Activites

• 1999/07/20 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1999/62
  • OJ L 187 20.07.1999, p. 0042
• 1999/06/17 End of procedure in Parliament
• 1999/06/15 Final act signed
• 1999/05/07 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0473/1999 summary

    Adopting the recommendation for second reading by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE,DE), the European Parliament approved, without amendment, the common position on the directive concerning the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.�

• 1999/05/04 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
  • T4-0358/1999 summary

    Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 01/05/99, the European Parliament confirmed (without debate) as its first reading under codecision procedure its vote of 17/07/97 on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. The Parliament's rapporteur is Georg Jarzembowski (DE,PPE).�

• 1999/04/22 Committee report tabled for plenary confirming Parliament's position
  • A4-0259/1999
• 1999/04/22 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0245/1999
• 1999/01/28 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2156
• 1999/01/18 Council Meeting
  • 13651/3/1998 summary

    The Council common position incorporates 6 of the European Parliament's amendments already accepted by the Commission and introduced in its amended proposal. The main result of the incorporation of these amendments is that there is no upper limit for vehicle taxes, which have to be above the minimum levels in the directive, irrespective of whether a user charge system is in operation or not. Also, on the basis of a specific provision, Greece can be granted temporarily a 50% reduction in the user charges. The common position departs from the amended proposal in a number of areas: - the Council did not follow the Commission with regard to the concepts of external costs and sensitive routes and all provisions and references to those concepts have been left out of the common position; - the Council did not follow either the Commission or the European Parliament with respect to the differentiation of vehicle taxes according to emission (EURO) categories of vehicles. It has therefore maintained the same minimum rates of vehicle taxes as in Directive 93/89/EEC; - with respect to user charges, the common position is closer to Parliament's opinion than to the Commission's in that it contains a differentiation of minimum rates by two axle classes and three vehicle emission classes. However, the maximum user charge rates in the common position are lower than those proposed by either Parliament or the Commission. The Council has introduced new provisions in the following areas: - with regard to the legal basis of the directive: the Council added article 99 of the EC Treaty because of the fiscal nature of the provisions in Chapter II of the directive on annual vehicle taxes; - concerning tolls, the common position introduces the possibility of differentiating rates according to the emission classes of the vehicle and the time of day when the infrastructure is used; - with respect to user charges, a special provision has been introduced in the common position allowing Austria to apply a toll on the motorway section between Kufstein and Brenner in a way that complies with the general conditions of application of user charges in the directive.�

• #2142
• 1998/11/30 Council Meeting
• #2119
• 1998/10/01 Council Meeting
  • 2119
• 1998/07/13 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1998)0427 summary

    The Commission's amended proposal incorporates 10 of the 26 amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading. These amendments relate to the following areas: - modifying the third recital by deleting reference to maximum levels for the vehicle taxes; - deleting the recital allowing Member States to charge a lower road tax than the minimum rates provided that they apply to a user charge system; - deleting the requirement that vehicles taxes should not go beyond a certain ceiling proposed by the Commission; - authorising exemptions from minimum rates where a user charge system is in operation; - introducing a new recital referring to the Alpine Convention; - calling for a differentiation in rates instead of the limited differentiation proposed by the Commission; - adding reference to the territoriality principle; - making provision for regular review of vehicle taxes; - making provision for a 50% reduction in user charges for vehicles registered in peripheral regions; - calling for the information to be forwarded to the Commission to specify the degree to which road traffic costs are covered, by category of vehicle and road. Among those amendments rejected by the Commission, the following are worthy of particular note: - deletion of provisions relating to external costs and sensitive routes, which the Commission considers are extremely important aspects if a more differentiated system of taxes is to be introduced; - introduction of the concept of "sensitive areas"; - suggestion that substantial differentiation of charges according to infrastructure damage and air pollution may be undertaken initially only through user charges; - proposal for a differentiation of user charges according to two classes based on the number of the vehicle's axles; - modification of the existing structure for minimum vehicle taxes.�

• #2074
• 1998/03/17 Council Meeting
  • 2074
• 1997/07/17 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0386/1997 summary

    In adopting the report by Mr Georg JARZEMBOWSKI (PPE, D), the European Parliament amended the proposal for a Council Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. In one of its amendments, Parliament called on the Commission to submit within twelve months a proposal concerning the external costs of the individual modes of transport so that they could be charged simultaneously to all modes of transport. Parliament deleted the 'sensitive routes'. It called for Member States to have the option of not imposing user charges for urban motorways. It also proposed that user charges should be reduced by 50% for vehicles registered in peripheral regions. In the special case of the Brenner motorway, the Council was permitted, under the procedure laid down in the EC Treaty, to authorize the Member State concerned to increase toll charges by a cost component to help achieve and maintain a sustainable distribution of traffic in the Alpine region. The maximum amounts of annual user charges (in ECU per year) for the various vehicles were amended to read as follows: - Vehicle category with 2, 3 or 6 axles: non-Euro vehicles: ECU 2000; Euro I: ECU 1500; Euro II or better: ECU 1000. - Vehicle category with 4 or 5 axles: non-Euro vehicles: ECU 2500; Euro I: ECU 2000; Euro II or better: ECU 1500. �

