Luxembourg 15/10/2010 (Agence Europe) - In Luxembourg on Friday 15 October, the European transport ministers scraped a political agreement on the proposed revised directive on the taxation of heavy-goods lorries for the use of certain infrastructure (Eurovignette II). The Italian and Spanish delegations voted against the compromise text. The Irish and Dutch delegations abstained, whilst Portugal, sticking to its scepticism, announced that it would re-clarify its position at the time of the vote on the final joint proposal of the Council. The compromise reached on Friday considerably extends (in comparison to the text put on the table by the Belgian Presidency of the Council: see EUROPE 10235) the duration of the exemption from the air pollution charge provided for the least-polluting categories of vehicles (end of 2013 for vehicles of category Euro V and the end of 2017 for vehicles of category Euro VI). It also considerably reduces, to 175% from 300% proposed initially, the maximum variation in tariff to cover the cost of congestion. The maximum duration of the period during which these higher rates can be applied has been cut to 5 hours per day instead of the six hours per day proposed by the Presidency.
“We cannot be satisfied or dissatisfied, it is a compromise”, said Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas, during the debate. Welcoming the considerable efforts of Etienne Schouppe, who chaired the Council, Kallas confirmed that the Commission was in a position to support the proposed compromise, even though it would have preferred it to be “more radical”. “This is the first real decision whereby we have brought in the modern elements we have long hoped to see in the possibility of managing traffic flows using financial resources”, he then told the press.
According to the rapporteur, Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D, Belgium), the European Parliament will decide “in the next few days” whether it wishes to enter into informal dialogue with the Council in order to “reach an agreement at second reading”, or to launch a normal legislative procedure. Welcoming the agreement, which will get this dossier out of deadlock, El Khadraoui nonetheless warned that differences of opinions subsist between the Council and the Parliament. Congestion (which the EP would like to see as a separate charge) and the allocation of the revenue from the Eurovignette (which the Council recommends, but which the EP would prefer to be obligatory) will be the most sensitive issues, the rapporteur predicts.
Although very different from the initial proposal put forward by the Commission in July 2008 (EUROPE 9966), the objective of the directive remains largely the same: to create a framework for the existing toll systems, which currently cover the costs for their use and the modernisation of infrastructure, whilst allowing any states which so wish to introduce environmental criteria (noise and air pollution). At this stage, 13 countries of the EU, which use or which are planning to introduce to their road networks electronic tolls, are concerned. The current tolls, which vary between an average of 15 and 25 euro cents per kilometre, may increase by an average of 3 to 4 euro cents (per kilometre and per car).
The agreement reached by the Council (the text was adopted by just three votes) will reconcile the greatly differing opinions of the delegations. On Friday, these differences of opinion mainly concerned the temporary exemption from the air pollution charge for the least-polluting lorries (categories euro V and euro VI) and the duration and maximum variation of the infrastructure tariffs. Exemptions. The agreement reconciles the opinion of France (supported by Germany and Slovakia) with that of Spain (supported by Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Malta, Cyprus and Greece). It provides for a temporary exemption, up until 31 December 2013, for lorries of category EURO V. EURO VI lorries, which will enter the market from that date, will be exempted for a period of four years (compared to 3 proposed by the Presidency), until the end of 2017 (as against the end of 2019 proposed by Spain and a maximum of two years put forward by France). Congestion. The principle proposed by the initial compromise (changing the tariffs during peak hours with the principle of neutral revenue) remains unchanged. The maximum variation on the tariffs during the peak hours has been established at 175% of the tariff applicable during non-peak hours (compared to 300% as proposed by the Presidency and supported by France, Slovakia, Slovenia and Latvia, and 100% proposed by most of the other delegations, including Germany). The period of time for these increases to apply has been reduced to five hours per day (compared to six hours called for by France, Slovenia, Germany and Slovakia and four hours supported by Spain and other countries). The agreement clarifies the legal basis of the text (Article 91 of the Treaty applicable to transport rather than Article 113 applicable to tax policy), which was challenged by the United Kingdom and Sweden, amongst others. It removes from the European Commission the option of setting the charges for noise and air pollution. The other provisions of the compromise created for the Council remain unchanged, despite the fact that Luxembourg (and the United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden) expressed a preference for an unlimited freedom in the allocation of revenue. The agreement confirms the possibility for an exemption, subject to certain conditions, from the scope of application of the directive for lorries between 3.5 and 12 tonnes, an exemption which is particularly close to the heart of Germany (unlike the Commission and France) and twice the roads will be covered (rising from 15,000 to 30,000 km). (A.By./transl.fl)