(1)

The internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods is ensured in accordance with the Treaties. Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States. That prohibition covers any national measure which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Union trade in goods. The free movement of goods is ensured in the internal market by the harmonisation of rules at Union level that set common requirements for the marketing of certain goods or, for goods or aspects of goods not exhaustively covered by Union harmonisation rules, by the application of the principle of mutual recognition as defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(2)

A well-functioning principle of mutual recognition is an essential complement to harmonisation of rules at Union level, especially considering that many goods have both harmonised and non-harmonised aspects.

(3)

Obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States may be unlawfully created if, in the absence of Union harmonisation rules covering goods or certain aspects of goods, a Member State's competent authority applies national rules to goods that are lawfully marketed in another Member State, requiring the goods to meet certain technical requirements, for example, requirements relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling or packaging. The application of such rules to goods that are lawfully marketed in another Member State could be contrary to Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), even if the rules apply to all goods without distinction.

(4)

The principle of mutual recognition derives from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to this principle, Member States may not prohibit the sale on their territory of goods which are lawfully marketed in another Member State, even where those goods have been produced in accordance with different technical rules, including goods that are not the result of a manufacturing process. But the principle of mutual recognition is not absolute. Member States can restrict the marketing of goods that have been lawfully marketed in another Member State, where such restrictions are justified on the grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or on the basis of other overriding reasons of public interest, recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the free movement of goods, and where those restrictions are proportionate to the aim pursued. This Regulation imposes the obligation to clearly justify why market access has been restricted or denied.

(5)

The concept of overriding reasons of public interest is an evolving concept developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case-law in relation to Articles 34 and 36 TFEU. Where legitimate differences exist from one Member State to another, such overriding reasons might justify the application of national technical rules by the competent authorities. However, administrative decisions always need to be duly justified, to be legitimate, to be appropriate and to respect the principle of proportionality, and the competent authority has to make the least restrictive decision possible. In order to improve the functioning of the internal market for goods, the national technical rules should be fit for purpose and should not create disproportionate non-tariff barriers. Furthermore, administrative decisions restricting or denying market access in respect of goods that are lawfully marketed in another Member State must not be based on the mere fact that the goods under assessment fulfil the legitimate public objective pursued by the Member State in a different way from the way in which goods in that Member State fulfil that objective. In order to assist Member States, the Commission should provide non-binding guidance in relation to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the concept of overriding reasons of public interest and how to apply the principle of mutual recognition. Competent authorities should have the opportunity to provide contributions and deliver feedback on the guidance.

(6)

In its Conclusions on the Single Market Policy of December 2013, the Competitiveness Council noted that to improve framework conditions for businesses and consumers in the Single Market, all relevant instruments should be appropriately employed, including mutual recognition. The Council invited the Commission to report on cases where the functioning of the principle of mutual recognition is still inadequate or problematic. In its Conclusions on the Single Market Policy of February 2015, the Competitiveness Council urged the Commission to take steps to ensure that the principle of mutual recognition functioned effectively and to bring forward proposals to that effect.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) was adopted in order to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition by establishing procedures to minimise the possibility of creating unlawful obstacles to the free movement of goods which have already been lawfully marketed in another Member State. Despite the adoption of that Regulation, many problems still exist as regards the application of the principle of mutual recognition. The evaluation carried out between 2014 and 2016 showed that the principle of mutual recognition does not function as it should, and that Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 has had limited effect in facilitating the application of that principle. The tools and procedural guarantees put in place by that Regulation failed in their aim of improving the application of the principle of mutual recognition. For example, the Product Contact Points network which was put in place in order to provide information to economic operators on applicable national rules and the application of the principle of mutual recognition is barely known or used by economic operators. Within that network, national authorities do not cooperate sufficiently. The requirement to notify administrative decisions restricting or denying market access is rarely complied with. As a result, obstacles to the free movement of goods in the internal market remain.

(8)

Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 has several shortcomings, and should therefore be revised and strengthened. For the sake of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 should be replaced by this Regulation. This Regulation should establish clear procedures to ensure the free movement of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State and to ensure that free movement can be restricted only where Member States have legitimate public interest grounds for doing so and that the restriction is justified and proportionate. This Regulation should also ensure that existing rights and obligations deriving from the principle of mutual recognition are observed, by both economic operators and national authorities.

(9)

This Regulation should not prejudice the further harmonisation of conditions for the marketing of goods with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, where appropriate.

(10)

It is also possible for trade barriers to result from other types of measures falling under the scope of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU. Those measures can include, for example, technical specifications drawn up for public procurement procedures or requirements to use official languages in the Member States. However, such measures should not constitute national technical rules within the meaning of this Regulation and should not fall within its scope.

(11)

National technical rules are sometimes given effect in a Member State by means of a prior authorisation procedure, under which formal approval has to be obtained from a competent authority before the goods can be placed on the market there. The existence of a prior authorisation procedure in itself restricts the free movement of goods. Therefore, in order to be justified with regard to the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods within the internal market, such a procedure has to pursue a public interest objective recognised by Union law, and it has to be proportionate and non-discriminatory. The compliance of such a procedure with Union law is to be assessed in the light of the considerations set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore, administrative decisions restricting or denying market access exclusively on the grounds that the goods do not have a valid prior authorisation should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. When, however, an application for mandatory prior authorisation of goods is made, any administrative decision to reject the application on the basis of a national technical rule applicable in that Member State should only be taken in accordance with this Regulation, so that the applicant can benefit from the procedural protection which this Regulation provides. The same applies to voluntary prior authorisation of goods, where it exists.

(12)

It is important to clarify that the types of goods covered by this Regulation include agricultural products. The term ‘agricultural products’ includes products of fisheries, as provided for in Article 38(1) TFEU. In order to help to identify which types of goods are subject to this Regulation, the Commission should assess the feasibility and benefits of further developing an indicative product list for mutual recognition.

(13)

It is also important to clarify that the term ‘producer’ includes not only manufacturers of goods, but also persons who produce goods which were not the result of a manufacturing process, including agricultural products, as well as persons who present themselves as the producers of goods.

(14)

Decisions of national courts or tribunals assessing the legality of cases in which, on account of the application of a national technical rule, goods lawfully marketed in one Member State are not granted access to the market in another Member State, and decisions of national courts or tribunals applying penalties, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.

(15)

To benefit from the principle of mutual recognition, goods must be lawfully marketed in another Member State. It should be clarified that, for goods to be considered to be lawfully marketed in another Member State, the goods need to comply with the relevant rules applicable in that Member State, and need to be made available to end users in that Member State.

(16)

To raise awareness on the part of national authorities and economic operators of the principle of mutual recognition, Member States should consider providing for clear and unambiguous ‘single market clauses’ in their national technical rules with a view to facilitating the application of that principle.

