[pic] | EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels, 17.12.2010

COM(2010) 754 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

ON THE APPLICATION BY THE MEMBER STATESOF DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 6 JUNE 2000 ON THE TECHNICAL ROADSIDE INSPECTION OF THE ROADWORTHINESS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES CIRCULATING IN THE COMMUNITY

Reporting periods 2005–2006 and 2007–2008

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 6 JUNE 2000 ON THE TECHNICAL ROADSIDE INSPECTION OF THE ROADWORTHINESS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES CIRCULATING IN THE COMMUNITY

Reporting periods 2005–2006 and 2007–2008

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC 5

3. DATA SENT BY THE MEMBER STATES 5

4. TYPES OF INFRINGEMENT 6

5. STATISTICAL DATA 7

6. TYPES OF PENALTIES 30

7. CONCLUSIONS 30

INTRODUCTION

European legislation lays down measures to ensure that commercial vehicles on European roads are in good condition in the interests of road safety, environmental protection and fair competition:

- rules which require transport operators to have sufficient financial capacity to ensure the proper maintenance of vehicles (Directive 96/26/EC[1]);

- periodic roadworthiness tests carried out in the Member States on vehicles registered on their territory, with a minimum frequency laid down at European level (Directive 96/96/EC[2]);

- roadside technical inspection to ensure that commercial vehicles are used only if they are maintained to a high degree of roadworthiness (Directive 2000/30/EC[3]).

The third measure, roadside inspection, is the subject of this report. Under Directive 2000/30/EC, the Member States were required to introduce laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 10 August 2002.

Article 6 of Directive 2000/30/EC provides that every two years Member States must report to the Commission on the number of commercial vehicles checked over the previous two years, broken down into seven classes listed in the Directive and by country of registration, and the items checked and deficiencies discovered. The Commission shall forward this information to the European Parliament. The Directive lists 12 points that may be checked. Non-compliance with the points checked and any ban on vehicles showing serious deficiencies should be mentioned in the inspection reports. Article 11 requires the Commission to report to the Council on the application of the Directive, using the data received from the Member States, and summarise the results.

This report is the second such Commission report on the application of Directive 2000/30/EC; it covers both 2005–2006 and 2007–2008, because of delays in receiving the information for 2005–2006.

The deadline for Member States to send the data to the Commission was 31 March 2007 for 2005–2006 and 31 March 2009 for 2007–2008. By the 2007 deadline only three Member States had supplied the information. In order to form as complete a picture as possible, the Commission issued several reminders after the end of March 2007. By the end of 2007, 25 Member States had sent information. Following a final reminder, the number of Member States supplying information rose to 26 by the end of April 2008.

By the 2009 deadline, 20 Member States had supplied information on roadside inspections following a reminder sent one month before the deadline. In order to form as complete a picture as possible, the Commission issued another reminder in May. By the end of 2009, 26 Member States had sent information on roadside checks.

In the Commission’s opinion, the present report, based on information provided by 26 Member States, enables it to make a first overall analysis, justifying the length of time it took to obtain the information required to compile the report.

DIRECTIVE 2000/30/EC

Directive 2000/30/EC, as amended[4], lays down a number of conditions for carrying out roadside checks on commercial vehicles circulating in the European Union.

It defines ‘technical roadside inspection’ as an inspection of a technical nature, not announced by the authorities and therefore unexpected, of a commercial vehicle circulating within the territory of a Member State, carried out on the public highway by the authorities, or under their supervision.

Every inspection must be carried out without discrimination on grounds of the nationality of the driver or of the country of registration or entry into service of the commercial vehicle, bearing in mind the need to minimise the costs and delays entailed for drivers and operators.

If the condition of a commercial vehicle represents a safety risk such that further examination is justified, the commercial vehicle may be subjected to a more elaborate test at a testing centre in the vicinity. If a commercial vehicle presents a serious risk to road safety, its use may be prohibited until the dangerous deficiencies discovered have been rectified.

DATA SENT BY THE MEMBER STATES

Below is an overview of the Member States that have, or have not, sent data to the Commission for the period 2005–2006 .

Member States that sent data | Belgium, Bulgaria1, Czech Republic1, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain2, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom |

Member States that have not sent data | Ireland |

1 Data only from 2007–2008 (unusable for the report)

2 Unusable data

For the period 2007–2008 the Commission sent out models for the report in a computer-processable format (Excel) as previously discussed with the representatives of the Member States at the meeting of the Committee established under Directive 96/96/EC on 18 December 2007. The majority of the reports followed the model, even when printed tables were submitted. Nevertheless, in most cases the information sent was not of the quality required for automatic data processing and analysis.

The only Member State that failed to send data for 2007–2008 was Spain. However, at the beginning of 2010, Spain was able to show the Commission that a reporting regime had been installed in the meantime and that Spain would be in a position to meet its obligation for the next reporting period.

