A are expected to be marginal and they can mainly be attributed to the adaptation to medical progress while monitoring certain diseases (e.g. diabetes). PO-B is expected to contribute to improving road safety more, due to the mandatory screening of medical fitness at renewal, based on self-assessment, and more frequent medical screening for drivers aged 70 years or more. PO‑C is expected to be the most effective due to a more advanced medical screening and frequent verifications extended to drivers older than 65, which will be mandatory every 5 years.

Concerning SO3, all options are expected to remove unnecessary barriers for applicants and holders of driving licences. The main contribution to SO3 will come from the introduction of the mobile driving licence. All policy options will also resolve problems regarding normal residence faced by certain persons changing their residence to another Member State. PO-B and PO-C are expected to perform better than PO-A at removing the unnecessary barriers, facilitating the access to driving licences for professional drivers and for applicants which are not fluent in the language of their country of residence. They will also remove obstacles affecting holders of driving licences issued in certain third countries who will be able to obtain an EU driving licence when establishing in the EU. PO-C is expected to be marginally the most effective in addressing SO3, since it will in addition remove or reduce administrative barriers affecting persons which are not covered by the other options, notably former holders of licences issued in third countries who already established their residence in the EU and agricultural workers engaged in cross-border activities.

7.27.2    Efficiency

Efficiency concerns "the extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given level of resource/at least cost". In all policy measures, the benefits outweigh by far the increase in costs, relative to the baseline. The costs and benefits are summarised in Table 10 .

Table 10: Summary of costs and benefits of policy options – net present value for 2025-2050 compared to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2021 prices 184

The major cost element of the policy options, except for PO-A, consists of adjustment costs for citizens related to the rules on medical screening (PO-B and PO-C). Other significant groups of costs, included in all policy options, are adjustment costs for Member States administrations for setting up the technical solutions to support the mutual recognition of the mobile driving licences and administrative costs for citizens related to the updating of standards on skills and knowledge to be met for the first issuance of a driving licence.

PO-A, including only measures common to all options, shows the lowest total costs estimated at EUR 116.3 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. PO-B shows significantly higher costs, estimated at EUR 864.1 to 1,307.5 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. The main difference in terms of costs between PO-A and PO-B is due to the rules on simple medical screening and the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications in PO-B. PO-C shows the highest total costs estimated at EUR 7,721.8 to 10,210.8 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. Again, the difference in costs between PO-B and PO-C is driven mainly by the rules on medical screening, which become more stringent at renewal and the medical screening becomes more frequent after a driver reaches the age of 65, and to lower extent by the rules on consequences of penalty points for non-residents.

All policy options show significant total benefits, linked to the reduction in the external costs of accidents driven by the lives saved and injuries avoided, but also due to the mutual recognition of the mobile driving licences that leads to administrative cost savings and enforcement cost savings for Member States administrations and hassle cost savings for citizens and the private sector. PO-A shows the lowest total benefits estimated at EUR 9,869.7 million relative to the baseline (expressed as present value over 2025‑2050, in 2021 prices). PO-B shows significantly higher benefits, estimated at EUR 19,965.7 million, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. The main differences between PO-A and PO-B in terms of cost savings are related to the medical screening for drivers, which will reduce the number of medical checks of elderly people, the removal of the staging requirement to obtain a licence of category CE or DE for professional drivers, but also due to the considerable reduction in the external costs of accidents. PO-C shows higher benefits than PO-B, estimated at EUR 21,785.1 million (expressed as present value over 2025-2050, in 2021 prices) relative to the baseline, mainly due to the higher reduction in the external costs of accidents brought about by the lives saved and injuries avoided.

Overall, all policy options result in net benefits relative to the baseline. The net benefits are estimated at EUR 9,753.4 million in PO-A relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050, at EUR 18,658.2 to 19,101.6.1 million in PO-B and EUR 11,574.3 to 14,063.3 million in PO-C. The net benefits are highest in PO-B, followed by PO-C and PO-A. PO-C shows the lowest benefit to cost ratio (2.1 to 2.8), followed by PO-B (15.3 to 23.1) and PO-A (84.9).