(17)

The evidence required to demonstrate that goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State varies significantly from Member State to Member State. This causes unnecessary burdens, delays and additional costs for economic operators, and prevents national authorities from obtaining the information necessary for assessing the goods in a timely manner. This may inhibit the application of the principle of mutual recognition. It is therefore essential to make it easier for economic operators to demonstrate that their goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State. Economic operators should benefit from a self-declaration that provides competent authorities with all necessary information on the goods and on their compliance with the rules applicable in that other Member State. The use of voluntary declarations should not prevent national authorities from taking administrative decisions restricting or denying market access, provided that such decisions are proportionate, justified and respect the principle of mutual recognition and are in accordance with this Regulation.

(18)

It should be possible for the producer, importer or distributor to draw up a declaration of lawful marketing of goods for the purposes of mutual recognition (‘mutual recognition declaration’). The producer is best placed to provide the information in the mutual recognition declaration as the producer knows the goods best and is in possession of the evidence necessary to verify the information in the mutual recognition declaration. The producer should be able to mandate an authorised representative to draw up such declarations on the producer's behalf and under the responsibility of the producer. However, where an economic operator is only able to provide the information on the lawfulness of the marketing of the goods in the declaration, it should be possible for another economic operator to provide the information that the goods are being made available to end users in the Member State concerned, provided that that economic operator takes responsibility for the information that it provided in the mutual recognition declaration and is able to provide the necessary evidence to verify this information.

(19)

The mutual recognition declaration should always contain accurate and complete information on the goods. The declaration should therefore be kept up to date in order to reflect changes, for example changes in the relevant national technical rules.

(20)

In order to ensure that the information provided in a mutual recognition declaration is comprehensive, a harmonised structure for such declarations should be laid down for use by economic operators wishing to make such declarations.

(21)

It is important to ensure that the mutual recognition declaration is filled in truthfully and accurately. It is therefore necessary to require economic operators to be responsible for the information provided by them in the mutual recognition declaration.

(22)

In order to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of businesses operating in the field of goods that are not covered by Union harmonisation legislation, it should be possible to benefit from new information technologies for the purpose of facilitating the provision of the mutual recognition declaration. Therefore, economic operators should be able to make their mutual recognition declarations publicly available online, provided that the mutual recognition declaration is easily accessible and is in a reliable format.

(23)

The Commission should ensure that a template for the mutual recognition declaration and guidelines for completing it are made available on the Single Digital Gateway in all of the official languages of the Union.

(24)

This Regulation should also apply to goods in respect of which only some aspects are covered by Union harmonisation legislation. Where, pursuant to Union harmonisation legislation, the economic operator is required to draw up an EU declaration of conformity to demonstrate compliance with that legislation, that economic operator should be permitted to attach the mutual recognition declaration provided for by this Regulation to the EU declaration of conformity.

(25)

Where economic operators decide not to use the mutual recognition declaration, it should be for the competent authorities of the Member State of destination to make clearly defined requests for specific information that they consider to be necessary to assess the goods, with respect to the principle of proportionality.

(26)

The economic operator should be given appropriate time within which to submit documents or any other information requested by the competent authority of the Member State of destination, or to submit any arguments or comments in relation to the assessment of the goods in question.

(27)

Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) requires Member States to communicate to the Commission and to the other Member States any draft national technical regulation concerning any product, including any agricultural or fishery product, and a statement of the grounds on which the enactment of that regulation is necessary. It is necessary, however, to ensure that, following the adoption of such a national technical regulation, the principle of mutual recognition is correctly applied to specific goods in individual cases. This Regulation should lay down procedures for the application of the principle of mutual recognition in individual cases, for example, by requiring Member States to indicate the national technical rules on which the administrative decision is based and the legitimate public interest grounds that justify the application of that national technical rule with respect to a good that has been lawfully marketed in another Member State. The proportionality of the national technical rule is the basis for demonstrating the proportionality of the administrative decision that is based on that rule. However, the means by which the proportionality of the administrative decision is to be demonstrated should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

(28)

As administrative decisions restricting or denying market access for goods that are already lawfully marketed in another Member State should be exceptions to the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods, it is necessary to ensure that such decisions observe the existing obligations that derive from the principle of mutual recognition. It is therefore appropriate to establish a clear procedure for determining whether goods are lawfully marketed in that other Member State and, if so, whether the legitimate public interests covered by the applicable national technical rule of the Member State of destination are adequately protected, in accordance with Article 36 TFEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such procedure should ensure that any administrative decisions that are taken are proportionate and respect the principle of mutual recognition and are in accordance with this Regulation.

(29)

Where a competent authority is assessing goods before deciding whether to restrict or deny market access, that authority should not be able to take decisions to suspend market access, except where rapid intervention is required to prevent harm to the safety or health of persons, to prevent harm to the environment, or to prevent the goods from being made available in cases where the making available of such goods is generally prohibited on grounds of public morality or public security, including, for example, the prevention of crime.

(30)

Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) establishes a system of accreditation which ensures the mutual acceptance of the level of competence of conformity assessment bodies. The competent authorities of Member States should therefore not refuse to accept test reports and certificates issued by an accredited conformity assessment body on grounds related to the competence of that body. Furthermore, in order to avoid as far as possible the duplication of tests and procedures which have been already carried out in another Member State, Member States should not refuse to accept test reports and certificates issued by other conformity assessment bodies in accordance with Union law. Competent authorities should take due account of the content of the test reports or certificates submitted.

(31)

Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) specifies that only safe products may be placed on the market and lays down the obligations of producers and distributors with respect to the safety of products. It entitles the competent authorities to ban any dangerous product with immediate effect or to ban products that could be dangerous temporarily for the period needed for the various safety evaluations, checks and controls. That Directive also describes the procedure for competent authorities to apply appropriate measures if products pose a risk, such as the measures referred to in points (b) to (f) of Article 8(1) of that Directive, and it also imposes an obligation on Member States to notify such measures to the Commission and the other Member States. Therefore, competent authorities should be able to continue applying that Directive and, in particular, points (b) to (f) of Article 8(1) and Article 8(3) of that Directive.

(32)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) establishes, inter alia, a rapid alert system for the notification of direct or indirect risks to human health deriving from food or feed. It requires Member States to notify the Commission immediately, using the rapid alert system, of any measure they adopt which is aimed at restricting the placing on the market of food or feed, or withdrawing or recalling food or feed, for the purpose of protecting human health, and which requires rapid action. Competent authorities should be able to continue applying that Regulation and, in particular, Articles 50(3) and 54 of that Regulation.

(33)

Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of European Parliament and of the Council (8) establishes a harmonised Union framework for the organisation of official controls, and for the organisation of official activities other than official controls, along the entire agri-food chain, taking into account the rules on official controls laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) and in relevant Union sectoral legislation. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 lays down a specific procedure for ensuring that economic operators remedy situations of non-compliance with food and feed law, animal health rules or animal welfare rules. Competent authorities should be able to continue applying Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and, in particular, Article 138 thereof.

