9 Road safety
| Committee's assessment
| Legally and politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny
|
| Document details | Draft Directive facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences
|
| Legal base | Article 91 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Document numbers | (36243), 12107/14 + ADD 1, COM(14) 476
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
9.1 In May 2014 the Court of Justice annulled Directive 2011/82/EU,
which was intended to facilitate cross border enforcement in the
field of road safety. The objection to the Directive was that
it had a JHA legal base, which incidentally allowed the UK and
Ireland to choose not to participate and meant that it could not
apply to Denmark. However, the Court maintained the Directive's
effects until the entry into force within a reasonable period
of time of a new Directive based on a transport legal base.
9.2 The Commission therefore issued this new proposal for a Directive
to replace the one annulled. The content is the same as Directive
2011/82/EU, with the exception of the change of legal base, deletion
of text about the non-application of the Directive to those Member
States (including the UK) that had not been party to the original
measure and associated amendments in the recitals.
9.3 We recognised, given that many Member States will have already
gone far in transposing the annulled Directive, that there would
be little appetite for changing the substance of the new proposal.
Nevertheless, we noted the concerns the Government had expressed
to us and urged it to press for amelioration of those concerns.
We noted particularly that a two-year deadline, say from April
2015, for transposition by the UK (and Denmark and Ireland) would
allow time for amendments to the Directive helpful to the UK,
following the Commission's review of the Directive, due by November
2016. We kept the proposal under scrutiny pending a report from
the Government on any success it had in achieving amendments to
the draft Directive.
9.4 In October 2014 the Government told us that a two-year period
for transposition, that is, until May 2017, and the protection
of personal data it was seeking had been secured. We recognised
the very limited timetable set for adoption of this legislation
by the Court of Justice and the value, in the circumstances, of
the amendments achieved for the UK (and Ireland and Denmark).
However we said that we would keep the document under scrutiny
until we had confirmation that the amendments had been secured
in discussion with the European Parliament.
9.5 The Government tells us now that discussion with the European
Parliament has left the transposition and data protection positions
unchanged, that no further changes of substance will be made and
that the final text will probably be adopted at the General Affairs
Council on 20 April.
9.6 We are grateful for this confirmation that the amendments
previously reported to us have been secured and now clear the
document from scrutiny.
Full details of the documents:
Draft Directive facilitating cross-border exchange of information
on road safety related traffic offences: (36243) 12107/14 + ADD
1, COM(14) 476.
Background
9.7 In May 2014 the Court of Justice annulled Directive
2011/82/EU, which was intended to facilitate cross border enforcement
in the field of road safety, by supporting Member States in the
investigation of eight offences committed by drivers in other
Member States. The objection to the Directive was that it had
a JHA legal base —
Article 87(2) TFEU, which incidentally allowed the UK and Ireland
to choose not to participate and meant that it could not apply
to Denmark. However, the Court maintained the Directive's effects
until the entry into force within a reasonable period of time
of a new Directive based on Article 91(1)(c) TFEU, a transport
legal base.
9.8 The Commission therefore issued this new proposal
for a Directive to replace the one annulled. The content is the
same as Directive 2011/82/EU, with the exception of the change
of legal base, deletion of text about the non-application of the
Directive to those Member States (including the UK) that had not
been party to the original measure and associated amendments in
the recitals.
9.9 We recognised, given that many Member States
will have already gone far in transposing the annulled Directive,
that there would be little appetite for changing the substance
of the new proposal. Nevertheless, we noted the concerns the Government
had expressed to us and urged it to press for amelioration of
those concerns, even though this might necessitate the Presidency
slowing the push for Council agreement. We noted also that a two-year
deadline, say from April 2015, for transposition by the UK (and
Denmark and Ireland) would allow time for amendments to the Directive
helpful to the UK, following the Commission's review of the Directive,
due by November 2016. We kept the proposal under scrutiny pending
a report from the Government on any success it had on slowing
the Council consideration of the draft Directive and in achieving
amendments to it.
9.10 In October 2014 the Government told us that
it had been unable to achieve postponement of the Council decision
on a general approach but that a two-year period for transposition,
that is, until May 2017, and the protection of personal data it
was seeking had been secured. We recognised the very limited timetable
set for adoption of this legislation by the Court of Justice and
the value, in the circumstances, of the amendments achieved for
the UK (and Ireland and Denmark). However we said that we would
keep the document under scrutiny until we had confirmation that
the amendments had been secured in discussion with the European
Parliament.
The Minister's letter of 14 January 2015
9.11 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill), reminding us that
we had been told previously that the Government planned to engage
proactively with MEPs during their consideration of this proposal,
and in particular that it was important to ensure that the two
year transposition period was retained, says that:
· the
two year transposition period came under question during MEP discussions
and an amendment was put forward which would have reduced the
period to one year;
· this
would have been very unwelcome and it is unlikely that the Government
could meet such a transposition deadline;
· it
engaged closely, however with the Rapporteur and other key MEPs,
to explain the reasons for the two year period, and MEPs were
sympathetic to the UK position; and
· one
trilogue meeting has taken place and this has confirmed that the
UK, Denmark and Ireland should have the additional two year transposition
period that was proposed by the Council.
9.12 The Minister continues that:
· this
is a good result for the UK and the Government is very pleased
that the final text allows the UK the same amount of transposition
time as was granted to other Member States;
· a
subsequent Council Working Group meeting was held in December
2014, which discussed and confirmed this position and looked at
other, relatively minor, amendments;
· no
further changes of substance will be made and the text will now
be sent to the Jurist-Linguist meeting early in 2015; and
· he
understands that the new Latvian Presidency will seek to adopt
the final text at the General Affairs Council on 20 April.
Previous Committee Reports
Twelfth Report HC 219-xii (2014-15), chapter 7 (10
September 2014); Fifteenth Report HC 219-xv (2014-15), chapter
6 (22 October 2014).
| 
