Transport The objectives of the European Register of Road transport Undertakings (ERRU) Setting the scene and working towards a common interpretation of the Regulation on access to the profession DG MOVE D.3 18/10/2012

Transport Topics I. Considerations related to Regulation 1071/2009 II. The establishment of the ERRU III. The study on sanctions in commercial road transport

Transport Regulation 1071/2009 on the access to the profession The Regulation has established the requirements for engagement in the occupation of road transport operator (Article 3) : Effective and stable establishment in a Member State Good repute Appropriate financial standing Requisite professional competence Additional conditions can be imposed by Member States The ERRU is linked to the control of the requirement of GOOD REPUTE

Transport Conditions relating to the good repute The conditions must be met by both transport undertakings and transport managers, their conduct shall be determined by reference to convictions, penalties or infringements of road transport legislation committed by : 1.Transport undertakings 2.Transport managers 3.Any other relevant person (including drivers) The good repute of transport managers is conditional on not having been convicted of a serious criminal offence or not having incurred a penalty for a serious infringement A conviction for the most serious infringements should result in the loss of good repute

Transport The most serious infringements (Annex IV to Regulation 1071/2009) 1.Driving times and rest periods 2.Tachograph and speed limiter 3.Driving without a valid roadworthiness certificate 4.Dangerous goods 5.Driving licence and Community licence 6.Driver card 7.Maximum permissible laden mass

Transport The interconnection of national registers on road transport undertakings Member States have to establish national electronic registers Minimum content (Article 16 (2) a) to e)) Public access Separation between publicly accessible data and data concerning infringements and unfit managers Member States have to exchange certain information Infringements (number, category and type) Transport manager

Transport Benefits of the ERRU. Better cooperation between Member States. Effective national risk rating systems. Reducing administrative burden for authorities and for complying road transport undertakings

Transport Legal timetable : Decision on minimum requirements for register (Commission decision 2009/992/EU) : Adoption of rules on interoperability (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1213/2010) : Interconnection of registers + assessing fitness of managers (the Commission will be strict to see this deadline respected) : All most serious infringements in register

Transport The ERRU Working Group. Created by the responsible Committee. Commission and Member States representatives (business/technical). 7 meetings since July 2009, last meeting in March 2012, next meeting foreseen for 15 November Great technical knowledge of participants. Prepared the relevant implementing acts. European Data Protection Supervisor has been consulted before adopting the implementing acts

Transport ERRU architecture Member State Peer to peerCentral hub Member State Broker Central hub

Transport ERRU messages. Exchange and record in the national database of infringements committed in host Member States » Host Member State to Member State of establishment » Reply from Member State of establishment. Verification of fitness of transport managers » Message from Member State of establishment to all other Member States » Replies from other Member States. Acknowledgement

Transport Infringements leading to loss of good repute in addition to Annex IV Required by Article 6 (2) of Regulation 1071/2009 The Commission has already launched the work on categorisation of infringements The overall objective is also to harmonize and enhance enforcement practices This initiative concerning infringements implies a reflection on sanctions

Transport Study on sanctions in the field of commercial road transport Background information  Grimaldi e Associati (GeA) was awarded in December 2011 a contract having as object a "Study on sanctions in the field of commercial road transport”  The Study should be finalized by December The draft final report has been submitted in October 2012 Objectives of the Study  Comparative analysis of sanctioning systems in the 27 Member States of the EU  Analysis of the legal scope for harmonization of sanctions at EU level in respect of infringements against the road transport legislation

Transport Methodology  Legal analysis  Survey Stakeholders contacted:  Euro Contrôle Route (ECR), TISPOL, IRU, CORTE, UETR, ETF EVU, UEAPME, EUROSMART  National authorities  National organizations  Experts of EU criminal law

Transport Conclusions on the effectiveness of sanctioning systems of Member States  Only few Member States’ systems have been found possibly effective  Big differences exist in the typology and level of sanctions applied in respect of infringements against the road transport legislation  Differences are only to a minor extent related to socio-economic differences; e.g. very significant differences exist between MS such as Germany and Sweden  Data show that a very important amount of infringements is detected in each Member State, with the infringements of social rules being the most frequent  The sanctioning system is not always consistent with the seriousness of infringements

Transport Legal scope for harmonisation /approximation /establishing minimum levels of sanctions EU could legitimately adopt an EU-wide harmonization of criminal sanctions in the field of commercial road transport to the extent that it would cover only serious breaches of law (Article 83, Par. 2 of the TFEU) Such approximation could cover also aspects such as the definition of the conducts incriminated, and the identification of categories and levels of penalties applicable

Transport Policy option 1: no action or soft law  Main risks Discrimination across transport operators Incentive for transport operators to develop business models according to the level of fines or other sanctions in Member States Inappropriate implementation of EU rules and non- achievement of its objectives (road safety/safeguarding the working conditions of the drivers )

Transport Policy option 2: approximation  Pros Level playing field Consistent message sent to operators concerning the different degree of gravity of different infringements  Risks Lengthy adaptation processes (e.g. issue of change of competences of national authorities and bodies)

Transport Thank you for your attention! Transport