(34)

Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) establishes a harmonised Union framework for carrying out checks in respect of the obligations laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) in accordance with the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and specifies that Member States shall ensure that any operator complying with those obligations is entitled to be covered by a system of checks. Competent authorities should be able to continue applying Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and, in particular, Article 90 thereof.

(35)

Any administrative decision taken by competent authorities of Member States pursuant to this Regulation should specify the remedies available to the economic operator, so that an economic operator is able, in accordance with national law, to appeal against the decision or bring proceedings before the competent national court or tribunal. The administrative decision should also refer to the possibility for economic operators to use the Internal Market Problem Solving Network (SOLVIT) and the problem-solving procedure provided for in this Regulation.

(36)

Effective solutions for economic operators wishing for a business friendly alternative when challenging administrative decisions restricting or denying market access are essential to ensure the correct and consistent application of the principle of mutual recognition. In order to guarantee such solutions, and to avoid legal costs, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a non-judicial problem-solving procedure should be available for economic operators.

(37)

SOLVIT is a service provided by the national administration in each Member State that aims to find solutions for individuals and businesses when their rights have been breached by public authorities in another Member State. The principles governing the functioning of SOLVIT are set out in Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU (12), according to which each Member State is to provide for a SOLVIT Centre that has adequate human and financial resources to ensure that the SOLVIT Centre takes part in SOLVIT. The Commission should increase awareness about the existence and benefits of SOLVIT, especially among businesses.

(38)

SOLVIT is an effective non-judicial, problem-solving mechanism that is provided free of charge. It works under short deadlines and provides practical solutions to individuals and businesses when they are experiencing difficulties in the recognition of their Union rights by public authorities. Where the economic operator, the relevant SOLVIT Centre and the Member States involved all agree on the appropriate outcome, no further action should be required.

(39)

However, where the SOLVIT's informal approach fails, and doubts remain regarding the compatibility of the administrative decision with the principle of mutual recognition, the Commission should be empowered to look into the matter at the request of any of the SOLVIT Centres involved. Following its assessment, the Commission should issue an opinion to be communicated through the relevant SOLVIT Centre to the economic operator concerned and to the competent authorities, which should be taken into account during the SOLVIT procedure. The Commission's intervention should be subject to a time-limit of 45 working days, which should not include the time necessary for the Commission to receive any additional information and documents that it considers necessary. If the case is solved during this period, the Commission should not be required to issue an opinion. Such SOLVIT cases should be subject to a separate workflow in the SOLVIT database and should not be included in the regular SOLVIT statistics.

(40)

The opinion of the Commission as regards an administrative decision restricting or denying market access should only address whether the administrative decision is compatible with the principle of mutual recognition and with the requirements of this Regulation. This is without prejudice to the Commission's powers under Article 258 TFEU and the Member States' obligation to comply with Union law, when addressing systemic problems identified as regards the application of the principle of mutual recognition.

(41)

It is important for the internal market for goods that businesses, in particular SMEs, can obtain reliable and specific information about the law in force in a given Member State. Product Contact Points should play an important role in facilitating communication between national authorities and economic operators by disseminating information about specific product rules and about how the principle of mutual recognition is applied in the territory of their Member State. Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the role of Product Contact Points as the principal providers of information on all product-related rules, including national technical rules covered by mutual recognition.

(42)

In order to facilitate the free movement of goods, Product Contact Points should provide, free of charge, a reasonable level of information on their national technical rules and the application of the principle of mutual recognition. Product Contact Points should be adequately equipped and resourced. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) they should provide such information through a website and should be subject to the quality criteria set out in that Regulation. The tasks of Product Contact Points related to the provision of any such information, including electronic copies of, or online access to, the national technical rules, should be performed without prejudice to the national rules governing the distribution of national technical rules. Furthermore, Product Contact Points should not be required to provide copies of, or online access to, standards which are subject to the intellectual property rights of standardisation bodies or organisations.

(43)

Cooperation between competent authorities is essential for the smooth functioning of the principle of mutual recognition and for creating a mutual recognition culture. Product Contact Points and national competent authorities should therefore cooperate and exchange information and expertise in order to ensure the correct and consistent application of the principle of mutual recognition and this Regulation.

(44)

For the purposes of notifying administrative decisions restricting or denying market access, allowing communication between Product Contact Points and ensuring administrative cooperation, it is necessary to provide Member States with access to an information and communication system.

(45)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14).

(46)

Where, for the purposes of this Regulation, it is necessary to process personal data, such processing should be carried out in accordance with Union law on the protection of personal data. Any processing of personal data under this Regulation is subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (15) or Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16).

(47)

Reliable and efficient monitoring mechanisms should be established to provide information on the application of this Regulation and on its impact on the free movement of goods. Such mechanisms should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve these objectives.

(48)

For the purposes of raising awareness about the principle of mutual recognition and ensuring that this Regulation is applied correctly and consistently, provision should be made for Union financing of awareness-raising campaigns, trainings, exchange of officials and other related activities aiming at enhancing and supporting trust and cooperation between competent authorities, Product Contact Points and economic operators.

(49)

In order to remedy the lack of accurate data related to the functioning of the principle of mutual recognition and its impact on the Single Market for goods, the Union should finance the collection of such data.

(50)

The financial interests of the Union should be protected through proportionate measures throughout the expenditure cycle, including the prevention, detection and investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used and, where appropriate, administrative and financial penalties.

(51)

It is appropriate to defer the application of this Regulation in order to allow competent authorities and economic operators sufficient time to adapt to the requirements laid down herein.

(52)

The Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Regulation in light of the objectives that it pursues. The Commission should use the data collected on the functioning of the principle of mutual recognition and its impact on the single market for goods and information available in the information and communication system to evaluate this Regulation. The Commission should be able to request Member States to provide additional information necessary for its evaluation. Pursuant to point 22 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law Making (17), the evaluation of this Regulation, which should be based on efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and added value, should provide the basis for impact assessments of options for further action.

(53)

Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure the smooth, consistent and correct application of the principle of mutual recognition, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,

(1)

Gross national income at market prices (GNI) constitutes the basis for calculating the largest share of own resources in the general budget of the Union. Therefore, it is necessary to further reinforce the comparability, reliability and exhaustiveness of that aggregate.

(2)

Statistical integrity through respect for the principles of the European Statistics Code of Practice, as reviewed and updated by the European Statistical System Committee (ESSC) on 16 November 2017, and of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is of particular importance where statistics are being used directly for administrative purposes and for policy-making at Union and national levels.

(3)

Those statistical data are also an important analytical tool for the coordination of national economic policies and for various Union policies, as well as for research activities.

(4)

In accordance with Article 2(7) of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (3), for own resources purposes, GNI means an annual GNI at market prices under the methodology set out in Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) which established the revised European System of Accounts (ESA 2010). In accordance with Article 10(1) of Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom, and subject to Article 10(2) thereof, Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom (5) was repealed.