TYPES OF INFRINGEMENT

The points likely to be checked and to be included in the data sent by the Member States are at least those referred to in point 10 of the specimen report set out in Annex I to the Directive:

1. braking system and components;

2. exhaust system;

3. smoke opacity (diesel);

4. gaseous emissions (petrol, natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG);

5. steering linkages;

6. lamps, lighting and signalling devices;

7. wheels/tyres;

8. suspension (visible defects);

9. chassis (visible defects);

10. tachograph (installation);

11. speed limiting device (installation);

12. evidence of fuel and/or oil spillage

STATISTICAL DATA

Overall data

Vehicles checked 2005–2006

The number of vehicles registered in the European Union that were checked in 2005–2006 varies considerably from one Member State to another (see Table 1a).

Table 1a: EU-registered vehicles checked by Member States 2005–2006

Reporting Member State | Number of vehicles registered in the EU that were checked | Commercial road traffic 2005– 2006(2) (in million vehicles*km) | Checked vehicles/traffic ratio |

Total | of which buses |

Belgium | 4 754 | n.a. | 4 754 | 0.1 |

Denmark | 1 518 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Germany | 2 733 755(1) | 57 708 | 162 176 | 16.9 |

Estonia | 2 046 | 162 | n.a. | n.a. |

Greece | 12 534 | 1 438 | n.a. | n.a. |

France | 1 684 546 | n.a. | 242 500 | 6.9 |

Italy | 5 133 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Cyprus | 269 | 60 | n.a | n.a. |

Latvia | 7 000 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Lithuania | 31 197 | 1 566 | n.a. | n.a. |

Luxembourg | 468 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Hungary | 606 648 | 60 046 | n.a. | n.a. |

Malta | 1 538 | 437 | n.a. | n.a. |

Netherlands | 1 776 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Austria | 18 344 | 298 | 31 051 | 0.6 |

Poland | 412 337 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Portugal | 707 | 13 | n.a. | n.a. |

Romania | 48 053 | 6 009 | n.a. | n.a. |

Slovenia | 6 352 | 1 121 | 3 489 | 1.8 |

Slovakia | 8 752 | 75 | n.a. | n.a. |

Finland | 10 622 | 25 | 14 995 | 0.7 |

Sweden | 40 037 | 2 493 | 40 037 | 1.7 |

United Kingdom | 201 328 | 28 613 | 196 466(3) | 1.0 |

(1) Including the EEA (European Economy Area) Members IS, NO and CH.

(2) Source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database of the OECD.

(3) without Northern Ireland

n.a.: not available.

The number of inspections is not commensurate with the volume of road traffic in each Member State. The ratio of vehicles checked per million kilometres driven ranges from 0.1 in Belgium to 16.9 in Germany. The absolute figures show that the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal carry out relatively few inspections.

The proportion of buses in relation to the overall number of vehicles checked in each Member State is generally low. It exceeds 15 % of vehicles checked only in Slovenia (17.6 %), Cyprus (22.3 %) and Malta (28.4 %). Buses account for less than 1 % of vehicles checked in Finland and Slovakia.

Vehicles checked 2007–2008

The number of vehicles registered in the European Union that were checked in 2007–2008 varies considerably from one Member State to another (see Table 1b).

Table 1b: EU-registered vehicles checked by Member States 2007–2008

Reporting Member State | Number of vehicles registered in the EU that were checked | Road traffic(1) 2007–2008 | Checked vehicles/traffic ratio |

Total | of which buses | (in million vehicles*km) |

Belgium | 18 732 | 216 | n.a. | n.a. |

Bulgaria | 472 324 | 127 580 | n.a. | n.a. |

Czech Republic | 52 842 | 687 | n.a. | n.a. |

Denmark | 265 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Germany | 2 679 907(2) | 46 100 | 178 700 | 15.0 |

Estonia | 2 236 | 107 | n.a. | n.a. |

Ireland | 5 204 | 54 | 20 327 | 0.3 |

Greece | 22 360 | 1 195 | n.a. | n.a. |

Spain | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

France | 1 669 391 | n.a. | 244 700 | 6.8 |

Italy | 13 577 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Cyprus | 919 | 63 | n.a. | n.a. |

Latvia | 9 294 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Lithuania(3) | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Luxembourg | 896 | 26 | n.a. | n.a. |

Hungary | 351 690 | 49 582 | n.a. | n.a. |

Malta | 3 579 | 655 | n.a. | n.a. |

Netherlands | 4 147 | 47 | n.a. | n.a. |

Austria | 12 658 | 222 | n.a. | n.a. |

Poland | 1 254 706 | 131 711 | n.a. | n.a. |

Portugal | 558 | 16 | n.a. | n.a. |

Romania | 43 700 | 3 459 | n.a. | n.a. |

Slovenia | 3 179 | 1 307 | n.a. | n.a. |

Slovakia | 4 631 | 195 | n.a. | n.a. |

Finland | 9 267 | 14 | 15 385 | 0.6 |

Sweden | 165 263 | 3 593 | 24 603 | 6.7 |

United Kingdom | 165 927 | 35 517 | 205 328 | 0.8 |

Total | 6 967 252 | 402 346 |

(1)Source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database of the OECD.

