UK transport industry supports Eurosparks calls for new EU legislationItem Added 10 January 2008The UK transport industry considers new European legislation a positive step forward in its drive to increase compliance with civil traffic laws, though there are concerns about how to make legislation work in practice.
Delegates at the UK Eurosparks seminar, in London on 3 December, supported Eurosparks’ call for a new directive under the Common Transport Policy provisions of the EC Treaty as a mechanism to improve enforcement.
They were however concerned about implementation, raising specific issues with number plate recognition, the right to be served a notice of proceedings, the right to a hearing, payment processes and implementation of the EC Reform Treaty.
In his opening address Liam O’Daly, Deputy Director General, Office of the Attorney General, Dublin and seminar co-chair with John Kettle, said that if EU member states cannot find a solution to something as mundane as to how to enforce financial traffic penalties against foreign-registered vehicle owners it is easy to see how they may not be able to reach agreement in other more difficult justice issues.
“The suggested Eurosparks directive is proposed under the existing EU legal and Treaty framework. The proposed directive has a much greater possibility of being adopted if the Reform Treaty is ratified by all member states and comes into force because the Reform Treaty collapses the existing first and third pillar structure under the present treaties. In this context Ireland is the only member state that will have a referendum to ratify the Reform Treaty.”
Referring to the recent Ship Source Pollution case, in which many member states intervened including Ireland and the UK, Mr O’Daly said in his summing up: “Given the stance taken by many member states in that case, they may have reservations as to any proposal that smacks of putting criminal offences into a first pillar measure.”
John Kettle, a partner in Irish law firm Mason Hayes+Curran, recommended harmonisation of vehicle registration systems in Europe so that there was consistency in format and country identifiers. He also called for a qualified body in each member state to manage fine collection, operating rather like factoring. It would enforce foreign penalties through local courts, collect the fines and pay them to the issuing local authorities.
Professor Patrick Birkinshaw of Hull University, who leads the Eurosparks legal research team, said that the area of enforcement against foreign registered vehicles is virgin territory from a legal perspective. “Traffic law is tortuous and complex with little financial incentive for lawyers to get involved.”
Dr Mike Varney, also of Hull University, explained the legal team’s recommendations in detail. He said: “This solution (a directive) would work regardless of classification of offence; Article 71 offers the most complete solution.”
Michael Dreelan, a legal advisor to the Irish Department of Transport, raised the issue of fundamental human rights. He said that not only do local authorities need to be able to accurately identify a vehicle and the offender, they also need to know where she or he is living.
“If someone commits an offence in a foreign country they are probably not living at the address registered against their vehicle, so data exchange may not be that helpful. We need a local address. The right to a hearing and trial and the right to be served with a notice of proceedings are fundamental rights issues. They could be grounds for refusal of enforcement. We need unique identifiers so that we can be sure the person pursued is the person who offended.”
In his presentation on London’s enforcement experiences with foreign registered vehicles, Nick Lester Director of Transport, Environment & Planning at London Councils explained how the capital resolves this issue. “It applies now, for instance if an offender is Scottish but lives in London. It is down to her or him to make sure they receive mail sent to a Scottish address, otherwise this becomes a loophole allowing people deliberately to contravene traffic laws and avoid the consequences.”
Delegates included representatives from the London boroughs of Enfield, Barnet and Sutton, Salisbury District Council, Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, Commercial Collection Services, Equita, Drakes Group, Faber Maunsell, APCOA Parking UK, Central London Partnership, London Cycling Campaign, Transport Associates Network, Association of British Insurers, Davies Enforcement, British Parking Association and Transport for London.
The Eurosparks legal research team was asked to identify how law and practice can be better aligned between member states. In their interim findings the experts have recommended three alternatives:
• A new directive under the Common Transport Policy provisions within the EC Treaty
• Extending Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, known as COPEN24, to cover decriminalised civil offences
• Member states form bilateral or multilateral treaties covering mutual enforcement.
Seminars exploring their findings and recommendations in detail have been held in a number of EU member states this autumn.
Representatives from national and regional governments, municipality associations, transport organisations, European institutions and lawyers, are invited to attend the final seminar in Brussels on Thursday 24 January.
To reserve places at the Eurosparks Brussels seminar download and fill in the registration form then email it to linda.francx@vvsg.be
Delegate views are being incorporated into the final report, which will be presented to the European Commission in early 2008. |
|
Facts & Figures- London's local authorities issue six million penalty charge notices a year
- 86% of penalty charge notices issued in London are for illegal parking
- 75% of penalties issued to UK-registered vehicles are paid within a fortnight
 |