(5)

It is essential that GNI data be comparable across Member States and that there be compliance with the relevant definitions and accounting rules of ESA 2010. For that purpose, the assessment procedures and the basic data actually used should permit the correct application of the definitions and accounting rules of ESA 2010.

(6)

It is essential that the sources and methods used to compile GNI data be reliable. This means that sound techniques should be applied to robust, suitable and up-to-date basic statistics as much as possible.

(7)

It is essential that GNI data be exhaustive. Therefore, those data should also take into account informal, unregistered and other activities and transactions that are not reported in statistical surveys or to fiscal, social and other administrative authorities. Improved GNI coverage presupposes developing suitable statistical bases and assessment procedures in order to produce reliable statistics and, where applicable, to make necessary adjustments, avoiding gaps and double counting.

(8)

Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 608/2014 (6) provides for inspections in Member States for the purpose of verifying own resources. For GNI verification purposes, the Commission (Eurostat) should be entitled to carry out GNI information visits in order to verify the quality of GNI aggregates and their components and to verify compliance with ESA 2010, as well as to ensure that GNI data are comparable, reliable and exhaustive. The Commission (Eurostat) should respect rules on statistical confidentiality. The participation of representatives of national statistical authorities in GNI information visits to other Member States is essential in order to increase the transparency and quality of the process of GNI verification.

(9)

In order to ensure the reliability, exhaustiveness and highest possible degree of comparability of GNI data, in line with ESA 2010, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the list of issues to be addressed in every verification cycle. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (7). In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(10)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation by providing GNI aggregates for own resources purposes, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to establish the structure and detailed arrangements of the inventory of the sources and methods used to produce GNI data and their components, in accordance with Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013, as well as the timetable for its updating and transmission, and the specific measures aimed at improving the comparability, reliability and exhaustiveness of Member States' GNI data based on the list of issues defined by the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).

(11)

The ESSC, established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009, has been, in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation, asked to provide its professional guidance.

(12)

The GNI Committee referred to in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1287/2003 (9) has issued opinions for, provided advice to, and assisted the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers. Under the strategy for a new European Statistical System structure to improve coordination and partnership in a clear pyramid structure within the System, the ESSC should have an advisory role and assist the Commission in exercising its implementing powers. To that effect, the GNI Committee should be replaced by the ESSC for the purpose of assisting the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers under this Regulation. Nevertheless, for the purposes of other functions previously undertaken by the GNI Committee under Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1287/2003, and not relating to assistance in the exercise of the implementing powers of the Commission, the Commission should establish a formal expert group to assist it for such purposes.

(13)

Council Directive 89/130/EEC, Euratom (10) and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1287/2003 set up a procedure to verify and assess the comparability, reliability and exhaustiveness of Gross National Product (GNP) data and GNI data within the GNP Committee and GNI Committee in which Member States and the Commission cooperate closely. That procedure should be adjusted to take account of the use of GNI data according to ESA 2010 for the purposes of own resources, the revised timetable for making available own resources, and recent developments within the European Statistical System. Directive 89/130/EEC, Euratom and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1287/2003 should therefore be repealed,

(1)

The .eu top-level domain (TLD) was established by Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (4). Since the adoption of those regulations, the political and legislative context in the Union, the online environment and the market have changed considerably.

(2)

The rapid evolution of the TLD market and the dynamic digital landscape requires a future-proof and flexible regulatory environment. The .eu TLD is one of the largest country code TLDs (ccTLDs). The .eu TLD is used by the Union institutions, agencies and bodies, including for European projects and initiatives. The purpose of the .eu TLD is, through good management, to help enhance the Union identity and promote Union values online, such as multilingualism, respect for users' privacy and security and respect for human rights, as well as specific online priorities.

(3)

TLDs are an essential component of the hierarchical structure of the domain name system (DNS) which ensure an interoperable system of unique identifiers, available throughout the world, on any application and any network.

(4)

The .eu TLD should promote the use of, and access to, internet networks in accordance with Articles 170 and 171 TFEU by providing registration complementary to existing ccTLDs and to the global registration of generic TLDs.

(5)

The .eu TLD, which is a clear and easily recognisable label, should provide a clearly identifiable link with the Union and the European market place. It should enable undertakings, organisations and natural persons within the Union to register a domain name under the .eu TLD. The existence of such a domain name is important to strengthen the Union's identity online. Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 should therefore be amended in order to allow Union citizens to register a .eu TLD name, regardless of their place of residence, from 19 October 2019.

(6)

Domain names in the .eu TLD should be allocated to eligible parties, subject to availability.

(7)

The Commission should promote cooperation between the Registry, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and other Union agencies, with a view to combating the speculative and abusive registrations of domain names, including cybersquatting, and providing simple administrative procedures, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

(8)

To ensure the better protection of the right of the parties to contract with, respectively, the Registry and Registrars, disputes with regard to the registration of domain names in the .eu TLD should be solved by bodies located in the Union applying the relevant national law, without prejudice to rights and obligations recognised by the Member States or by the Union arising from international instruments.

(9)

The Commission should, on the basis of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory selection procedure, having regard to cost-efficiency and administrative simplicity, designate a Registry for the .eu TLD. In order to support the digital single market, to build an online European identity and to encourage cross-border online activities, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the eligibility and selection criteria and the procedure for the designation of the Registry. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (5). In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(10)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt the lists of reserved and blocked domain names by Member States, to establish the principles that are to be included in the contract between the Commission and the Registry and to designate the Registry on duly justified imperative grounds of urgency, in particular to ensure the continuity of the service. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Such lists should be compiled subject to the domain names' availability taking into account domain names at second level already reserved or registered by the Member States.

(11)

The Commission should enter into a contract with the designated Registry, which should include the detailed principles and procedures that apply to the Registry for the organisation, administration and management of the .eu TLD. The contract should be of a fixed duration and should be renewable once without the need for a new selection procedure.

(12)

The principles and procedures relating to the functioning of the .eu TLD should be annexed to the contract between the Commission and the designated Registry.

(13)

This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition provided for in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

(14)

The Registry should comply with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency, and should implement measures to safeguard fair competition that are to be authorised in advance by the Commission, in particular when the Registry provides services to undertakings with whom it competes on downstream markets.

(15)

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is at present responsible for coordinating the delegation of codes representing ccTLD to Registries. The Registry should enter into an appropriate contract with ICANN that provides for the delegation of the .eu ccTLD code, taking account of the relevant principles adopted by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

(16)

The Registry should enter into an appropriate escrow agreement to ensure continuity of service, and in particular to ensure that it is possible to continue to provide services to the local internet community with minimum disruption in the event of re-delegation or other unforeseen circumstances. The Registry should submit an electronic copy of the current content of the .eu TLD database to the escrow agent on a daily basis.