(2) Including the EEA (European Economy Area) Members IS, NO and CH.

(3)Lithuania reported detected deficiencies but not the number of checked vehicles.

n.a.: not available.

The number of inspections is not commensurate with the volume of road traffic in each Member State. The ratio of vehicles checked per million kilometres driven ranges from 0.3 in Ireland to 15.0 in Germany. The absolute figures show that Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal and Denmark carry out relatively few inspections.

The proportion of buses in relation to the overall number of vehicles checked in each Member State is generally low. It exceeds 15 % of vehicles checked only in Malta (18 %), the United Kingdom (21 %) and Slovenia (41 %). Buses account for less than 1 % of vehicles checked in Finland. Denmark, France, Italy and Latvia did not split their data between buses and goods vehicles.

Registration of vehicles checked

The proportion of checked vehicles that are registered in the Member State in relation to all checked vehicles in technical roadside inspections varies considerably from one Member State to another (see Tables 2a and 2 b below).

Period 2005–2006

Of the vehicles checked in 12 of the 22 Member States for which all the information concerning the country of registration is available, more than 80 % are registered in their own territory. There is insufficient overall statistical data to cross-reference this information with the road traffic recorded by each Member State by country of registration. The geographical situation of certain Member States, for example Cyprus or Malta, also has to be borne in mind.

Table 2a: Registration of vehicles checked 2005–2006

Reporting Member State | Registered in the Member State | Registered in the EU | Registered outside the EU | Total | % vehicles of the Member State |

Belgium | 1 878 | 2 876 | 365 | 5 119 | 36.7 % |

Denmark | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1 518 | n.a. |

Germany | 1 891 343 | 842 412 | 216 426 | 2 950 181 | 64.1 % |

Estonia | 2 046 | 351 | 1 260 | 3 657 | 55.9 % |

Greece | 12 223 | 311 | 2 370 | 14 904 | 82.0 % |

France | 1 315 664 | 368 882 | 0 | 1 684 546 | 78.1 % |

Italy | 3 961 | 1 620 | 448 | 6 029 | 65.7 % |

Cyprus | 269 | 0 | 0 | 269 | 100.0 % |

Latvia | 6 533 | 467 | 67 | 7 067 | 92.4 % |

Lithuania | 28 312 | 2 885 | 0 | 31 197 | 90.8 % |

Luxembourg | 122 | 26 468 | 0 | 26 590 | 0.5 % |

Hungary | 561 263 | 45 583 | 0 | 606 846 | 92.5 % |

Malta | 1507 | 31 | 0 | 1 538 | 98.0 % |

Netherlands | 1 569 | 207 | 6 | 1 782 | 88.0 % |

Austria | 12 114 | 6 230 | 127 | 18 471 | 65.6 % |

Poland | 284 702 | 127 635 | 65 044 | 477 381 | 59.6 % |

Portugal | 640 | 67 | 0 | 707 | 90.5 % |

Romania | 47 816 | 237 | 87 | 48 140 | 99.3 % |

Slovenia | 2 876 | 3 476 | 984 | 7 336 | 39.2 % |

Slovakia | 7 154 | 1 598 | 98 | 8 850 | 80.8 % |

Finland | 9 333 | 1 289 | 4 666 | 15 288 | 61.0 % |

Sweden | 33 437 | 6 600 | 721 | 40 758 | 82.0 % |

United Kingdom | 179 135 | 22 193 | 0 | 201 328 | 89.0 % |

TOTAL | 4 403 897 | 1 461 418 | 292 669 | 6 159 502 | 71.5 % |

n.a.: not available.

Period 2007–2008

Of the vehicles checked in 12 of the 26 Member States for which all the information concerning the country of registration is available, more than 80 % are registered in their own territory. There is still insufficient overall statistical data to cross-reference this information with the road traffic recorded by each Member State by country of registration. The geographical situation of certain Member States, for example Cyprus or Malta, also has to be borne in mind.

Table 2b: Registration of vehicles checked 2007–2008

Reporting Member State | Registered in the Member State | Registered in the EU | Registered outside the EU | Total | % vehicles of the Member State |

