What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

The revision of the Union framework for roadworthiness and roadside inspections is both timely and necessary. Technological progress, the increasing digitalisation of the transport sector, and the accelerated market penetration of zero- and low-emission vehicles have rendered parts of the existing rules outdated. The overarching objective of this report is therefore to ensure that the Union’s roadworthiness regime remains fit for purpose, technologically future-proof, and proportionate, while continuing to deliver on its core objectives: improving road safety, safeguarding environmental performance, and ensuring the effective enforcement of Union law.

Despite gradual improvements over recent years, the number of fatalities and serious injuries on Union roads remains unacceptably high. In 2024 alone, 19 940 people lost their lives on EU roads, compared with 24 358 in 2015. To meet the Union’s road safety targets for 2030, further direct, meaningful, and evidence-based measures are required. A robust roadworthiness testing regime constitutes an essential component of a safe road transport system.

At the same time, its design must reflect causality and real-world evidence. The Commission’s own impact assessment confirms that technical defects contribute to only a small share of road accidents. Any reinforcement of testing obligations must therefore be justified by demonstrable safety or environmental benefits and calibrated in line with proportionality. The Commission proposal envisaged several measures that, upon closer analysis, do not meet the proportionality requirement. Foremost among these is the proposed shortening of inspection intervals for vehicles older than ten years. While inspection standards vary among Member States, evidence linking more frequent inspections to a measurable reduction in accident causation remains inconclusive. The measure would also disproportionately affect vehicle owners from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds, for whom older vehicles are often a necessity. Additionally, Member States already have the discretion to impose shorter intervals in justified circumstances; imposing a mandatory Union-wide reduction is therefore neither necessary nor proportionate and has been deleted.

Similarly, the proposal to require annual inspections for N1 vehicles would impose significant administrative and financial burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises, which rely heavily on such vehicles for daily operations. Emission control systems in modern vehicles have to fulfil high standards in terms of durability. In addition, the Commission acknowledges that reliable data on the prevalence of tampered or defective emission control systems remain limited. In the absence of substantiated benefits, the measure is not proportionate and has therefore been deleted.

The report also addresses concerns arising from the weight-based classification of zero-emission vehicles. Due to their batteries, M1 and N1 zero-emission vehicles tend to be heavier than their combustion counterparts and would risk falling into the stricter inspection regime applicable to M2 or N2 vehicles. This outcome would neither reflect the underlying safety risk nor be technologically justified. The report therefore clarifies that such vehicles should not be subject to more stringent regimes solely due to their battery-related mass.

At the same time, several measures to enhance safety and environmental protection are strongly supported. The report also endorses regular technical inspections for motor scooters with an engine capacity above 50 cm³. Given their higher speeds and greater kinetic energy compared with smaller mopeds, safety-critical components such as brakes, tyres, and lighting require regular verification. These inspections will contribute materially to rider safety, overall road safety, and environmental protection.

Regarding remote sensing, the report recognises its long-term potential for improving the detection of high-emitting vehicles and supporting more targeted enforcement. However, given the current stage of technological maturity, remote sensing should remain optional for Member States until its feasibility, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness are demonstrated. At the same time, Member States should be encouraged to conduct pilot projects to build experience and support the development of a harmonised approach at Union level.

Overall, the report strikes a balanced and proportionate approach: modernising the Union framework in light of technological progress; ensuring that new obligations rest on sound evidence; maintaining legal certainty; and avoiding disproportionate burdens on citizens, SMEs, and inspection operators. The resulting framework strengthens the Union’s capacity to improve road safety, enhance environmental protection, and support the transition to cleaner and more digital mobility, while remaining fair, workable, and economically justified.