(17)

The alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures to be adopted should comply with Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) and take into account the international best practices in this area and in particular the relevant recommendations of the World Intellectual Property Organization, to ensure that speculative and abusive registrations are avoided as far as possible. Those ADR procedures should respect uniform procedural rules that are in line with those set out in ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.

(18)

The policy on the abusive registration of .eu domain names should provide for verification by the Registry of the data that it receives, specifically data concerning the identity of registrants, as well as revocation and blocking from future registration of domain names considered by a final decision of a Member State court to be defamatory, racist or otherwise contrary to the law of the Member State. The Registry should take the utmost care to ensure the correctness of the data that it receives and holds. The revocation procedure should allow the domain name holder a reasonable opportunity to rectify any breach of the eligibility criteria, registration requirements or outstanding debts before the revocation is to take effect.

(19)

A domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is established by Union or national law and which has been registered without rights or legitimate interest in the name, should, in principle, be revoked and, where necessary, transferred to the legitimate holder. Where such a domain name has been found to have been used in bad faith, it should always be revoked.

(20)

The Registry should adopt clear policies aiming to ensure the timely identification of abusive registrations of domain names and, where necessary, should cooperate with competent authorities and other public bodies relevant to cybersecurity and information security which are specifically involved in the fight against such registrations, such as national computer emergency response teams (CERTs).

(21)

The Registry should support law enforcement agencies in the fight against crime, by implementing technical and organisational measures aimed at enabling competent authorities to have access to the data in the Registry for purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes, as provided for by Union or national law.

(22)

This Regulation should be implemented in compliance with the principles relating to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Registry should comply with the relevant Union data protection rules, principles and guidelines, in particular with the relevant security requirements, with the principles of necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation and proportionate data retention period. Also, personal data protection by design and data protection by default should be embedded in all data-processing systems and databases developed and maintained.

(23)

In order to ensure effective periodic supervision, the Registry should be audited at its own expense at least every two years by an independent body with the purpose of confirming, by means of a conformity assessment report, that the Registry complies with the requirements laid down in this Regulation. The Registry should submit that report to the Commission in accordance with its contract with the Commission.

(24)

The contract between the Commission and the Registry should provide for procedures to improve the organisation, administration and management of the .eu TLD by the Registry in accordance with the instructions of the Commission resulting from the Commission's supervisory activities as provided for in this Regulation.

(25)

In its conclusions of 27 November 2014, entitled ‘Internet Governance’, the Council reaffirmed the Union's commitment to promote multistakeholder governance structures that are based on a coherent set of global internet governance principles. Inclusive internet governance refers to the development and applications of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet by governments, the private sector, civil society, international organisations and the technical community, all acting in their respective roles.

(26)

A .eu Multistakeholder Advisory Group should be set up with the role of advising the Commission in order to strengthen and widen input into the good governance of the Registry. The Group should reflect the internet governance multistakeholder model, and its members, apart from those drawn from Member State authorities and international organisations, should be appointed by the Commission on the basis of an open, non-discriminatory and transparent procedure. The representatives drawn from the Member State authorities should be appointed on the basis of a rotation system ensuring sufficient continuity of participation in the Group.

(27)

The Commission should carry out an evaluation of the effectiveness and functioning of the .eu TLD. That evaluation should have regard to the designated Registry working practices and the relevance of the Registry's tasks. The Commission should also submit regular reports on the functioning of the .eu TLD name to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(28)

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, and the protection of consumers. Appropriate Union procedures should be observed when ensuring that provisions in national law that affect this Regulation comply with Union law and, in particular, the Charter. The Registry should seek guidance from the Commission in cases of doubt with regard to compliance with Union law.

(29)

Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the implementation of a pan-European TLD in addition to the national ccTLDs, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(30)

In order to limit any risk of disruption to the services of the .eu TLD during the implementation of the new regulatory framework, transitional provisions are laid down in this Regulation.

(31)

Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 should therefore be amended and repealed, and Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 should be repealed,

(1)

Since the adoption of Regulations (EC) No 2560/2001 (4) and (EC) No 924/2009 (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council, charges for cross-border payments in euro between Member States of the euro area have strongly decreased to levels that are insignificant in the vast majority of cases.

(2)

Cross-border payments in euro from non-euro area Member States however account for around 80 % of all cross-border payments from non-euro area Member States. The charges for such cross-border payments remain excessively high in most non-euro area Member States, even though payment service providers that are located in non-euro area Member States have access to the same efficient infrastructures to process those transactions at very low costs as payment service providers that are located in the euro area.

(3)

High charges for cross-border payments remain a barrier to the full integration of businesses and citizens in non-euro area Member States into the internal market, affecting their competitiveness. Those high charges perpetuate the existence of two categories of payment service users in the Union: payment service users that benefit from the single euro payments area (SEPA), and payment service users that pay high costs for their cross-border payments in euro.

(4)

In order to facilitate the functioning of the internal market and to end the inequalities between payment service users in the euro area and non-euro area Member States in respect of cross-border payments in euro, it is necessary to ensure that charges for cross-border payments in euro within the Union are aligned with charges for corresponding national payments made in the national currency of the Member State in which the payment service provider of the payment service user is located. A payment service provider is considered to be located in the Member State in which it provides its services to the payment service user.

(5)

Currency conversion charges represent a significant cost of cross-border payments when different currencies are in use in the Member State of the payer and the Member State of the payee. Article 45 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) requires charges and the exchange rate used to be transparent, Article 52(3) of that Directive specifies information requirements with regard to payment transactions covered by a framework contract and Article 59(2) of that Directive covers the information requirements for parties offering currency conversion services at an automated teller machine (ATM) or at the point of sale. Those information requirements have not achieved sufficient transparency and comparability of currency conversion charges in situations in which alternative currency conversion options are offered at an ATM or at the point of sale. That lack of transparency and comparability prevents competition which would reduce currency conversion charges and increases the risk of payers choosing expensive currency conversion options. It is therefore necessary to introduce additional measures in order to protect consumers against excessive charges for currency conversion services and ensure that consumers are given the information they need to choose the best currency conversion option.

(6)

To ensure that market players are not confronted with the need to make a disproportionate level of investment to adapt their payment infrastructure, equipment and processes to provide for increased transparency, the measures to be implemented should be appropriate, adequate and cost-effective. At the same time, in situations in which the payer is confronted with different currency conversion options at an ATM or at the point of sale, the information provided should enable comparison, to allow the payer to make an informed choice.

(7)

To achieve comparability, currency conversion charges for all card-based payments should be expressed in the same way, namely as percentage mark-ups over the latest available euro foreign exchange reference rates issued by the European Central Bank (ECB). A mark-up might have to be based on a rate derived from two ECB rates in the case of a conversion between two non-euro currencies.