7.37.3    Coherence

Internal coherence assesses how various elements of the revised Directive function together to achieve the objectives. Although all three POs address the identified problems, they do so in different ways, and with a different level of intervention. PO-A addresses the problems and objectives with a mix of policy options that are common also to the other two options. PO-B and PO-C require further harmonisation and thus ensure a higher degree of internal coherence than PO-A. Since the revision also deals with matters related to the enforcement of sanctions (i.e. mutual recognition of driving disqualifications in PO-B and PO-C), particular care is taken not to exceed what is essential to achieve one of the main objectives of the initiative, which is to improve road safety. The legal examination referred to in part 3.1, identified Article 91(1) TFEU to be the correct legal basis for the adoption of such measures. Nevertheless, as the mutual recognition of decisions/judgments are principally covered by Title V of Part Three of the TFEU (judicial and police cooperation), these measures will need to be drawn up carefully to avoid elements that should be regulated under one of the legal bases provided therein. This is relevant for both options PO-B and PO-C.

External coherence concentrates on the compliance of the initiative with national policies, other EU instruments and relevant EU policies, as well as international obligations. All identified policy options show strong links to several EU instruments. The vehicle categories for mopeds, motorcycles, tri- and quadri-motorcycles are defined on the basis of the type approval regulation for these vehicles 185 . The exchange of information related to driving licences, including for the EU mobile driving licence, have to be aligned with relevant rules on data protection. The introduction of the EU mobile driving licence relies on the eIDAS initiative whose legislative proposal 186 is still discussed by the co-legislators and certain technical features are not yet consolidated in detail. Specific attention will be required to ensure the coherence between the initiatives on eIDAS and on driving licences, notably regarding the compatibility of the ISO/IEC 18013-5 standard and the relevant judicial and police rules for road traffic.

The compliance with the UNECE conventions on road traffic (Geneva 1949, Vienna 1968) will remain in place in all policy options. Specific measures such as sub-categories (e.g. A2) or equivalences will continue to be relevant only on the territory of the EU/EEA Member States. The EU mobile driving licence introduced by all policy options will be subject to this limitation and that is the reason why it will still be possible to carry a physical driving licence. In addition, measures in relation to road traffic offenses (PMc 4 in all policy options, PM 4 in PO-B and PM 5 in PO-C) will ensure coherence with national laws relevant to that matter. The mutual recognition of driving disqualifications of foreign drivers, introduced in PO-B and PO-C, is designed in a way not to interfere with national legislations, especially as regards the definition and classification of what constitutes an offence (irrespectively of their criminal or administrative nature), and the national rules of procedure (including enforcement) that govern criminal and administrative offenses.

7.47.4    Subsidiarity and proportionality

The intervention at EU level is needed to facilitate free movement through harmonised rules on driving licences, as Member States on their own cannot ensure the seamless recognition of the right to drive provided by a driving licence issued by another Member State. Regarding road safety, the majority of Member States cannot contribute to the EU targets on road safety on their own, as the quality of the training and of the licensing systems of other Member States influences their policy intervention (e.g. cases of numerous tourists on the roads of France or Spain during the months of July and August). Member States could conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements, but cooperation would remain fragmented as these agreements would not be harmonised and applicable elsewhere in the EU. A transparent, efficient, and coordinated approach with equal treatment of road users on EU roads is therefore needed. As all policy options ensure a harmonisation of the legal framework, the requirement of subsidiarity is fulfilled.

Possible issues related to subsidiarity are mainly related to the measures on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications (PM4 for policy option PO-B and PM5 for PO-C), with a higher likelihood of possible subsidiarity issues for PM5 given the larger scope of this measure (i.e. the related offences include recidivism in addition to speeding and drink driving for PM4).

The definition and effects of offenses are established by national road traffic rules, including recidivism (penalty points). The initiative does not aim at regulating these aspects at EU level. It will only provide a legal instrument to enable the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications resulting from speeding, drink driving (PM4, PM5) and penalty points (PM5).

It is worth noting however, that since the decision to issue or withdraw a driving licence forms part of a Member State’s sovereignty, it is not possible to unilaterally adopt rules on the mutual recognition of driving disqualification measures issued by other Member States. The recognition of driving disqualifications requires an agreement between the Member State that issued the decision and the Member State that executes it, which cannot be achieved only through national rules. In the absence of such an agreement, Member States can act only with an effect limited to their territory, in case they wish to restrict the validity of such documents. The Union-wide effects of a driving disqualification will therefore always be dependent on the actions of the Member State that issued the driving licence, but which without an EU intervention usually does not have the necessary information, legal instruments, or incentive to act.