Belgium | 6 871 | 11 861 | 533 | 19 265 | 35.7 % |

Bulgaria | 425 143 | 47 181 | 472 324 | 90.0 % |

Czech Republic | 52 842 | 53 628 | 106 470 |

Denmark | 265 | 265 | 100.0 % |

Germany | 1 818 940 | 860 967 | 153 586 | 2 833 493 | 64.2 % |

Estonia | 1 981 | 255 | 2 236 | 88.6 % |

Ireland | 5 204 | 5 204 | 100.0 % |

France | 1 304 850 | 364 541 | 1 669 391 | 78.2 % |

Greece | 22 360 | 2 071 | 24 431 |

Italy | 5 967 | 7 610 | 286 | 13 863 | 43.0 % |

Cyprus | 919 | 919 | 100.0 % |

Latvia | 8 633 | 661 | 147 | 9 441 | 91.4 % |

Lithuania |

Luxembourg | 169 | 727 | 896 | 18.9 % |

Hungary | 296 273 | 55 417 | 351 690 | 84.2 % |

Malta | 3 528 | 51 | 3 579 | 98.6 % |

Netherlands | 3 135 | 1 012 | 4 147 | 75.6 % |

Austria | 6 513 | 6 145 | 702 | 13 360 | 48.8 % |

Poland | 1 148 087 | 106 619 | 74 122 | 1 328 828 | 86.4 % |

Portugal | 542 | 16 | 558 | 97.1 % |

Romania | 43 093 | 607 | 0 | 43 700 | 98.6 % |

Slovenia | 2 274 | 905 | 847 | 4 026 | 56.5 % |

Slovakia | 3 915 | 716 | 1 006 | 5 637 | 69.5 % |

Finland | 8 152 | 1 115 | 4 931 | 14 198 | 57.4 % |

Sweden | 157 648 | 7 615 | 165 263 | 95.4 % |

United Kingdom | 122 608 | 43 319 | 165 927 | 73.9 % |

Total | 5 374 710 | 1 592 542 | 291 859 | 7 259 111 | 74.0 % |

Non-compliant vehicles

Period 2005–2006

The information sent by the Member States shows that the proportion of vehicles considered not to comply with the requirements of Directive 2000/30/EC in relation to all checked vehicles registered in the European Union varies considerably from one Member State to another, from a high figure of 131.1 % in Malta to only 2.3 % in Slovakia (see Table 3a below).

Table 3a: Proportion of non-compliant vehiclesin relation to all vehicles checked 2005–2006

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

Vehicles checked | % non-compliant vehicles(*) | Vehicles checked | % non-compliant vehicles(*) |

Belgium | 4 754 | n.a. | 1 878 | n.a. |

Denmark | 1 518 | n.a | n.a. | n.a. |

Germany | 2 733 755 | 6.4 % | 1 891 343 | 6.2 % |

Estonia | 2 046 | 29.8 % | 1 695 | 32.3 % |

Greece | 12 534 | 21.3 % | 12 223 | 21.7 % |

France | 1 684 546 | 3.6 % | 1 315 664 | 2.7 % |

Italy | 5 133 | n.a. | 3 961 | n.a. |

Cyprus | 269 | 117.5 %(*) | 269 | 117.5 %(*) |

Latvia | 7 000 | n.a. | 6 533 | n.a. |

Lithuania | 31 197 | 8.3 % | 28 312 | 8.4 % |

Luxembourg | 468 | 29.7 % | 122 | 33.6 % |

Hungary | 606 846 | 20.5 % | 561 263 | 21.8 % |

Malta | 1 538 | 131.1 %(*) | 1 507 | 133.4 %(*) |

Netherlands | 1 776 | n.a. | 1 569 | n.a. |

Austria | 18 344 | 52.1 % | 12 114 | 51.1 % |

Poland | 412337 | n.a. | 284 702 | n.a. |

Portugal | 707 | 6.4 % | 640 | 7.0 % |

Romania | 48 053 | 54.7 % | 47 816 | 54.6 % |

Slovenia | 6 352 | 5.8 % | 984 | 4.4 % |

Slovakia | 8 752 | 2.3 % | 7 154 | 2.8 % |

Finland | 10 622 | 30.6 % | 9 333 | 31.3 % |

Sweden | 40 037 | 81.1 % | 33 437 | n.a. |

United Kingdom | 201 328 | 38.3 % | 179 135 | 34.2 % |

(*) percentage of non compliant vehicles can be more than 100% due to the counting of vehicle combinations "road train" and "articulated vehicles" as single vehicles where both vehicles of the combination or only one of them could be counted as a non compliant one.

n.a.: not available

These differences may reflect the relative importance which individual Member States attach to technical inspections compared with roadside checks on other aspects of road transport. For instance, the ratio reported by Belgium is not restricted exclusively to technical inspections but includes all roadside checks. In general, the Belgian report distinguishes between checks on compliance with legislation on working time, exceptional loads, transport of dangerous goods, the Eurovignette and other matters. Technical inspections tend not to be listed separately and the relevant information is not provided in detail.

Of the 23 Member States which supplied information on the number of non-compliant vehicles and the total number of checked vehicles registered in the European Union, six record the level of non-compliance as between 2.3 % and 8.3 % (see Table 3a).

A sizeable proportion of non-compliant vehicles is recorded by Malta (131.7 %) and Cyprus (117.5 %), Sweden (81.1 %) and Romania (54.7 %). While Malta and Cyprus check a relatively small number of vehicles and the data are probably based on a different method of counting checks and non-compliant vehicles, the statistics on technical inspections sent by Sweden and Romania show a large number of vehicles, respectively 40 037 and 48 053 checked vehicles registered in the European Union. The relatively high proportion of vehicles found to be non-compliant could be the result of specific targeting in these two Member States.