(8)

In accordance with the general information requirements on currency conversion charges laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/2366, providers of currency conversion services must disclose information on their currency conversion charges prior to the initiation of the payment transaction. Parties that offer currency conversion services at an ATM or at the point of sale should provide information on their charges for such services in a clear and accessible manner, for example by displaying their charges at the counter or digitally on the terminal, or on-screen in the case of online purchases. In addition to the information referred to in Article 59(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, those parties should provide, prior to the initiation of the payment, explicit information on the amount to be paid to the payee in the currency used by the payee and the total amount to be paid by the payer in the currency of the payer's account. The amount to be paid in the currency used by the payee should express the price of the goods and services to be bought and might be displayed at the check-out rather than on the payment terminal. The currency used by the payee is in general the local currency, but according to the principal of contractual freedom might in some cases be another Union currency. The total amount to be paid by the payer in the currency of the payer's account should consist of the price of the goods or services and the currency conversion charges. In addition, both amounts should be documented on the receipt or on another durable medium.

(9)

With regard to Article 59(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, where a currency conversion service is offered at an ATM or at the point of sale, it should be possible for the payer to refuse that service and to pay in the currency used by the payee instead.

(10)

In order to enable payers to compare the charges of currency conversion options at an ATM or at the point of sale, the payers' payment service providers should not only include fully comparable information on the applicable charges for currency conversion in the terms and conditions of their framework contract, but should also make that information public on a broadly available and easily accessible electronic platform, in particular on their customer websites, on their home-banking websites and on their mobile banking applications, in an easily understandable and accessible manner. This would cater for the development of comparison websites to make it easier for consumers to compare prices when travelling or shopping abroad. In addition, payers' payment service providers should remind payers about the applicable currency conversion charges when a card-based payment is made in another currency, through the use of broadly available and easily accessible electronic communication channels, such as SMS messages, e-mails or push notifications through the payer's mobile banking application. Payment service providers should agree with payment service users on the electronic communication channel through which they will provide the information on currency conversion charges, taking into consideration the most effective channel for reaching the payer. Payment service providers should also accept requests from payment service users to opt out of receiving the electronic messages containing information on the currency conversion charges.

(11)

Periodic reminders are appropriate in situations in which the payer stays abroad for longer periods of time, for example where the payer is posted or studies abroad, or where the payer regularly uses a card for online purchases in the local currency. An obligation to provide such reminders would not require disproportionate investments to adapt the existing business processes and payment processing infrastructures of the payment service provider, and would ensure that the payer is better informed when considering the different currency conversion options.

(12)

The Commission should submit to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the ECB and to the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of the rule equalising the cost of cross-border payments in euro with the cost of national transactions in national currencies and on the effectiveness of the information requirements on currency conversion set out in this Regulation. The Commission should also analyse further possibilities – and the technical feasibility of those possibilities – of extending the equal charges rule to all Union currencies and of further improving the transparency and comparability of currency conversion charges, as well as the possibility of disabling and enabling the option of accepting currency conversion by parties other than the payer's payment service provider.

(13)

Since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the cross-border nature of the payments, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,

(1)

Article 1 is amended as follows:

(2)

in Article 2, point (9) is replaced by the following:

(*1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).’;"

(3)

Article 3 is amended as follows:

(4)

the following article is inserted:

(5)

the following article is inserted:

(6)

Article 15 is replaced by the following:

(*2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/518 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 as regards certain charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges (OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 36).’."

(1)

The descriptions of T1 and T2 category vehicles provided for in Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) require clarification regarding the position of the axle closest to the driver for tractors with a reversible driving position and regarding the method of calculating the height of the centre of gravity. In order to accurately and uniformly establish the height of the centre of gravity for T2 category vehicles, reference should be made to internationally applicable standards which determine the centre of gravity of a tractor.

(2)

An accurate definition of the different features of agricultural tractors based on the analysis of their technical characteristics is of the utmost importance for the correct and complete implementation of this Regulation and of the delegated and implementing acts adopted under it. Considering that discussions on the definitions of the categories take place in the relevant international fora, of which the Union is a party, such work should be taken into account by the Commission to prevent any disproportionate and negative effects on the application of technical requirements and test procedures, as well as any negative impacts for the manufacturers, in particular of highly specialised tractors.

(3)

In Regulation (EU) No 167/2013, it should be made clear that the term ‘interchangeable machinery’ means ‘interchangeable equipment’, thereby ensuring that terminology is used consistently throughout that Regulation.

(4)

In Regulation (EU) No 167/2013, importers are required to retain a copy of the certificate of conformity in respect of products that are not in conformity with that Regulation or which present a serious risk. It should be made clear that what is being referred to is an EU type-approval certificate. That Regulation should therefore be amended to refer to the appropriate document.

(5)

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 requires that an EU type-approval certificate contains, as an attachment, the test results. It should be made clear that what is being referred to is the test results sheet. That Regulation should therefore be amended to refer to the appropriate attachment.

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 empowered the Commission to adopt delegated acts for a period of five years, which expired on 21 March 2018. As there is a continuing need to update various elements of the type-approval process as laid down by that Regulation and the acts adopted pursuant to it, in particular to adapt them to technical progress or to introduce corrections, the period for the exercise of the delegation of power should be extended, with the possibility for further tacit extensions.

(7)

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013, refers to the repeal of Council Directive 74/347/EEC (4) when it should refer instead to the repeal of Directive 2008/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), which codified the former Directive. It is therefore necessary to amend the relevant reference in Regulation (EU) No 167/2013.

(8)

As this Regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 without expanding its regulatory content, and since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(9)

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 2, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 4, points (2) and (3) are replaced by the following:

(3)

in Article 12, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

(4)

in Article 25(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:

(5)

in Article 39(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The first subparagraph shall apply only to vehicles within the territory of the Union which were covered by a valid EU type-approval at the time of their production, but which had neither been registered nor entered into service before that EU type-approval lost its validity.’;

(6)

in Article 71, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

(7)

in Article 76, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(1)

Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) has been substantially amended. Since further amendments are to be made, that Directive should be recast in the interests of clarity.

(2)

It is desirable to achieve widespread deployment of electronic road toll systems in the Member States and in the neighbouring countries, and to have, as far as possible, reliable, user friendly, and cost-efficient systems suited to the future development of road-charging policy at Union level and to future technical developments. Therefore, it is necessary to make electronic road toll systems interoperable to reduce the cost of, and the burdens linked to, the payment of tolls across the Union.

(3)

Interoperable electronic road toll systems contribute to achieving the objectives laid down by Union law on road tolls.

(4)

The lack of interoperability is a significant problem in electronic road toll systems where the road fee due is linked to the distance covered by the vehicle (distance-based tolls) or to the vehicle passing a specific point (for example, cordon pricing). The provisions regarding the interoperability of electronic road toll systems should therefore apply only to those systems and should not apply to systems where the road fee due is linked to the time spent by the vehicle on the tolled infrastructure (for example, time-based systems such as vignettes).