Following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s interpretation of the Directive, even in cases where the disqualification was enacted by the Member State that issued the driving licence, if the offender changes the normal residence and he/she is issued a new driving licence, every Member State must accept it. This includes the place of their previous normal residence that decided on the disqualification. As this case law is underpinned by the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences, it can only be sufficiently addressed by EU legislation.

From a legal point of view, the only viable alternative of EU action would be bi- or multilateral treaties. However, experience shows that this alternative is only theoretical. There is only one such bilateral agreement in place (between Ireland and the United Kingdom). Several Conventions in the past (1964, 1976) tried to address the issue of driving disqualification in the framework of the Council of Europe. However, they were not ratified by enough Member States to be effective.

Furthermore, the legal examination concluded that it is not possible to use in the same legislative instrument a dual legal basis, i.e. common transport policy legal basis together with the legal basis contained within Title V of Part Three of the TFEU (judicial and police cooperation) due to the Treaty-based procedural specificities and legal effects of acts based on Article 82 TFEU. Consequently, two separate legal acts on the two respective legal bases would be required in case the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications was to be ensured for administrative and criminal offenses alike.

Finally, driving disqualifications can be covered under the transport legal basis in so far as the offence in question qualified as administrative by nature and would be disqualifying in both Member States, the one where it is committed and the one of issuance/residence (principle of ‘dual disqualification’). This should apply to penalty points as well. Therefore, as regards penalty points the measure is designed in a way that it is not affected by the difference between road traffic rules across Member States. The principle is to extend the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications resulting from offenses of drink driving or speeding (PM4) to driving disqualifications resulting from an excessive number of penalty points, in cases where such a sanction is already provided for by both Member States based on the penalty points issued for the conduct.

Points of attention, in particular not to interfere with the national constitutional and JHA 187 frameworks, have been identified and should be fully taken into account when offences fall under criminal law. However, it should be underlined that during the consultation activities, one Member State (Germany) expressed the view that such a measure would exceed the EU competence on police and judicial cooperation and may not be compatible with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. 

In addition, questions of subsidiarity regarding other measures such as the assessment of medical fitness to drive (PM6 for policy option PO-B, PM7 for PO-C), rules on administrative validity (PMc 11 for all policy options) and requirements related to theminimum age for different licence categories (PM 1 for policy options PO-B and PO-C) are not expected because these aspects are already covered to a certain extent by Articles 4 and 7 of the current Directive:

·Regarding medical fitness, the relevant measures (PM 6 for PO-B and PM 7 for PO-C) will slightly expand the scope of the Directive with the introduction of a mandatory screening for category A and B licences. However, it should be noted that similar requirements already exist in the Directive, notably for categories C (trucks) and D (buses) where medical assessment is required at renewal and replacement of the licences.

It should also be added that the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences is anchored on the principle that drivers from different Members States have an equivalent level of aptitude to drive both in terms knowledge, training but also of physical health. Allowing physically unfit drivers to exchange their driving licenses in Members States with a more refined health screening system could put at stake the trust of the whole EU system of exchange of driving licences. It could also affect road safety, because it would allow drivers with different levels of fitness to drive on EU roads.

Finally, it can also be reported that no issue has been raised on the basis of Article 168 TFEU 188 regarding the feasibility of such measures. Indeed, measures which aim to harmonize the medical fitness assessment of drivers can be considered an important element of the mutual recognition of driving licenses and, while medical in nature, they are not related to measures of public safety as defined in Article 168 TFEU.

·Regarding the administrative validity, it should also be noted that the planned new duration of validity (15 years) is already in place in 12 Member States (AT, CY, CZ, DE, DK, FI, FR, EL, LU, PL, PT, SK) and no opposition has been expressed during the consultation activities when considering this specific measure (PMc 11). Allowing to issue driving licences for temporary foreign workers for the duration of their residence permit should be considered as an optional and temporary derogation, which Member States decide upon.

·Regarding minimum age, it should first be noted that the measure on reducing minimum age(s) required for obtaining a driving licence was discarded. The only measure retained with an impact on age is PM1, which sets rules on accompanied driving for drivers between 17 and 18 years old, and it applies after they pass the driving test for driving licences B and C. Subsidiarity is therefore respected because if Member States were allowed to create divergent national regimes this would constitute a discrimination between those young people that would have the possibility to drive before reaching majority, and those who would not. This argument is particularly relevant for category C driving licences, because this would mean that candidate drivers from Members States that would not accept accompanied driving before 18 years, would only start their professional training one year later than candidates from Member States with those systems in place. In addition, this could also change the level playing field between Member States in tackling driver shortage, because those Member States having a system of accompanied driving will have prepared professional drivers sooner than those who do not. Finally, besides improving the quality of training, the goal of accompanied driving is the reduction of fatalities in which young drivers are involved.