Period 2007–2008

The information sent by the Member States shows that the proportion of vehicles considered not to comply with the requirements of Directive 2000/30/EC in relation to all checked vehicles registered in the European Union varies considerably from one Member State to another, from a high figure of 63.0 % in Denmark to only 0.3 % in Bulgaria (see Table 3b). The figure of 197.3 % of non-compliant vehicles in Cyprus is probably based on a different method of counting checks and non-compliant vehicles.

Table 3b: Proportion of non-compliant vehiclesin relation to all vehicles checked 2007–2008

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

Bulgaria | 472 324 | 1 421 | 0.3 % | 425 143 | 1 266 | 0.3 % |

Czech Republic | 52 842 |

Denmark | 265 | 167 | 63.0 % | 265 | 167 | 63.0 % |

Germany | 2 679 907 | 60 340 | 2.3 % | 1 818 940 | 18 744 | 1.0 % |

Estonia | 2 236 | 429 | 19.2 % | 1 981 | 373 | 18.8 % |

Ireland | 5 204 | 5 204 |

Greece | 22 360 | 3 164 | 14.2 % |

France | 1 669 391 | 55 920 | 3.3 % | 1 304 850 | 34 995 | 2.7 % |

Italy | 13 577 | 5 967 |

Cyprus | 919 | 1 813 | 197.3 %(*) | 919 | 1 813 | 197.3 %(*) |

Latvia | 9 294 | 49 | 0.5 % | 8 633 | 49 | 0.6 % |

Lithuania | 442 | 441 |

Luxembourg | 896 | 296 | 33.0 % | 169 | 51 | 30.2 % |

Hungary | 351 690 | 22 794 | 6.5 % | 296 273 | 21 640 | 7.3 % |

Malta | 3 579 | 1 975 | 55.2 % | 3 528 | 1 936 | 54.9 % |

Netherlands | 4 147 | 115 | 2.8 % | 3 135 | 78 | 2.5 % |

Austria | 12 658 | 5 246 | 41.4 % | 6 513 | 2 492 | 38.3 % |

Poland | 1 254 706 | 7 095 | 0.6 % | 1 148 087 | 7 095 | 0.6 % |

Portugal | 558 | 28 | 5.0 % | 542 | 28 | 5.2 % |

Romania | 43 700 | 16 066 | 36.8 % | 43 093 | 15 897 | 36.9 % |

Slovenia | 3 179 | 122 | 3.8 % | 2 274 | 72 | 3.2 % |

Slovakia | 4 631 | 3 915 |

Finland | 9 267 | 8 152 |

Sweden | 165 263 | 32 982 | 20.0 % | 157 648 | 32 982 | 20.9 % |

United Kingdom | 165 927 | 81 126 | 48.9 % | 122 608 | 46 404 | 37.8 % |

Belgium | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Bulgaria | n.a | n.a. | n.a |

Czech Republic | 2 350 | 208 | 8.9 % |

Denmark | 56 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Germany | 5 699 | 155 | 2.0 % |

Estonia | 199 | 88 | 44.2 % |

Ireland | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Greece | 900 | 148 | 16.4 % |

Spain | 30 | 2 | 6.7 % |

France | 100 | 7 | 7.0 % |

Italy | 2 345 | 254 | 10.8 % |

Cyprus | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Latvia | 545 | 241 | 44.2 % |

Lithuania | 223 | 60 | 26.9 % |

Luxembourg | 125 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Hungary | 561 263 | 122 118 | 21.8 % |

Malta | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Netherlands | 2 900 | 129 | 4.4 % |

Austria | 987 | 39 | 4.0 % |

Poland | 12 234 | 641 | 5.7 % |

Portugal | 35 | 1 | 2.9 % |

Romania | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |

Slovenia | 5 700 | 139 | 2.4 % |

Slovakia | 12 000 | 454 | 3.8 % |

Finland | 49 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Sweden | 76 | 0 | 0.0 % |

United Kingdom | 30 | 1 | 3.3 % |

Total EU | 606 846 | 124 645 | 20.5 % |

n.a.: not applicable

In the case of Austria (see Table 5 a), the percentage of non-compliant vehicles of checked vehicles by Member State varies between 39.3 % for vehicles registered in Latvia (28 vehicles checked) and 100.0 % for Denmark (5 vehicles checked). The ratio for vehicles registered in Austria is 51.1 %. However, generally speaking, the data by Member State of registration concern only a small number of vehicles checked and do not provide sufficient data to draw conclusions of any statistical value. However, attention should be drawn to the high proportion of vehicles found to be non-compliant by the Austrian authorities for vehicles registered in Germany, the Czech Republic and Hungary, involving a relatively high number of vehicles checked.

