EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012SC0082
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market
/* SWD/2012/0082 - COD 2012/0082 */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market /* SWD/2012/0082 - COD 2012/0082 */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying the transfer of motor
vehicles registered in another Member State within the Single Market 1. Problem
definition - Objectives Motor vehicle registration problems are a
typical example of the bottlenecks referred to in the Europe2020 Strategy for
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth[1]. These problems were
identified in the first EU Citizenship Report[2] as one of the
main obstacles faced by citizens when exercising their rights under EU law in
their daily lives. Moreover, they were also highlighted as one of the 20 main
concerns with the Single Market as it stands now, in a list compiled by the
Commission[3]. The impact assessment identifies two major
problems regarding the registration of motor vehicles registered in another
Member State: (1)
When a motor vehicle is registered in one Member
State and frequently used in another, the question of which Member State the
motor vehicle should be registered in arises. Citizens who move to another
Member State, cross-border workers, car-rental companies and people leasing a
motor vehicle in another Member State are often obliged to register it on the
territory where they live or where the vehicle is used, although it is already
registered in another Member State. Traders of
second-hand motor vehicles, which are usually SMEs, are confronted with the
same problem when they purchase a motor vehicle in another Member State. Leasing companies also face registration
problems, at least if they are the holder of the registration certificate and
the motor vehicle is used by a person established in another Member State. Finally,
car-rental firms that wish to move a part of their fleet to another Member
State for a short period to meet seasonal demands, are usually obliged to
register the motor vehicles concerned in that Member State. (2)
If a motor vehicle needs to be re-registered in
another Member State, the administrative formalities to obtain the registration
in the receiving Member State are often burdensome and cause delays. The
additional burden is principally caused by the fact that the registration
authorities of the receiving Member State have little or no information about
the motor vehicle, except the information found on the registration
certificate. If the vehicle were to be re-registered in the same Member State,
registration authorities could rely on the information in their national databases.
Currently, the re-registration of a motor vehicle registered in another Member
State involves a number of administrative steps and, more importantly, various
new controls and checks, such as the submission of a certificate of conformity
and national roadworthiness tests. The general objective of this initiative is to
improve the functioning of the single market through the elimination of
administrative barriers related to the re-registration procedure of motor
vehicles, which currently hinder the free movement of goods. The specific objectives of this initiative are: ·
To harmonise, streamline, and simplify the
procedures for re-registration of motor vehicles previously registered in
another Member State, for citizens, employees, employers, car-rental and
leasing companies, and registration authorities; ·
To consequently reduce the administrative
burdens of all actors involved without hindering road safety or the prevention
of crimes and fraud. The operational objectives of this initiative
are the following: –
To determine in which Member State a motor
vehicle transferred across borders within the EU should be registered; –
To reduce the time of re-registration
procedures; –
To reduce the administrative burden on citizens
and undertakings by limiting the number of documents necessary to carry out the
re-registration procedure and by facilitating data exchange between national
registration authorities. 2. Subsidiarity The cross-border aspects of motor vehicle registration
continue causing problems within the internal market. For example, there were
17 judgements and orders of the Court of Justice on the obstacles, caused by motor
vehicle registration related matters, to the free movement of goods, services
and persons. Current problems and differences in administrative
rules at national level as regards the re-registration of motor vehicles
previously registered in another Member State impede the free movement of these
vehicles within the EU. The EU has therefore the right to act on the basis of
Article 114 TFEU, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the single
market for second-hand motor vehicles purchased in another Member State, for
citizens transferring a motor vehicle to another Member State of residence, for
citizens using a motor vehicle registered in the Member State of employment, as
well as for car-rental firms (and to a lesser extent leasing firms) which, due
to registration requirements for themselves or their client, encounter barriers
for the cross-border use of these vehicles. In order to
comply with the subsidiarity principle, the initiative should however not
consider options concerning the re-registrations within the same Member State,
or the transfer of a motor vehicle within the same Member State. During the public consultation, a signification
majority in each category of stakeholders considered that action should be
taken at EU level to improve the current situation. All public authorities that
contributed to the consultation are in favour of action being taken at EU
level. 3. Policy
options The policy options were developed on the basis
of the following assumptions: ·
The first registration of a new motor vehicle in
the EU usually takes place in the Member State of residence/establishment of
the applicant (i.e. the future holder of the registration certificate) although
new motor vehicles are sometimes registered by a motor vehicle dealer in one
Member State and subsequently purchased by a customer residing in another
Member State. ·
Member States remain free to exercise their
power of taxation with respect to motor vehicles on the basis of the territory
on which the vehicle is actually used, or the residence of the driver, in
accordance with EU law. For example, circulation taxes are levied by the Member
State in which the motor vehicle is registered or the Member State where the
vehicle is essentially used. ·
None of the options concerns re-registrations
within the same Member State, or the transfer of a motor vehicle within the
same Member State. The policy options to be assessed against the
baseline option (i.e. pursuing infringement proceedings and publishing
interpretative communications) would be the following: 3.1. Option
1: Single registration for the entire life-cycle of the motor vehicle (“Single
Registration”) Under this option, the motor vehicle is
registered once in the EU for its entire life-cycle. Motor vehicles keep
their original registration until they reach the end-of-life status. When the
vehicle is transferred to a new holder, the original registration is
maintained. This option would have vast negative impacts on
road safety (roadworthiness tests), traffic enforcement and motor vehicle
crime, motor vehicle insurance, the second-hand market and the levying of
registration and circulation taxes. It would have positive impacts on the other
target groups. Option 1 would remove the administrative costs
for businesses and citizens as well as for public authorities that exist in the
baseline scenario. This would deliver savings of EUR 1,500 million annually.