In relation to proportionality, the proposed revision aims to improve road safety and to facilitate the free movement of persons. PO-A contributes to this objective by updating the existing provisions of the Directive, taking into account technological, scientific and societal evolutions. The measures proposed under PO-A are therefore considered to be proportionate in view of the objectives of the revision.

PO-B in addition reinforces the EU intervention to ensure that drivers on EU roads are fit to drive and resolves some specific issues of free movement. The measures proposed under PO-B are proportionate in view of the objectives of the revision.

PO-C builds on PO-B but reinforces it, with the intervention regarding the measures that affect third country drivers, dangerous behaviour and persons physically or mentally unfit to drive. The stakeholders’ views are divided, and while some Member States consider that the rules on fitness to drive and on driving licences issued by third countries are sufficient, others believe that there is a need for further action.

Regarding medical fitness, PO-A takes into account the evolution of health care and technologies (PMc 5), to clarify the use of technologies to offset medical unfitness to drive (PMc 6) and to facilitate the exchange of information on this specific topic between authorities (PMc 7). It does not change the general approach to medical fitness to drive established by the Directive. The policy options PO-B and PO-C however modify the way in which the medical fitness to drive of drivers and applicants is verified. Both PM 6 and PM 7 introduce a system of screening, considering the best practices notably implemented in Sweden and shifting the age-focused approach of the current Directive to a system allowing a progressive identification of a driver’s or applicant’s fitness to drive. PM 7 includes a more strict screening resulting in higher adjustment costs for drivers and applicants but also in a higher rate of detection of cases of unfitness to drive. Finally, PM 10 simply provides for additional freedom of movement with the mutual recognition of medical fitness assessments, considering that the systems implemented in all Member States will be sufficiently aligned for such a recognition.

Considering the foresight megatrend “Accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity”, the need to hold a driving licence is expected to become obsolete when full automation will be in place because the driver’s role will become extremely limited or marginal. However, introducing consolidated rules on driving rights also for highly automated vehicles would result in a risk to have them changed in the foreseeable future, either because of the lessons learnt in the field or to become interoperable several times with international partners. Such an approach would not be proportionate in the absence of a common and mature approach on automated vehicles at international level and it would create legal uncertainty for the market. Each policy option includes the update of standards on skills and knowledge applicable to drivers (PMc1) which provide sufficient flexibility to adapt the rules to automated vehicles for the cases where the driver may be requested or may decide to take back the control (levels 3 and 4 of automation).

88    Preferred option

8.18.1    Identification of the preferred policy option and stakeholder views 

Regarding effectiveness, the impact assessment concludes that all options will contribute to the general objectives of the initiative by 1) facilitating the free movement of all EU residents and by 2) reducing the number of road traffic accidents, notably those involving novice drivers.

When addressing specific objective 1 (Improve driving skills, knowledge and experience and reduce and punish dangerous behaviour), all options are expected to reduce road fatalities. However, PO-B and PO-C are expected to be more effective than PO-A, due to the expected reduction of road accidents for novice drivers (the introduction of a probation period and stricter rules for novice drivers).

In the OPC, 5,787 out of 7,532 respondents stated that improving the provisions of the Directive on the standards on drivers’ skills and knowledge is extremely/very important to meet EU road safety targets and to remove the obstacles to free movement. This was reinforced during the workshops, where it was highlighted that sustainable mobility and multimodality should be promoted during training programmes (Italy, ECF). Also, a majority of respondents (53%, 5,073 out of 7,532) stated that EU rules on driving skills affecting the emission and energy consumption of vehicles is relevant for the EU objective of climate neutrality by 2050.

Both PO-B and PO-C are expected to address dangerous behaviour on the road while driving abroad in the EU, by introducing the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. In terms of this specific objective, PO-C is expected to be the most effective, but only marginally, which is due to the fact that it is the only option that introduces rules on penalty points for drivers committing offenses abroad.