(5)

Cross-border enforcement of the obligation to pay road fees in the Union is a significant problem in all kind of systems, whether distance-based, cordon-based or time-based, electronic or manual. To deal with the problem of cross-border enforcement following a failure to pay a road fee, the provisions regarding the cross-border exchange of information should therefore apply to all those systems.

(6)

In national law, the offence of failing to pay a road fee can be classified as an administrative offence or as a criminal offence. This Directive should apply regardless of the classification of the offence.

(7)

Due to the lack of consistent classification across the Union, and their indirect link to the use of the infrastructure, parking fees should be left outside the scope of this Directive.

(8)

The interoperability of electronic road toll systems requires harmonisation of the technology used and of the interfaces between interoperability constituents.

(9)

The harmonisation of technologies and interfaces should be supported by the development and maintenance of appropriate open and public standards, available on a non-discriminatory basis to all system suppliers.

(10)

For the purpose of covering, with their on-board equipment (OBE), the required communication technologies, European Electronic Toll Service (EETS) providers should be allowed to make use of, and link to, other hardware and software systems already present in the vehicle, such as satellite navigation systems or handheld devices.

(11)

The specific characteristics of electronic road toll systems which are currently applied to light-duty vehicles should be taken into account. Since no such electronic road toll systems currently use satellite positioning or mobile communications, EETS providers should be allowed, for a limited period of time, to provide users of light-duty vehicles with OBE suitable for use with 5,8 GHz microwave technology only. This derogation should be without prejudice to the right of Member States to implement satellite-based tolling for light-duty vehicles.

(12)

Toll systems based on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology require more manual checks of toll transactions in the back office than systems using OBE. Systems using OBE are more efficient for large electronic toll domains, and systems using ANPR technology are more suitable for small domains, such as city tolls, where the use of OBE would generate disproportionate costs or administrative burdens. ANPR technology can be useful in particular when combined with other technologies.

(13)

In view of technical developments connected with solutions based on ANPR technology, the standardisation bodies should be encouraged to define the necessary technical standards.

(14)

The specific rights and obligations of EETS providers should apply to entities which prove that they have fulfilled certain requirements and have obtained registration as EETS providers in their Member State of establishment.

(15)

The rights and obligations of the main EETS actors, that is to say, the EETS providers, toll chargers and EETS users, should be clearly defined to ensure that the market functions in a fair and efficient manner.

(16)

It is particularly important to safeguard certain rights of the EETS providers, such as the right to the protection of commercially sensitive data, and to do so without negatively impacting the quality of the services provided to the toll chargers and EETS users. In particular, the toll charger should be required not to disclose commercially sensitive data to any of the EETS provider's competitors. The amount and type of data which EETS providers communicate to toll chargers, for the purpose of calculating and applying tolls or of verifying the calculation of applied toll on the vehicles of EETS users by the EETS providers, should be kept to a strict minimum.

(17)

EETS providers should be required to fully cooperate with toll chargers in their enforcement efforts, so as to increase the overall efficiency of electronic road toll systems. Therefore, toll chargers should be allowed to request from the EETS provider, where a failure to pay a road fee is suspected, data relating to the vehicle and to the owner or holder of the vehicle who is the EETS provider's client, provided that those data are not used for any purpose other than enforcement.

(18)

In order to enable EETS providers to compete, in a non-discriminatory manner, for all clients in a given EETS domain, it is important that the possibility is given to them to become accredited to that domain sufficiently early so that they are able to offer services to the users as of the first day of operation of the toll system.

(19)

Toll chargers should give access to their EETS domain to EETS providers on a non-discriminatory basis.

(20)

To ensure transparency and non-discriminatory access to EETS domains for all EETS providers, toll chargers should publish all the necessary information relating to access rights in an EETS domain statement.

(21)

All OBE user rebates or discounts on tolls offered by a Member State or by a toll charger should be transparent, publicly announced and available under the same conditions to clients of EETS providers.

(22)

EETS providers should be entitled to fair remuneration, calculated based on a transparent, non-discriminatory and identical methodology.

(23)

Toll chargers should be allowed to deduct from the remuneration of EETS providers the appropriate costs incurred to provide, operate and maintain the EETS-specific elements of the electronic road toll system.

(24)

EETS providers should pay to the toll charger all tolls due by their clients. EETS providers should, however, not be liable for tolls that their clients have not paid, when the latter are equipped with an OBE that has been declared to the toll charger as invalidated.

(25)

Where a legal entity that is a toll service provider also plays other roles in an electronic road toll system, or has other activities not directly related to electronic toll collection, it should be required to keep accounting records which make a clear distinction possible between the costs and revenues related to the provision of toll services and the costs and revenues related to other activities, and to provide, upon request, information on those costs and revenues related to the provision of toll services to the relevant Conciliation Body or judicial body. Cross subsidies between the activities performed in the role of toll service provider and other activities should not be allowed.

(26)

Users should have the possibility to subscribe to EETS through any EETS provider, regardless of their nationality, Member State of residence or Member State of registration of the vehicle.

(27)

To avoid double payment and to give users legal certainty, the payment of a toll to an EETS provider should be considered as fulfilling the user's obligations towards the relevant toll charger.

(28)

The contractual relationships between toll chargers and EETS providers should ensure, inter alia, that tolls are paid correctly.

(29)

A mediation procedure should be established with a view to settling disputes between toll chargers and EETS providers during contractual negotiations and in their contractual relationships. National Conciliation Bodies should be consulted by toll chargers and EETS providers who are seeking a settlement of a dispute relating to the right to non-discriminatory access to EETS domains.

(30)

Conciliation Bodies should have the power to verify that the contractual conditions imposed on any EETS provider are non-discriminatory. In particular, they should have the power to verify that the remuneration offered by the toll charger to the EETS providers respects the principles set out in this Directive.

(31)

The traffic data of EETS users constitutes input that is essential for enhancing transport policies of the Member States. Member States should therefore have the possibility to request such data from toll service providers, including EETS providers for the purpose of designing traffic policies and enhancing traffic management or for other non-commercial use by the State, in compliance with applicable data protection rules.

(32)

A framework is needed that lays down the procedures for accrediting EETS providers to an EETS domain and that ensures fair access to the market while safeguarding the adequate level of service. The EETS domain statement should set out in detail the procedure for accrediting an EETS provider to the EETS domain, and in particular the procedure for checking conformity to specifications and suitability for use of interoperability constituents. The procedure should be the same for all EETS providers.

(33)

To ensure easy access to information by EETS market actors, Member States should be required to compile and publish all important data regarding EETS in publicly available national registers.

(34)

To allow for technological progress, it is important that toll chargers have the possibility to test new tolling technologies or concepts. Such tests should however be limited, and EETS providers should not be required to take part in them. The Commission should have the possibility of not authorising such tests if they could prejudice the correct functioning of the regular electronic road toll system or of the EETS.

