Pan-EU enforcement is set to become a reality after legislation is revised. In May 2014 the European Court of Justice ruled that European Directive 2011/82/EU, which came into force in November 2013 to facilitate the exchange of information between member states in relation to eight road traffic offences, had been set up on an incorrect legal basis. The regulations had been introduced under police cooperation rules on the prevention of crime, but the Court decided that the measures in the Directive do not c
Automated red-light enforcement can now be used to fine drivers from other EU member states. Image: Josef Hanus
Pan-EU enforcement is set to become a reality after legislation is revised.
In May 2014 the European Court of Justice ruled that European Directive 2011/82/EU, which came into force in November 2013 to facilitate the exchange of information between member states in relation to eight road traffic offences, had been set up on an incorrect legal basis.
The regulations had been introduced under police cooperation rules on the prevention of crime, but the Court decided that the measures in the Directive do not concern ‘prevention of crime’ but road safety and was therefore a transport issue. However, in order that countries where legislation had already enacted would not have to withdraw it, the court allowed the regulations to remain in place until May 2015.
In the past, offending foreign motorists were detected and stopped by the national police and issued with a penalty or fine on the spot. But the expanding use of speed and red-light cameras means enforcement is increasingly reliant on tracing errant drivers after the event. With foreign drivers this has often not been possible and, given the time required, almost inevitably happened after they had returned to their country of origin. This prompted the EU to introduce a method of enabling cross-border enforcement of key motoring offences, which was the aim of the flawed Directive.
In order that the Court ruling did not put an end to cross-border enforcement of driving offences, the1690 European Commission (EC) has revised the regulations’ legal basis and reintroduced them under transport regulations. Because the reintroduced rules are transport regulations they will apply in all 28 Member States, who have two years to enact national rules once the directive has entered into force. This includes countries like the UK, Denmark and Ireland which had opted out of the original regulations.
The regulations enable cross-border enforcement of speeding offences, not using seatbelts, crossing red traffic lights, drunk-driving, crash helmet use, drug-driving, use of forbidden lanes and drivers using mobile telephones. The ‘big four’ (speeding, not using seatbelts, crossing red traffic lights and drunk-driving) account for 75% of road fatalities and according to the independent Brussels-based European Safety Council, speeding is a primary factor in about one third of fatal collisions.
According to the Commission, non-resident drivers account for approximately 5% of road traffic in the EU but are responsible for 15% of detected speeding offences. Figures from France indicate a bigger problem with about a quarter of speeding offences being committed by foreign registered cars and that proportion rises to almost 50% during periods of high transit and tourism.
In December 2014 an agreement was reached to revise the legal basis which will allow the regulations to remain in force after the May 2015 deadline – an announcement that was welcomed by Ruth Purdie, general secretary of the European Traffic Police Network (650 TISPOL). She said: “It has always been unfair and unsatisfactory that as many as one in five drivers has been able to escape prosecution for offences such as speeding, because they or their vehicles are from another country.
“Europe-wide adoption of this new proposal will lead to more effective enforcement, which encourages drivers to comply with safety rules and leads to a rapid reduction in deaths and injuries.”
A survey by UK road safety charity the6187 Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) puts the scale of offending into perspective, revealing that almost 23,300 overseas drivers escaped speeding offences in England and Wales in the year to August 2014. As these figures are based on replies to Freedom of Information requests from just over half of the 40 police forces in the two countries, so the actual total is far higher. Examples of drivers escaping prosecution include a motorist travelling at 158km/h (98mph) in an 80km/h (50mph) zone and another recorded at 178km/h (111mph) on a road with a 113km/h (70mph) limit.
If drivers throughout the EU complied with regulations it is estimated that 500 lives a year could be saved, and prosecuting drivers for offences committed in another Member State is a key step toward this goal.
Speaking as the new legislative agreement was announced, Antonio Avenoso, executive director of the3535 European Transport Safety Council said: “These rules mean that foreign-registered drivers are no longer able to ignore traffic laws safe in the knowledge that they won’t be penalised when they return home. They are a smart way of deterring people from dangerous driving when they go abroad but will also help member states follow up on traffic offences when drivers put other people’s lives at risk.”
Although the Cross-Border Directive will now be enacted under transport regulations it will not harmonise the regulations on alcohol, drug and speed limits or the use of motorcycle helmets and mobile phones – although the legislation throughout the EU countries is similar.
Each Member State will designate a national contact point who can grant access to the information exchange system. This will allow the authorities in the prosecuting Member State access to identify foreign drivers committing one of the listed offences using the number-plate of the vehicle involved in the offence.
If the authorities in the Member State where the offence has been committed decide to prosecute the offender, they will send an information letter to the owner of the registration certificate as identified through the information exchange system. This information letter must be written in the State of registration’s language and it must include details about the nature of the offence, the date and time of detection, the relevant piece of legislation infringed and the legal consequences of the offence. Any fines will be directly payable to the country where the offence was committed and not involve authorities in the driver’s country of residence.
So if a Polish-registered car is recorded crossing a red traffic light in France and the French authority choose to follow up the offence, it will inform the designated Polish national contact who will grant access to the information exchange system. The French authority will inform the holder of the Polish registration certificate – the vehicle owner (either an individual or a company) – of the offence committed and the legal consequences under the French law. That information will be have to be provided in Polish and sent to the address on the vehicle registration documents.