The profit loss would also be eliminated, because the vehicle could now be used
without interruption. This would allow savings of around EUR 336 million
annually. The specific costs for car-rental companies would also disappear with
this policy option (EUR 636 million) as they would be able to transfer motor
vehicles across borders without constraints. 3.2. Option
2: the holder keeps his/her registration throughout the EU but a transfer of
the vehicle to a new holder requires a new registration Under this option, every holder (i.e. the
holder of the registration certificate) keeps his/her own registration until
the vehicle is transferred to another holder. In other words, motor vehicles
should not be re-registered when the holder changes his/her residence to
another Member State. In that case, however, he/she should inform the
authorities of their new Member State which in turn should inform their
counterparts in the Member State of registration. A transfer of the vehicle to
another holder, however, would require re-registration. This option was
subdivided in sub-option 2a (no formalities), sub-option 2b (citizens moving to
another Member State could keep their original vehicle registration but would
have to inform the registration authorities of the Member State of former
residence about their new residence) and sub-option 2c (citizens moving to
another Member State could keep their original vehicle registration but would
have to inform the registration authorities of their new Member State about
their new residence). This option would have negative impacts on road
safety (roadworthiness tests) and traffic enforcement, motor vehicle insurance
and motor vehicle taxation. However, this option would have positive impacts on citizens moving to another Member State, cross-border
workers, leasing companies, car-rental companies and registration authorities. It
would have a neutral impact on the market of second-hand motor vehicles and on
vehicle crime. The estimated savings vary between EUR 2,472
million (sub-option 2a), EUR 2,385 million (sub-option 2b) and EUR 2,343
million (sub-option 2c) annually. 3.3. Option 3: registration in
the Member State of the holder of the vehicle and
simplified re-registration When the holder moves his/her residence to
another Member State or when the vehicle is transferred to another holder in
another Member State, the motor vehicle would have to be re-registered but a
simplified registration procedure would apply. This simplified procedure would limit the paperwork and the number of controls, through a detailed
list of documents which may or may not be requested, and an explicit
prohibition to request supplementary documents. No negative impacts could be identified for
this option. It would have a neutral impact on motor vehicle taxation, traffic
enforcement, road safety and motor vehicle insurance while it would have a
positive impact on the other affected groups. The administrative costs would be reduced
because this option would eliminate the need for de-registration and would
reduce the time and costs needed for re-registration. In the short term public
authorities would still have to carry out the de-registration procedures. This option would allow savings estimated
at EUR 1,171 million annually. 3.4. Option 4: registration in
the Member State where the motor vehicle is primarily used and simplified
re-registration According to this option, the motor vehicle
should be registered in the Member State of primary use, even when the holder
of the registration certificate resides permanently or is established in
another Member State. The registration procedure,
however, would be simplified as under option 3. This option would have positive impacts on
car-rental companies and traffic enforcement. The main difficulty of this
option is its vagueness and the difficulties that it may cause in practice,
especially for persons or businesses that would use vehicles in different
Member States. The concepts of ‘essential use on a permanent basis’ or ‘actual
use on a permanent basis’ would need further clarification and a very precise
definition. Therefore, it would have negative impacts on citizens, cross-border
workers, employers, leasing companies and motor vehicle taxation. This option
would have neutral impacts on registration authorities, vehicle crime and motor
vehicle insurance. This option would allow savings estimated
at EUR 1,171 million annually. 3.5. Option 5: optimising the
electronic exchange of information among national registration authorities This option envisages
that the technical information about the motor vehicle and the latest
registration details in the Member State of origin would be electronically
gathered by the registration authorities in the Member State of destination,
through the existing ‘EUCARIS’- system. Option 5 would have positive
impacts on citizens bringing their vehicle into the country of residence,
registration authorities, vehicle crime and the market of second-hand motor vehicles. Negative impacts could not be
identified. Finally, this option would have neutral impacts on cross-border
workers, leasing companies and car-rental companies, motor vehicle taxation,
traffic enforcement and motor vehicle insurance. This option would allow annual savings
estimated at EUR 274 million. 4. Comparing
the options The impacts of the various options on the