(35)

Large differences in technical specifications of electronic road toll systems might hamper the achievement of EU-wide interoperability of electronic tolls, and thus contribute to the persistence of the current situation where users need several pieces of OBE to pay tolls in the Union. This situation is detrimental to the efficiency of transport operations, to the cost-efficiency of toll systems, and to the achievement of transport policy objectives. The issues underlying this situation should therefore be addressed.

(36)

While cross-border interoperability is improving throughout the Union, the mid- to long-term objective is to make it possible to travel across the Union with only one piece of OBE. Therefore, in order to avoid administrative burdens and costs for road users, it is important that the Commission set up a roadmap to achieve this objective, and to facilitate the free movement of people and goods in the Union, without negatively affecting competition on the market.

(37)

The EETS is a market-based service and therefore EETS providers should not be obliged to provide their services across the Union. However, in the interest of users, EETS providers should cover all EETS domains in any Member State in which they decide to provide their services. Furthermore, the Commission should assess whether the flexibility given to EETS providers leads to the exclusion from EETS of small or peripheral EETS domains, and, if it finds that it does, take action where necessary.

(38)

The EETS domain statement should describe in detail the framework commercial conditions for EETS providers' operations in the EETS domain in question. In particular, it should describe the methodology used for calculating the remuneration of EETS providers.

(39)

Where a new electronic road toll system is being launched or an existing system is being substantially modified, the toll charger should publish the new or updated EETS domain statements with sufficient notice to allow EETS providers to be accredited or re-accredited to the system at the latest one month before the day of its operational launch. The toll charger should design and follow the procedure for the accreditation or, respectively, re-accreditation of EETS providers in such a way that the procedure can be concluded at the latest one month before the operational launch of the new or substantially modified system. Toll chargers should respect their part of the planned procedure as defined in the EETS domain statement.

(40)

Toll chargers should not request or require from EETS providers any specific technical solutions which could jeopardise interoperability with other EETS domains and with the existing interoperability constituents of the EETS provider.

(41)

The EETS has the potential to considerably reduce the administrative costs and burdens of international road transport operators and drivers.

(42)

EETS providers should be allowed to issue invoices to EETS users. However, toll chargers should be allowed to request that invoices are sent on their behalf and in their name, since invoicing directly in the name of the EETS provider can, in certain EETS domains, have adverse administrative and tax implications.

(43)

Each Member State with at least two EETS domains should designate a contact office for EETS providers wishing to provide the EETS in its territory in order to facilitate their contacts with the toll chargers.

(44)

Electronic tolling and other services, such as cooperative ITS (C-ITS) applications use similar technologies and neighbouring frequency bands for short range vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. In the future, the potential for applying other emerging technologies to electronic tolling merits exploration, after a thorough assessment of the costs, benefits, technical barriers and possible solutions thereto. It is important that measures are implemented to protect existing investments in the 5,8 GHz microwave technology from the interference of other technologies.

(45)

Without prejudice to State aid and competition law, Member States should be allowed to develop measures to promote electronic toll collection and billing.

(46)

When standards relevant for the EETS are reviewed by the standardisation bodies, there should be appropriate transition arrangements to ensure the continuity of the EETS and the compatibility, with the toll systems, of interoperability constituents already in use at the moment of the revision of the standards.

(47)

The EETS should allow intermodality to develop, whilst pursuing compliance with the ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ principles.

(48)

Problems with identifying non-resident offenders to electronic road toll systems hamper further deployment of such systems and the wider application of the ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ principles on Union roads and therefore there is a need to find a way to identify such persons and to process their personal data.

(49)

For reasons of consistency and efficient use of resources, the system for exchanging information on those who fail to pay a road fee, and on their vehicles, should use the same tools as the system that is used for exchanging information on road-safety-related traffic offences provided for in Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(50)

In certain Member States a failure to pay a road fee is established only once the obligation to pay the road fee has been notified to the user. Since this Directive does not harmonise national laws in this regard, Member States should have the possibility to apply this Directive to identify users and vehicles for the purpose of notification. However, such extended application should be allowed only if certain conditions are fulfilled.

(51)

Follow-up proceedings initiated after a failure to pay a road fee are not harmonised across the Union. Often, the identified road user is given the possibility of paying the road fee due, or a fixed substitute amount, directly to the entity responsible for levying the road fee, before any further administrative or criminal proceedings are initiated by Member State authorities. It is important that such efficient procedure to put an end to the failure to pay a road fee is available on similar terms to all road users. For this purpose, Member States should be allowed to provide the entity responsible for levying the road fee with the data necessary to identify the vehicle in respect of which there was a failure to pay a road fee and to identify its owner or holder, provided that proper protection of personal data is ensured. In this context, Member States should ensure that compliance with the payment order issued by the entity concerned puts an end to the failure to pay a road fee.

(52)

In certain Member States, the absence, or dysfunctioning, of OBE is regarded as a failure to pay a road fee where such fees can only be paid by using OBE.

(53)

Member States should provide the Commission with the information and data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the system for exchanging information on those who fail to pay a road fee. The Commission should assess the data and information obtained, and propose, if necessary, amendments to this Directive.

(54)

While analysing possible measures to further facilitate the cross-border enforcement of the obligation to pay road fees in the Union, the Commission should also assess in its report the need for mutual assistance between Member States.

(55)

The enforcement of the obligation to pay road fees, the identification of the vehicle and of the owner or holder of the vehicle for which a failure to pay a road fee was established and the collection of information on the user for the purpose of ensuring the compliance of the toll charger with its obligations to tax authorities all entail the processing of personal data. Such processing needs to be carried out in accordance with Union rules, as set out, inter alia, in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). The right to protection of personal data is explicitly recognised by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(56)

This Directive does not affect the Member States' freedom to lay down rules governing road infrastructure charging and taxation matters.

(57)

In order to facilitate the cross-border exchange of information on the vehicles and owners or holders of vehicles for which there was a failure to pay road fees, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the amendment of Annex I to reflect changes in the Union law. The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission also in respect of laying down the details for the classification of vehicles for the purposes of establishing the applicable tariff schemes, further defining the obligations of the EETS users regarding the provision of data to the EETS provider and the use and handling of the OBE, laying down the requirements for interoperability constituents regarding safety and health, reliability and availability, environment protection, technical compatibility, security and privacy and operation and management, laying down the general infrastructure requirements for interoperability constituents and laying down the minimum criteria of eligibility for notified bodies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (9). In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(58)

The implementation of this Directive requires uniform conditions for the application of technical and administrative specifications for the deployment, in the Member States, of procedures that involve EETS actors and the interfaces between them, so as to facilitate interoperability and ensure that national toll collection markets are governed by equivalent rules. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive and to define those technical and administrative specifications, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10).

(59)

This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limit for the transposition into national law of the Directive set out in Annex III, Part B.

(60)

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the protection of personal data.

(61)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11),