A large majority of respondents to the OPC (68%, 5,146 out of 7,532) stated that it is very/important that the scope of the Directive is expanded to include rules on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. Most stakeholders 189 supported the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications during the workshop and the targeted interviews. However, NL raised some legal concerns, while DE was the only stakeholder to firmly disagree with the mutual recognition.

Overall, many stakeholders were supportive of the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, especially when it comes to offenses related to speeding and drink/drunk driving. This was confirmed in the OPC, where about 6,106 (81%) and 4,966 (66%) out of 7,532 respondents, considered the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications resulting from driving under the influence of alcohol or of drugs and from speeding as very/important for the revision of the Directive respectively. Specificially, when asked which offences should be mutually recognised in the EU, 87% of respondents to the OPC (6,586 out of 7,532) chose driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs and 46% (3,470 out of 7,532) selected speeding. In the targeted interviews, the ETSC, as well as ACEM and the DKU expressed support for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications resulting from speeding, drink/drunk driving. SE, SI and BE were also supportive, despite acknowledging the difficulties in finding an agreement with other Member States and with the actual implementation.

Concerning specific objective 2 (Ensure adequate physical and mental fitness of drivers across the EU), the effects of PO-A are expected to be only marginally positive. Both PO-B and PO-C are expected to improve road safety more than PO-A due to the screening of medical fitness. PO-B contains the mandatory screening of medical fitness at renewal, based on a self-assessment, and more frequent medical screening for drivers aged 70 years or more. PO-C is more ambitious – and it includes a more advanced medical screening requirement and frequent verifications extended to drivers above the age of 65, which will be mandatory every 5 years. Again, PO-C is most effective when achieving this objective.

The survey showed that 70% of the non-governmental organisations’ respondents (16 out of 23) considered that requiring medical fitness to be screened at driving licence renewal for categories A and B would have a positive impact on road safety. Non-governmental organisations were divided on the impact of this measure on the free movement of drivers: while 35% of the respondents (8 out of 23) believe it will have no impact on the free movement of drivers, 21% (5 out of 23) believe it would increase free movement and 9% (2 out of 23) believe it would decrease free movement.

On the introduction of guidelines/recommendations for a standardised medical screening process for B licences, several stakeholders would support it 190 . DE, on the other hand, would oppose it. In the survey, a majority of respondents from national authorities (13/21) expected a positive impact on road safety from the provision of guidelines/recommendations for a standardised medical screening process for B licences. In the survey, 78% of the non-governmental organisation respondents (18/23) considered that providing guidelines/recommendations for a standardised medical screening process for B licences would have a positive impact on road safety (small positive impact: 10/23; large positive impact: 8/23). The establishment of a platform for the sharing of best practices on medical check procedures adopted in EU Member States was supported by most interviewed stakeholders 191 . In the survey among national authorities, the measure was expected to have positive impacts on road safety by a majority of respondents (13/21). In the survey among non-governmental organisations, 70% of respondents (16/23) found that establishing a platform for efficient sharing of best practices on medical checks procedures would have a positive impact on road safety.

All options are also designed to remove unnecessary barriers for applicants and holders of driving licences (specific objective 3). The main impact here will be brought by the introduction of the mobile driving licence. PO-B and PO-C are expected to perform better to achieve this objective than PO-A. PO-C is expected to be marginally the most effective in addressing this objective, since it will in addition remove or reduce administrative barriers affecting persons which are not covered by the other options, such as former holders of licences issued in third countries who already established their residence in the EU.

Most interviewed Member States 192 , as well as other stakeholders (ETSC, ACEM, and DKU) strongly supported the establishment of the mutual recognition of mobile driving licences. Interviewed Member States also called for the interoperability of mobile driving licences, based on ISO standards.

Regarding the costs, the major cost element of the policy options are the adjustment costs for citizens related to the rules on medical screening, which are incurred only in PO-B and PO-C. PO-A shows lower costs than PO-B as it does not cover the rules on simple medical screening and the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, as it is the case for PO-B. PO-C shows the highest total costs. Again, the difference in costs between PO-B and PO-C is driven by the rules on medical screening.

Regarding efficiency, all policy options result in significant net benefits relative to the baseline, with the net benefit being the highest in PO-B, followed by PO-C and PO-A. PO-C shows the lowest benefit to cost ratio, followed by PO-B and PO-A. The benefit to cost ratio is estimated at 84.9 for PO-A, 15.3 to 23.1 for PO-B and 2.1 to 2.8 for PO-C. In terms of efficiency, therefore PO-A gives the best results. This is mainly due to the absence of costs related to the medical screening in PO-A relative to PO-B and PO-C. Also, the difference in costs between PO-B and PO-C is driven by the rules on medical screening, with PO-C showing the highest costs.