Table 5 a: Vehicles checked by Austria 2005–2006

State of registration | Checked vehicles | Non-compliant vehicles | Percentage non-compliant vehicles of checked vehicles |

Belgium | 49 | 27 | 55.1 % |

Bulgaria | 2 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Czech Republic | 1 022 | 491 | 48.0 % |

Denmark | 5 | 5 | 100.0 % |

Germany | 1 007 | 521 | 51.7 % |

Estonia | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Ireland | 5 | 3 | 60.0 % |

Greece | 96 | 71 | 74.0 % |

Spain | 96 | 71 | 74.0 % |

France | 17 | 9 | 52.9 % |

Italy | 208 | 121 | 58.2 % |

Cyprus | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Latvia | 28 | 11 | 39.3 % |

Lithuania | 124 | 68 | 54.8 % |

Luxembourg | 2 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Hungary | 1 442 | 797 | 55.3 % |

Malta | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Netherlands | 124 | 65 | 51.6 % |

Austria | 12 114 | 6 196 | 51.1 % |

Poland | 650 | 297 | 45.7 % |

Portugal | 12 | 9 | 75.0 % |

Romania | 728 | 482 | 66.2 % |

Slovenia | 115 | 70 | 60.9 % |

Slovakia | 467 | 231 | 49.5 % |

Finland | 0 | 0 | 0.0 % |

Sweden | 13 | 7 | 53.8 % |

United Kingdom | 18 | 9 | 50.0 % |

Total EU | 18 344 | 9 560 | 52.1 % |

On emission testing, Austria reported on the use of a remote sensing device[5] which enables the CO, CO2, HC, NO and carbon-particle emissions of passing vehicles to be measured without having to stop them.

During the 2007–2008 reporting period, Austria carried out 41 475 emission tests on vehicles using this equipment, in addition to the reported checks.

For all vehicles checked in the United Kingdom but registered in another Member State (see Table 6 a), the percentages of non-compliant vehicles and banned vehicles still exceed the corresponding percentages for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom, which is 34.2 %. This applies in particular — with a relatively high number of vehicles checked in the United Kingdom — to vehicles registered in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and France.

Table 6a: Vehicles checked by the United Kingdom 2005–2006

State of registration | Checked vehicles | Non-compliant vehicles | Percentage non-compliant vehicles of checked vehicles |

Belgium | 1 081 | 808 | 74.7 % |

Bulgaria | 100 | 76 | 76.0 % |

Czech Republic | 563 | 444 | 78.9 % |

Denmark | 90 | 40 | 44.4 % |

Germany | 1 416 | 695 | 49.1 % |

Estonia | 70 | 55 | 78.6 % |

Ireland | 5763 | 4 302 | 74.6 % |

Greece | 103 | 93 | 90.3 % |

Spain | 1 514 | 1 273 | 84.1 % |

France | 1 380 | 772 | 55.9 % |

Italy | 949 | 797 | 84.0 % |

Cyprus | 17 | 17 | 100.0 % |

Latvia | 82 | 68 | 82.9 % |

Lithuania | 552 | 388 | 70.3 % |

Luxembourg | 109 | 70 | 64.2 % |

Hungary | 547 | 344 | 62.9 % |

Malta | 11 | 11 | 100.0 % |

Netherlands | 3 160 | 1 902 | 60.2 % |

Austria | 345 | 202 | 58.6 % |

Poland | 2 781 | 2 151 | 77.3 % |

Portugal | 678 | 95.5 % |

Romania | 304 | 243 | 79.9 % |

Slovenia | 178 | 148 | 83.1 % |

Slovakia | 364 | 263 | 72.3 % |

Finland | 1 | 1 | 100.0 % |

Sweden | 35 | 18 | 51.4 % |

United Kingdom | 179 135 | 61 184 | 34.2 % |

Total EU | 201 382 | 77 017 | 38.3 % |

Data submitted for the reporting period 2007–2008 are still insufficient, making it still impossible to draw statistically significant conclusions as to the average physical condition of vehicles circulating outside their country of registration.

Table 4 b provides an overview of the number of vehicles checked, by Member State, and the ratio of prohibitions per checked vehicles.

