Cross-border enforcement close to becoming a reality

TISPOL Director Ad Hellemons offers the organisation's perspective on the issue of cross-border enforcement of traffic penalties, the progress that has been made and the potential hurdles yet to be overcome

For more than a decade 650 TISPOL, the European traffic police network, has spearheaded efforts to make the cross-border enforcement of traffic penalties in the 1816 European Union (EU) a reality. More recent lobbying and publicity has focused on showing policymakers and politicians that no time should be wasted in making it happen. These years of effort have not been without their difficulties. It was not so long ago that the suggestion of a unified and fair system of enforcement across the whole of Europe would have been greeted with incredulity. Variously, it would have been described as impossible or far too complicated to implement across 27 Member States.

The good news is that the technical and legal difficulties have been overcome. Add to that the potential of a slightly easier passage through the EU and suddenly, we may just be a year or two away from cross-border enforcement becoming a reality. So how has this happened in such a relatively short time?

The Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty has certainly helped. It means that policing and judicial cooperation come under regular EU decision-making processes. Before Lisbon, between 1993 and 2009 the EU legal system had three pillars, effectively different types of steering mechanism. The first pillar handled economic, social and environmental policies and it was the only pillar with a legal personality. This pillar allowed a majority vote to be decisive. If, in a certain case, 60 per cent of votes were in favour of something then it would be binding for all. The second pillar took care of foreign policy and military matters. The third pillar focused on the fight against crime and required unanimous decisions in order to make something binding for all Member States. By the time all 27 countries agreed a treaty, with amendments, the material its author received back would generally be nothing like the original. A tiny state like Malta could, for example, block an entire whole process with its veto.

This structure was abandoned in December 2009 with the arrival of the Treaty of Lisbon, when the EU obtained a consolidated legal personality.

Now, without that third pillar, we think it is inevitable that the process of justice will be accelerated. Countries will start to look more actively for cooperation. If we can agree, then we can get things done. That's the big difference.

It's also important to look at what this will mean in terms of potential impact. It is, of course, in the countries with a lot of transit traffic that the impact is likely to be most significant. Countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France, for example, can see a third or more of speeding offences being committed by foreigners. For example in France, since the road safety reforms which took place there in 2002, domestic drivers' behaviour has improved. However, French drivers regularly find themselves overtaken by drivers from other European countries who see themselves as being beyond the law's reach. Such situations make it harder for police forces and governments to encourage their own citizens to behave well.

Bilateral agreement difficulties

That is not to say, however, that we have not tried to get things done already. Certainly, a few countries have worked to develop and maintain effective bilateral agreements in the field of traffic enforcement. But even if a country makes an agreement with its immediate neighbours, that in itself can be immensely challenging. Take Germany, for example. Germany has nine neighbours (Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, France, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands). To deal with the same process, Germany would need nine agreements and probably nine different procedures. That is unworkable and an enormous waste of time, energy and efficiency.

By contrast, if countries could agree on a standard, all that is necessary is a small interface between a country's computer systems and that standard. If everyone does that, then we need only one interface per country to bridge the gap between a national application and the EU exchange standard.

But what does this mean when we focus on the issue of cross-border enforcement? At the moment the majority of non-domestic offenders escape punishment. Under the new situation, a penalty will follow the offender home and his/her own government will collect the fine as if the offence was committed in the offender's own country. Depending on how the cross-border legislation eventually works out, a variety of offences will fall under it.

The outcome of this process is not clear yet. Neither is there a precise timetable for agreement and implementation. It completely depends on the decision made in the next few months.

If it is not handled well, the whole process might have to start again or could end with a major discussion over the legal basis for the agreement. We at TISPOL believe the legal basis is already there and that we do not in fact need extra legislation at all. At the same time the 1690 European Commission (EC) and Parliament are aiming for new legislation. It helps to be optimistic but the outcome is still uncertain.

TISPOL's role

TISPOL has been active throughout the formulation process, continuously advising in favour of cross-border enforcement. In fact, the idea of cross-border enforcement comes from the EU's VERA projects, which were coordinated by one of the TISPOL members: KLPD of the Netherlands. In 1999 it started the VERA1 project for electronic enforcement. Although VERA1's main focus was not on cross-border, it was concluded that if more and more automated systems were used then some kind of exchange application or standard interface between systems would eventually become necessary. That has been explored further.

During the VERA2 project, a language-independent e-Enforce interface was tested successfully, showing that such a system can work. In 2005 and 2006 the EC was in charge of this project and for the first time cross-border enforcement appeared on the agenda. It has remained there since. The principle of stakeholders being able to exchange information was accepted quickly but there were initial differences of opinion with the EU on how the whole system should be organised. Should it, for example, be a new piece of EU legislation? Or would the Treaty of Prüm (named after the small town in Germany where the European police data exchange treaty was signed) suffice? Dealing with these difficulties has delayed legislative progress.

The EU's 2001 Transport White Paper included a target of reducing road casualties by 50 per cent by 2010 targets but did not actually state how this would be achieved. There were some weak texts about improved infrastructure and vehicle safety but policing and traffic enforcement went unmentioned.

As mentioned above, in 2002 France adopted TISPOL's good practice guidance for enforcement. The country has since achieved spectacular successes. There was a 40 per cent reduction in fatalities within two years and other countries have since achieved similar results. This has opened the eyes of the EC and traffic enforcement has as a consequence become a priority in terms of road safety. And note: with enforcement, if you do it today, you achieve results today.

The EC knows that enforcement was badly needed, that it is effective and that it works immediately. There are now many examples to back this up. Since we are the enforcement network, it has been a natural process that the EC has listened more and more to TISPOL.

The next steps

There are issues that remain. The final form of the new EU legislation is not yet known precisely. The sense coming from Brussels is that the big majority is in favour of ratifying cross-border enforcement. Nothing is being contested any more. The third pillar, with all the associated potential for delay and deferring, does not exist any more, so there is more cooperation within Brussels departments.

The benefits of all of this for police officers are clear, as it means they can more effectively help to prosecute non-domestic offenders. This is satisfying, because it means equal treatment for all and an end to the bad example that foreigners set for a country's residents. It's estimated that the new legislation would save up to 500 lives each year but the psychological effect is just as important: there will be fewer accidents if foreigners behave better when driving abroad, and the residents of home countries will be less inclined to break the rules because they know that they have legal 'parity' with driver from other countries.

For implementation, all national governments will have to adapt their national legislation and put in place procedures to deal with the process. This will be complex and it will take time, probably up to two years. But make no mistake, this legislation is a necessity at the time of growing non-resident traffic, widening national automated safety camera networks and complex cross-border problems posed by offenders which current bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements are often unable to deal with. It is hoped that agreement on this Directive will finally stop motorists driving away from justice and ensure equal treatment of citizens across the EU. TISPOL knows the time is right to conclude discussions and agree an implementation plan to take forward cross-border enforcement, and to look at how an effective and consistent policy of traffic enforcement can contribute to that EU road safety target of reducing road traffic deaths by 50 per cent by 2020.