1 / 23

Report ERRU Working Group

Report ERRU Working Group. Brussels, 11 November 2009 Rapporteurs: Cathy Jenkins UK / Department for Transport Idske Dijkstra NL / Vehicle and Driving Licence Reg. Auth. Content. Introduction Results meeting 3 July 2009 Results meeting 23 September 2009 Work to do. Introduction.

hollye
Download Presentation

Report ERRU Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report ERRU Working Group Brussels, 11 November 2009 Rapporteurs: Cathy Jenkins UK / Department for Transport Idske Dijkstra NL / Vehicle and Driving Licence Reg. Auth.

  2. Content • Introduction • Results meeting 3 July 2009 • Results meeting 23 September 2009 • Work to do

  3. Introduction • One of the new elements in the “Road Package” is the creation of ERRU • European Register of Road Transport Undertakings • To enhance cooperation and communication between MS • To better monitor undertakings and their transport managers • To take into account serious infringements in other MS than MS of establishment • On 10 June 2009 CATP Committee confirmed creation of ERRU Working Group • To ensure a timely introduction of ERRU • To monitor its functioning once it is up and running • Work under auspices of the Advisory committee according to Article 25 of Regulation …../2009 [access to profession] • First meeting 3 July 2009 • Basis for discussion • Terms of Reference ERRU Working Group as submitted to Committee • Feasibility Study carried out by EC with assistance of TUNER • Draft Regulations

  4. Introduction / Terms of Reference • Working Group overall objectives • To ensure a timely introduction of ERRU • To monitor its functioning once it is up and running • Working Group Specific objectives, tasks and scope • To establish common understanding on the Regulation’s provisions • To develop a user friendly, practicable and reliable network • Potential further developments should be taken into account • Possible synergies with other exchange systems should be used • To support the Commission in preparing implementing measures • Preparation of the decision on the minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the electronic registers of Member States (Art. 16(1)) • Preparation of the common rules in the implementation of the interconnection of the registers, e.g. on the format of data, logging and monitoring (Art. 16(6)) • Setting of a timetable and milestones for Commission and Member States

  5. Meeting 3 July 2009 Agenda • Objective, working method and work program • Presentation on the legal background • Responsible national authorities • Outcome of the Tuner Study • Review of user and business requirements • Discussion of message structure • Technical concept • Presentation of draft Commission decision on minimal structure • Project time line and appointment of rapporteur(s) – Idske Dijkstra NL / RDW and Cathy Jenkins (UK DfT)

  6. 4. TUNER Study / Information Exchange Based on the proposed Regulation  two sorts of information exchange • Infringements – Member States communicate information on infringements committed by operators and any sanctions they have imposed back to the Member State which issued their licence • Good repute - Member States consult relevant information held by all other States to assist them in deciding whether or not to issue or renew an operator’s licence.

  7. Serious Infringements

  8. Good repute of transport manager

  9. 4. Tuner Study / Basic Architecture Principles Considered Decentralised Centralised

  10. 4. TUNER Study / Recommendations • None of the existing systems studied are able to support the ERRU functionality without further modification. • The recommended architectural design is similar to that used by TACHOnet (client / server, intelligent router, centralised).

  11. 4. Tuner Study / Points raised on 3 July • Requirements about enforcement ignored • Results Gartner on EUCARIS appear to have been ignored • Outcome TUNER different from outcome Gartner • Not all architecture options have been studied to same detail - EUCARIS wrongly considered as peer-to-peer architecture • Costs and benefits give overview of scale but all options not studied to same detail – particularly EUCARIS • Considerable discussion around reasons for TUNER recommending TACHOnet architecture as the most optimal – some MS not convinced • Commission decides to come back on the technical concept in the next meeting

  12. 5. Draft Commission Decision on minimal structure • Transport undertaking • Address • Authorisation • Transport manager • Legal representative of transport manager • Infringement • Loss of good repute disproportionate response • Unfit person

  13. 6. Project Time Line • 03.07.09: First meeting of ERRU WG . • 01.09.09: Comments for the preparation of next meeting • 23.09.09: Second meeting of ERRU WG  Decision minimum requirements for data to be entered in register, Structure of messages, Data protection issues • Sep/Oct 09: Probable publication of road package legislation • Oct 09: Committee meeting • Nov 09: Third meeting of ERRU WG • 31.12.09: Decision on minimum requirements for register • Jan 10: Start of Complementary study on technical specifications  External contractor • Jun 10: Rules on interoperability ready • Oct 10: Committee meeting (vote) • Dec 10: Start Test phase (18 to 24 months) • 31.12.10: Adoption of rules on interoperability • Oct 11: Application of road package: register has to be implemented • 31.12.12: Interconnection of registers + assessing fitness of manager • 31.12.15: All serious infringements in register

  14. Homework next meeting • To comment message structure • To comment draft decision • To consult national data protection officers about ERRU • To keep Commission informed about possible national issues in this • To discuss minimal response times • To find solutions for the name search problem

  15. Meeting 23 September 2009 Agenda • Recording of vehicle registration numbers / Presentation by the UK • Discussion of draft Commission Decision on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States • Discussion of the message structure • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States • Discussion on the technical concept for ERRU

  16. 1. Recording of vehicle registration number • Presentation by UK of benefits of the inclusion of the vehicle registration marks in the national ERRU • Conclusion Commission: • Registration number is vital for UK • Responsibility of each MS on the most appropriate national system • Registration number is included as a data field to be included in national registers but completion included as optional in Commission Decision on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national ERRU

  17. 2. Discussion draft Commission Decisionon minimum requirements • Decision has to be adopted before the end of the year • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States • New version • Changes • Derived data not necessary • IT, DK, NL, DE  prefer only absolutely minimum set of data • Start and expiry date of the licence publicly accessible • Inclusion of executed administrative penalties  still to be concluded

  18. 3. Discussion on the message structure • Messages to be concluded at the end of next year • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States • New versions • Infringement notification • Infringement response • Search request • Search response • Acknowledgement

  19. 3. Discussion on the message structure • Outcome • IT, DK, NL, DE  prefer only absolutely minimum set of data • Necessity “Infringement response message” was disputed but Regulation provide explicitly for such a feedback • Use of Community licence serial number for the identification of the transport undertaking • For the “Search request” use the serial number of the certificate of professional competence + country + date of issuance • In the “Search response” include number of vehicles and number of undertakings managed  verify compliance Art. 4.2.c. of the operator regulation • New version to be circulated by Commission • MS should check number of Community licence and CPC  double numbering

  20. 4. Discussion on the technical concept for ERRU • Technical concept needs to be clear in June 2010 • Different options  EUCARIS and TACHOnet • TACHOnet • used in 31 MS • for exchange of TACHOcard information • EUCARIS • is used in 18 MS • for exchange of vehicle-, owner/holder-, driver licence- and insurance information • from August 2011 in all MS

  21. 4. Discussion on the technical concept for ERRU • Currently Commission is discussing solution together with EUCARIS for the exchange of driving licence information Guiding principles ERRU • Proportionate to needs of all MS • No duplication of existing systems • Commission has its responsibility Conclusions • For ERRU Member States have a choice between EUCARIS or TACHOnet • MS can communicate directly with each other via EUCARIS or indirectly via TACHOnet • MS ask for information on both systems

  22. Work to do • By the end of the year: Draft decision minimum requirements • Distribution of information on TACHOnet / EUCARIS • June 2010: Elaboration technical concept TACHOnet /EUCARIS • By the end of next year: Message structure

More Related