Table 4 b: Vehicles checked and prohibition rate by Member State 2007–2008

Checked countries | Checking countries (number checked; % prohibitions) |

FR | GR | HU | IE | IT | LT | LU |

Checked countries | LV |MT |NL |PL |PT |RO |SE |SI |SK |UK | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | checks | % | | AL | | | | | | |9 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | AT | | |0 | |10 |0.0 |610 |n.a. | | |9 |33.3 |62 |n.a. |15 |0.0 |3 |n.a. |420 |70.2 | | AZ | | | | | | |123 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | BA | | | | | | |161 |n.a. | | | | | | |252 |2.8 | | | | | | BE | | |0 | |142 |7.0 |219 |n.a. | | |1 |0.0 |52 |n.a. |1 |0.0 | | |1 490 |79.5 | | BG | 6 |n.a. |0 | |4 |0.0 |3 701 |n.a. | | |77 |22.1 | | |152 |5.9 |7 |n.a. |735 |95.9 | | BI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | BO | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | BY | 23 |n.a. | | | | |14 984 |n.a. | | | | | | |3 |33.3 |9 |n.a. | | | | CH | | | | | | |155 |n.a. | | | | | | |6 |16.7 | | | | | | CS | | | | | | |644 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | CY | | |0 | |0 | |32 |n.a. | | |0 | |1 |n.a. |0 | | | |24 |95.8 | | CZ | | |0 | |41 |7.3 |15 601 |n.a. | | |12 |0.0 |9 |n.a. |34 |2.9 |195 |n.a. |2 031 |84.0 | | DE | 7 |n.a. |8 |87.5 |307 |4.9 |11 258 |n.a. |1 |n.a. |31 |12.9 |528 |n.a. |15 |6.7 |3 |n.a. |2 830 |66.6 | | DK | 18 |n.a. |1 |100.0 |6 |0.0 |412 |n.a. | | |0 | |974 |n.a. |1 |0.0 | | |141 |62.4 | | EE | 140 |n.a. |1 |0.0 |9 |33.3 |4 836 |n.a. | | |0 | |330 |n.a. |0 | |0 |n.a. |194 |77.8 | | EL | | |0 | |9 |0.0 |201 |n.a. | | | | | | |1 |0.0 | | |138 |108.7 | | ES | | |3 |66.7 |35 |0.0 |702 |n.a. |14 |n.a. |2 |0.0 |53 |n.a. |3 |0.0 | | |3 776 |95.0 | | EU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |716 |n.a. | | | | FI | 10 |n.a. |0 | |6 |0.0 |177 |n.a. | | |1 |100.0 |2 153 |n.a. |0 | | | |22 |40.9 | | FR | | |1 |100.0 |21 |0.0 |203 |n.a. | | |6 |33.3 |25 |n.a. |1 |0.0 | | |2 068 |63.6 | | GE | | | | | | |58 |n.a. | | | | | | | | |2 |n.a. | | | | GR | | | | | | | | | | |0 | | | | | | | | | | | HR | 1 |n.a. | | | | |941 |n.a. | | | | | | |260 |3.8 |1 |n.a. | | | | HU | 2 |n.a. |0 | |9 |0.0 |4 728 |n.a. | | |249 |28.5 |88 |n.a. |208 |1.0 |74 |n.a. |1 626 |82.5 | | IE | | |0 | |12 |0.0 |127 |n.a. | | |1 |0.0 |25 |n.a. |0 | |1 |n.a. |8 275 |72.8 | | IR | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | IS | | | | | | |3 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | IT | 2 |n.a. |22 |68.2 |22 |13.6 |1 230 |n.a. | | |54 |42.6 |9 |n.a. |55 |1.8 |0 |n.a. |2 163 |93.3 | | KG | | | | | | |63 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | KZ | 2 |n.a. | | | | |602 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | LI | | | | | | |34 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | LT | 384 |n.a. |0 | |52 |0.0 |32 667 |n.a. | | |6 |83.3 |431 |n.a. |33 |0.0 |16 |n.a. |1 300 |82.2 | | LU | | |0 | |12 |0.0 |68 |n.a. | | |0 | |1 |n.a. |0 | | | |160 |66.3 | | LV | 8 633 |n.a. |0 | |3 |0.0 |10 355 |n.a. | | |1 |0.0 |189 |n.a. |9 |11.1 |3 |n.a. |171 |70.2 | | MD | | | | | | |1 376 |n.a. | | | | | | |6 |33.3 |1 |n.a. | | | | MK | | | | | | |358 |n.a. | | | | | | |39 |0.0 |2 |n.a. | | | | MT | | |3 528 |54.9 |0 | |14 |n.a. | | |0 | | | |0 | | | |28 |75.0 | | NL | 19 |n.a. |3 |100.0 |3 135 |2.5 |1 886 |n.a. |1 |n.a. |14 |28.6 |511 |n.a. |1 |0.0 |0 | |4 025 |65.7 | | NO | | | | | | |129 |n.a. | | | | |583 |n.a. | | | | | | | | NotEU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |145 |n.a. | | | | OtherEUMS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | OtherNotEUMS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PL | 68 |n.a. |3 |66.7 |192 |1.6 |1 148 087 |0.6 | | |98 |24.5 |1 421 |n.a. |95 |6.3 |362 |n.a. |7 394 |83.9 | | PT | | |0 | |22 |0.0 |732 |n.a. |542 |5.2 |0 | |6 |n.a. |1 |0.0 |0 |n.a. |1 346 |104.7 | | RO | | |0 | |34 |0.0 |4 967 |n.a. | | |43 093 |36.9 |69 |n.a. |203 |13.3 |48 |n.a. |1 203 |95.8 | | RS | 2 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | |163 |1.8 |2 |n.a. | | | | RU | 90 |n.a. | | | | |22 963 |n.a. | | | | | | |40 |7.5 |24 |n.a. | | | | SE | 3 |n.a. |0 | |23 |0.0 |640 |n.a. | | |4 |50.0 |157 648 |20.9 |0 | |0 |n.a. |36 |66.7 | | SI | | |0 | |0 | |1 479 |n.a. | | |8 |37.5 |25 |n.a. |2 274 |3.2 |4 |n.a. |485 |82.9 | | SK | 2 |n.a. |0 | |39 |0.0 |9 182 |n.a. | | |32 |31.3 |35 |n.a. |71 |1.4 |3 915 |n.a. |1 238 |87.6 | | SM | | | | | | |310 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TJ | | | | | | |20 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TM | | | | | | |13 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TR | | | | | | |3 797 |n.a. | | | | | | |18 |0.0 |5 |n.a. | | | | UA | 29 |n.a. | | | | |27 631 |n.a. | | | | | | |61 |4.9 |101 |n.a. | | | | UK | | |9 |88.9 |2 |0.0 |305 |n.a. | | |1 |0.0 |35 |n.a. |0 | | | |122 608 |37.8 | | UNK | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |5 |0.0 | | | | | | US | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | UZ | | | | | | |73 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | VA | | | | | | |12 |n.a. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Deficiency rates