The introduction of the cross-border legislation does not mean EU Member States have to adopt the identical requirements when it comes to identifying errant drivers. Laurianne Kidd, policy director with the Federation Internationale De L’autombilea (FIA) points out that countries such as Germany and Austria have a strict driver liability scheme, whereby the car owner cannot be sanctioned unless formally identified. However, she adds that the wording of the Cross-Border Enforcement Directive takes that into account and the prosecution requirements will be those in force in the country where the offence was committed rather than that of the driver’s country of residence.
This negates the need for all 28 countries to install additional cameras and systems to cover all the domestic requirements of each Member State which is good news for road authorities across the EU. It also means the systems they have already installed will be between 15% and 50% (depending on which figures you use) more effective.
In turn, this makes automated enforcement more attractive both politically and financially, especially in areas with a high proportion of foreign visitors and may convince some authorities to sanction additional installations.
In May 2014 the European Court of Justice ruled that European Directive 2011/82/EU, which came into force in November 2013 to facilitate the exchange of information between member states in relation to eight road traffic offences, had been set up on an incorrect legal basis.
The regulations had been introduced under police cooperation rules on the prevention of crime, but the Court decided that the measures in the Directive do not concern ‘prevention of crime’ but road safety and was therefore a transport issue. However, in order that countries where legislation had already enacted would not have to withdraw it, the court allowed the regulations to remain in place until May 2015.
In the past, offending foreign motorists were detected and stopped by the national police and issued with a penalty or fine on the spot. But the expanding use of speed and red-light cameras means enforcement is increasingly reliant on tracing errant drivers after the event. With foreign drivers this has often not been possible and, given the time required, almost inevitably happened after they had returned to their country of origin. This prompted the EU to introduce a method of enabling cross-border enforcement of key motoring offences, which was the aim of the flawed Directive.
In order that the Court ruling did not put an end to cross-border enforcement of driving offences, the
The regulations enable cross-border enforcement of speeding offences, not using seatbelts, crossing red traffic lights, drunk-driving, crash helmet use, drug-driving, use of forbidden lanes and drivers using mobile telephones. The ‘big four’ (speeding, not using seatbelts, crossing red traffic lights and drunk-driving) account for 75% of road fatalities and according to the independent Brussels-based European Safety Council, speeding is a primary factor in about one third of fatal collisions.
According to the Commission, non-resident drivers account for approximately 5% of road traffic in the EU but are responsible for 15% of detected speeding offences. Figures from France indicate a bigger problem with about a quarter of speeding offences being committed by foreign registered cars and that proportion rises to almost 50% during periods of high transit and tourism.
In December 2014 an agreement was reached to revise the legal basis which will allow the regulations to remain in force after the May 2015 deadline – an announcement that was welcomed by Ruth Purdie, general secretary of the European Traffic Police Network (
“Europe-wide adoption of this new proposal will lead to more effective enforcement, which encourages drivers to comply with safety rules and leads to a rapid reduction in deaths and injuries.”
A survey by UK road safety charity the
If drivers throughout the EU complied with regulations it is estimated that 500 lives a year could be saved, and prosecuting drivers for offences committed in another Member State is a key step toward this goal.
Speaking as the new legislative agreement was announced, Antonio Avenoso, executive director of the
Although the Cross-Border Directive will now be enacted under transport regulations it will not harmonise the regulations on alcohol, drug and speed limits or the use of motorcycle helmets and mobile phones – although the legislation throughout the EU countries is similar.
Each Member State will designate a national contact point who can grant access to the information exchange system. This will allow the authorities in the prosecuting Member State access to identify foreign drivers committing one of the listed offences using the number-plate of the vehicle involved in the offence.
If the authorities in the Member State where the offence has been committed decide to prosecute the offender, they will send an information letter to the owner of the registration certificate as identified through the information exchange system. This information letter must be written in the State of registration’s language and it must include details about the nature of the offence, the date and time of detection, the relevant piece of legislation infringed and the legal consequences of the offence. Any fines will be directly payable to the country where the offence was committed and not involve authorities in the driver’s country of residence.
So if a Polish-registered car is recorded crossing a red traffic light in France and the French authority choose to follow up the offence, it will inform the designated Polish national contact who will grant access to the information exchange system. The French authority will inform the holder of the Polish registration certificate – the vehicle owner (either an individual or a company) – of the offence committed and the legal consequences under the French law. That information will be have to be provided in Polish and sent to the address on the vehicle registration documents.
The introduction of the cross-border legislation does not mean EU Member States have to adopt the identical requirements when it comes to identifying errant drivers. Laurianne Kidd, policy director with the Federation Internationale De L’autombilea (FIA) points out that countries such as Germany and Austria have a strict driver liability scheme, whereby the car owner cannot be sanctioned unless formally identified. However, she adds that the wording of the Cross-Border Enforcement Directive takes that into account and the prosecution requirements will be those in force in the country where the offence was committed rather than that of the driver’s country of residence.
This negates the need for all 28 countries to install additional cameras and systems to cover all the domestic requirements of each Member State which is good news for road authorities across the EU. It also means the systems they have already installed will be between 15% and 50% (depending on which figures you use) more effective.
In turn, this makes automated enforcement more attractive both politically and financially, especially in areas with a high proportion of foreign visitors and may convince some authorities to sanction additional installations.