• 1997/07/15 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    While welcoming the emphasis placed on external costs by Parliament, Commissioner Kinnock said that the Commission had proposed, in the directive, the possibility – but not the obligation – for Member States to add a modest external-cost element. As a result, he rejected Amendments Nos 9 and 17. Amendments Nos 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, on the provisions of the original proposal on ‘sensitive routes’, were also rejected. Mr Kinnock could also not accept Amendment No 7 on the concept of sensitive areas which was too vague as the whole world could fall within this concept. On the other hand, he accepted Amendment No 3 calling for a reference to the Alpine Convention. Amendments Nos 5, 11, 12 and 13 were also accepted. However, Mr Kinnock rejected Amendment No 6 providing for an open-ended rather than a time-limited derogation for minimum taxes and No 1 on external costs. In this respect, the Commissioner said that the amendment in question could not be accepted partly because it would restrict the application of external cost principles to road transport only. The Commissioner also did not agree with the content of Amendment No 24, which aimed to simplify the structure of minimum vehicle taxes. As for user charges, he accepted Amendment No 9, calling for differentiated user charge rates during rush hours and night-time, and Amendment No 15, proposing a 50% reduction in rates for vehicles from peripheral regions, which was time-limited. With regard to levels of user charges and their structure, the Commissioner stressed that the maximum annual levels proposed in Amendment No 26, ranging between ECU 1 000 and 2 500, were too high. Finally, Mr Kinnock confirmed the validity of the system for classifying vehicles into three categories, according to their capacity to cause damage to infrastructures, and therefore rejected the other system proposed in Amendments Nos 16 to 25. He also rejected Amendments Nos 27 to 42, which had also been rejected by the Committee on Transport.

• 1997/07/03 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0243/1997
• #2016
• 1997/06/17 Council Meeting
  • 2016
• #1992
• 1997/03/11 Council Meeting
  • 1992
• 1997/01/29 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• #1979
• 1996/12/13 Council Meeting
  • 1979 summary

    The Council held an exploratory debate on the new proposal put forward by the Commission in July 1996, which it had already debated at the meeting of 3-4 October 1996. This proposal differed considerably from the directive that had been revoked. The delegations agreed that Directive 93/89/EEC, which had been repealed by the Court of Justice, should be replaced as a matter of urgency. Pending Parliament’s opinion, the Council instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue to examine this matter and to submit a new report at the next Council session so that it could quickly reach an agreement on the common position.

• 1996/07/10 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0331 summary

    OBJECTIVE: the proposal for a directive has four objectives: a) to develop further the internal market in road transport; b) to ensure better coverage of costs associated with use of road infrastructure; c) to enable charges to be more closely adjusted to costs; d) to ensure that the principle of territoriality plays a larger role in the recovery of costs arising from use of the road infrastructure. CONTENT: the proposal for a directive is intended to replace directive 93/89/EEC, which was annulled by the Court of Justice in July 1995 on the grounds of procedural irregularities, while preserving its effects pending the adoption of new legislation by the Council in order to prevent a legal lacuna. The main provisions of the new proposal are as follows: - rates of annual vehicle taxes and user charges for each category of vehicle to be more closely adjusted to costs. This adjustment will involve increasing the weighted average of annual user charges, which will rise from ECU 1,020 to ECU 1,258; in future, user charges applied for a given period should range from ECU 750 to 2000 per annum, taking account of the degree of damage to the roads which the heavy goods vehicle may cause (not less than 12 tonnes maximum permissible gross laden weight) and its emissions; - changes to the rules governing vehicle taxes, user charges and tolls in order to take greater account of the "use" factor (mainly user charges and tolls) and make greater use of the principle of territoriality in road user charges; - additional harmonization of the structure and rates of vehicle taxes and charges in the Community; - the possibility of incorporating a proportion of external costs in tolls and user charges; - the concept of "sensitive" routes for which a higher proportion of external costs can be imposed because they have higher external costs; - specific requirements for user charges over shorter periods.�

• 1996/07/09 Additional information

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0331
• Debate in Council: 1979
• Debate in Council: 1992
• Debate in Council: 2016
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0243/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0386/1997
• Debate in Council: 2074
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1998)0427
• Debate in Council: 2119
• Council position published: 13651/3/1998
• Committee report tabled for plenary confirming Parliament's position: A4-0259/1999
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0245/1999
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0358/1999
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0473/1999
• : Directive 1999/62
• : OJ L 187 20.07.1999, p. 0042

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)