Thanks to the quality of data reported by the Member States for the period 2007–2008 it was possible for the first time to draft an overview of deficiency rates (see Table 7).

Table 7: Detected deficiencies

[pic]

The number and percentages of deficiencies detected for brakes, tyres and lights (with deficiency rates of 21.3 %, 20.1 % and 29.8 %) show the importance of roadside inspections for road safety. The environmental aspect is better represented by the deficiency rate of 5.6 % of spillage of fuel and/or oil than by the results of emission testing, with a deficiency rate of 0.5 % for diesel and 0.2 % for petrol vehicles. This may be the result of the testing method, particularly where diesel vehicles are concerned.

Even within the different test items — such as the braking system, for example — considerable differences in deficiency rates were reported, ranging from 4.3 % in the Czech Republic to 49.5 % in the United Kingdom. This may be due to the different testing methods applied by the Member States.

TYPES OF PENALTIES

The Directive does not lay down a system of penalties for any infringements discovered. Penalties are laid down by the Member States without discrimination on grounds of the nationality of the driver or of the country of registration or entry into service of the commercial vehicle.

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

Any serious deficiencies found in a commercial vehicle belonging to a non-resident, in particular those leading to the banning of its use, must be notified to the competent authorities of the Member State where it is registered.

The competent authorities of the Member State that found the serious deficiency may ask the competent authorities of the Member State where it is registered to take appropriate measures such as subjecting the vehicle to a further roadworthiness inspection.

CONCLUSIONS

1. There is poor compliance by most Member States with the obligation to provide statistics and information under Directive 2000/30/EC:

- not all Member States send the data in a timely way;

- where data are sent, this is not done in enough detail to enable an adequate evaluation of the effectiveness of Community policies on road safety and environmental protection.

2. While the Directive provides a model for individual roadworthiness reports, the form is not easy to use to send all the relevant statistical data electronically to the Commission. As the Directive does not specify a format for sending statistical data, Member States send this information by very different methods, making it difficult to collate the results.

It would be better if in future the data were sent in a computer-processable format. It is necessary, therefore, to specify a common exchange format. On the basis of experience gained in this first exercise, the Commission could propose a common format for electronic transmission of statistical data to the Commission.

There was some improvement for the period 2007–2008, when the Commission provided the Member States with a reporting model in the form of a standard Excel sheet.

Although the Directive requires a specific level of detail (vehicles classified by category and by country of registration, details of items checked and deficiencies encountered on the basis of Annex I to Directive 2000/30/EC), the requisite information is often transmitted in a highly aggregate form, rendering detailed analysis impossible.

The Commission might consider convening the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress, which is responsible for assisting in the implementation of Directive 2000/30/EC, with a view to finding solutions to the difficulties encountered by the Member States in collecting, compiling and transmitting statistical data concerning technical roadside inspections, including possible amendments to the specimen technical roadside inspection report laid down in Annex I to Directive 2000/30/EC. The significant variations in non-compliance levels noted between the Member States cannot be explained by an analysis of the information transmitted. An explanation will be sought in consultation with the Member States.

3. Many Member States mainly check vehicles registered in their own territory. The proportion of vehicles not registered in their territory in relation to all vehicles checked by the Member States varies greatly (see Tables 2a and 2b). The attention of the Member States should be drawn to the fact that inspecting vehicles not registered in their territory helps to spread best practice. Consequently, this proportion ought to be as high as possible in relation to road traffic flows.

4. A more harmonised approach to testing methods and the assessment of deficiencies seems necessary to reduce the differences between Member States. Therefore the Commission will continue to examine whether future measures should be proposed in order to reduce differences. Compliance rates differ between the Member States, although there is no obvious evidence that vehicles originating from other Member States are judged differently from vehicles registered in the reporting Member State.

[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

[1] Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1-10.

[2] Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, pp. 1-19.

[3] Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community, OJ L 203, 10.8.2000, pp. 1-8.

[4] Commission Directive 2003/26/EC of 3 April 2003 adapting to technical progress Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards speed limiters and exhaust emissions of commercial vehicles, OJ L 90, 8.4.2003, pp. 37-40.

[5] See also the EU-funded project ‘REVEAL’: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/reveal.pdf.