reduction of the administrative burden can be summarised as follows: Options || 1 || 2a || 2b || 2c || 3 || 4 || 5 Citizens and Businesses || 1,400 || 1,400 || 1,359 || 1,360 || 890 || 890 || 133 Public authorities || 100 || 100 || 78 || 56 || 776 || 53 || 29 Total administrative costs (A) || 1,500 || 1,500 || 1,437 || 1,416 || 943 || 943 || 162 Profit loss (B) || 336 || 336 || 336 || 336 || 224 || 224 || 112 Savings on one-way rentals costs || 418 || 418 || 409 || 407 || 0 || 0 || 0 Savings on loss of demand || 202 || 202 || 188 || 169 || 0 || 0 || 0 Peak seasonal demand savings || 16 || 16 || 15 || 15 || 4 || 4 || 0 Total additional savings car rental companies (C) || 636 || 636 || 612 || 591 || 4 || 4 || 0 TOTAL ( A+B+C) || 2,472 || 2,472 || 2,385 || 2,343 || 1,171 || 1,171 || 274 The baseline scenario generates significant
administrative costs and other costs for citizens, companies and public
authorities. From this perspective all options would lead to a significant
improvement of the situation and a reduction of costs (especially
administrative burden) for all actors. The qualitative impacts of the options can be
summarised as follows in this qualitative comparison table: Options || 1 || 2a || 2b || 2c || 3 || 4 || 5 Target groups || Citizens transferring residence || + || + || + || + || + || 0 || + Second-hand market || + || 0 || 0 || 0 || + || 0 || + Cross-border workers || + || + || + || + || + || - || 0 Leasing firms || + || + || + || + || + || - || 0 Car-rental firms || + || + || + || + || + || + || 0 Registration authorities || + || + || + || + || + || 0 || + Other impacts || Roadworthiness checks || - || - || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 Traffic enforcement || - || - || 0 || 0 || 0 || + || 0 Motor vehicle insurance || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0 || 0 Taxation issues || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0 || 0 Vehicle crime || - || 0 || 0 || 0 || + || 0 || + + = positive impact - = negative impact 0 = neutral impact The table shows that none of the options
address all the problems. A comparison of the quantifiable and the
non-quantifiable impacts leads to the following results, compared to the
baseline option: Comparison of all impacts Options || 1 || 2a || 2b || 2c || 3 || 4 || 5 Savings (millions €) || 2,472 || 2,472 || 2,385 || 2,343 || 1,171 || 1,171 || 274 This leads to the preliminary finding that all
options lead to considerable savings but also that, notwithstanding those
savings, options 1, 2a, 2b and 4 show very important negative impacts, especially
as regards motor vehicle insurance and motor vehicle taxation. Therefore, it is recommended to select only the
policy options that present only positive and neutral impacts, namely: ·
Option 3: registration in the Member State of the holder of the vehicle and simplified re-registration. ·
Option 5: Optimising the electronic exchange of
information among national registration authorities. The combination of options 3 and 5 would create
relatively high savings of at least EUR 1,445 million and would at the same
time have a positive or neutral impact on all target groups. As regards the form of
the legislative instrument, the impact assessment
recommends a regulation. 5. Monitoring
and evaluation The different problems outlined in this impact
assessment are not yet subject to secondary EU law. Therefore, they are
governed by the provisions of the TFEU. The national systems and the problems
encountered by citizens and businesses are very different, especially for
vehicles that were previously registered in another Member State. Therefore, it
is important to put in place a coherent monitoring and evaluation scheme
without, however, creating an additional administrative burden for citizens,
businesses and national registration authorities. Currently, there are hardly
any precise statistics about certain target groups directly affected by the
current problems on motor vehicle registration, especially on citizens
transferring their vehicles across borders or about the second-hand market.
There are also no precise statistics about the amount of difficulties and the
time required for re-registration in another Member State. However, the
‘EUCARIS’ software application delivers statistics that could be used as
indicators. It is suggested to use the following indicators
and monitoring methods in view of an evaluation of the legislative instrument,
within four years following the deadline for its implementation: Who was affected by the problems? || Indicators/ method for monitoring Citizens purchasing a second-hand motor vehicle in another Member State || - Number of complaints; - Number of SOLVIT cases; - Number of court cases; - Number of requests to the European Consumers Centres; - Number of re- and de-registrations; -Public consultation in particular on administrative burdens Citizens moving to another Member State with their vehicle Citizens living part of the year in another Member State Citizens working across borders with a company car Leasing and car-rental enterprises || Survey specifically addressed to this sector National registration authorities || Survey specifically addressed to national registration authorities All target groups || EUCARIS statistics. [1] COM(2010)2020 of 3.3.2010. [2] COM(2010)603 of 27.10.2010. [3] See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/20concerns/publication_en.pdf.