On the basis of the assessment of effectiveness of the three options in relation to the specific objectives of the initiative, PO-A is the least performing option and PO-B and PO-C perform similarly, with a marginal advantage for PO-C in the overall assessment of the effectiveness due to the more demanding medical screening requirement and due to reducing administrative barriers for former holders of licences issued in third countries having their residence in the EU. As to efficiency, the best performing option is PO-A followed by PO-B, with PO-C lagging far behind. PO-A performs most efficiently as it does not provide any requirement regarding medical screening, but this also means that it is expected to be less ambitious regarding the general objective of increasing road safety.

Concerning internal coherence, PO-A remains coherent with relevant EU legislation while both PO-B and PO-C were assessed in view of possible issues regarding the legal base and the delineation with national legislation on recognising and enforcing decisions related to road traffic offences, which will both have to be considered carefully. In addition, all policy options bear the same risk that the eIDAS rules do not allow for interoperability of mobile driving licences issued in the EU with the ISO/IEC 18013-5 standard. Concerning external coherence, PO-A remains coherent with national and other international legislations. PO-B and especially PO-C might lead to issues of external coherence, in particular by interfering too much with criminal law, in particular national legislation on recognising and enforcing decisions related to road traffic offences. In terms of subsidiarity, all options fulfil this principle, and they would all bring about the harmonisation of the legal framework, albeit at different levels of ambition. With respect to the proportionality, PO-A and PO-B will both achieve the objectives in a coherent and effective way, while leaving the necessary scope for national decision. PO-C may however result in issues of proportionality, due to the high level of policy intervention regarding the fight against dangerous behaviour of drivers (PO5) and unfitness to drive (PO7) resulting in significant changes to the existing approaches in Member States.

Overall, considering the assessment of effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the three options, and given that all three options are proportionate and comply with subsidiarity, the analysis points at PO-B as the preferred policy option, since it brings the best balance between the objectives which must be achieved (increasing road safety and facilitating the free movement of persons) and costs and benefits incurred.

Stakeholders widely supported the measures common to all policy options, such as on the update of standards on skills and knowledge and those on medical fitness, the harmonisation of the administrative validity of category A and B licences, and the introduction of a mobile driving licence, with some different views expressed on the technical and administrative solutions.

In addition to these measures, measures on training and probation periods in PO-B have been widely supported by administrations and stakeholders although with some potential concerns expressed by certain Member States 193 . 

In the OPC, about 66% of respondents agreed that it is very/important to extend the scope of the Directive by introducing rules on training and probation periods (including accompanied driving). The lack of harmonisation in this area was further emphasised in the workshops (CERT, ETSC). Most interviewed stakeholders (FI, FIA, ETSC, ACEM, and DKU) agreed that rules on training need to be extended to cater for e.g., different weather and traffic conditions. In the OPC, 57% of respondents (4,998 out of 7,532) considered important introducing a minimum number of kilometres or hours of training required to pass a driving test in the revision of the Directive. According to a majority of survey respondents from national authorities (17 out of 22), providing further rules on training would have a generally positive impact on road safety.

Also, EU level recommendations on the content of drivers’ training programmes would be welcomed by most interviewed stakeholders (DE, FIA, ETSC, ACEM and SE). The introduction of recommendations on the content of drivers’ training programme was considered to have a positive impact on road safety by a majority of survey respondents from national authorities (15/22).

The introduction of common minimum standards of a mandatory probation period was supported by a majority of respondents to the OPC (57%, 4,297 out of 7,532). In the targeted survey, the impact of establishing a probation period was assessed as generally positive for road safety by a majority of respondents from national authorities (15/24).

Regarding the increase of maximum mass for electric vehicles, the measure has been generally welcomed, albeit some stakeholders would prefer to have it in place for all vehicles (for example users of camper vans have expressed the need for an increase of maximum mass but without restrictions related to the type of propulsion). A road safety organisation 194  opposed the measure considering the likely degradation of road safety while four Member States 195  asked to apply the extending measure to all vehicles. Finally, most Member States acknowledged the issue related to licences issued by third countries, but they were of diverging views regarding the proportionality of such a measure.