Text file: 5822.txt
author: Tomozuki
downvotes: 3
end consideration date: 2014-05-15
id: '5822'
number comments: 20
number views: 4453
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning\nAt the\
  \ outset, it should be pointed out that in the Republic of Slovenia, prior to the\
  \ entry into force of the LDVCP, there was a regime for the payment of an annual\
  \ charge for the use of roads, and the current regime of an annual charge for the\
  \ use of vehicles in road transport is essentially a tax and not a direct compensation\
  \ for the damage that vehicles also cause to the road infrastructure.\nIn fact,\
  \ it is our observation that the annual charge is still often misnamed or misunderstood\
  \ in the public domain as \"road user charge\". This is an incorrect definition\
  \ and a terminological confusion among users, as the correct name for the charge\
  \ is 'road use charge' or toll.  However, this definition is not only incorrect,\
  \ but also creates the impression that it is merely another form of toll and thus\
  \ a duplication of payment for the use of certain roads, which is expressly prohibited\
  \ by the European Community in Directive 99/62/EC. The change of the name of the\
  \ levy to 'annual motor vehicle use tax' is intended to remove such a misnomer and\
  \ to ensure that the meaning of the levy is correctly understood by the general\
  \ public.\nThe proposal to charge the annual road user charge by weight of the vehicle\
  \ can also be understood in the context of different basic understandings or interpretations.\
  \ If we look at the proposal made on the basis of the content of \"charging by vehicle\
  \ weight\" itself, also from the point of view of the annual road user charge, we\
  \ come to certain conclusions. In setting the current level of the annual charge,\
  \ the air pollutant emissions and the suitability of the vehicle in relation to\
  \ road safety requirements are also taken into account as criteria, not just the\
  \ 'technical characteristics' of the vehicle. These are also factors that affect\
  \ the use of a vehicle in traffic in terms of its impact on the environment and\
  \ on road safety, but have no impact on the transport infrastructure itself.\nThe\
  \ proposal to take into account the weight of the vehicle, among other current criteria,\
  \ when setting the annual charge should be duly examined, since, under the current\
  \ system and criteria, a completely new element is being introduced which could\
  \ lead to new disparities in the payment of the annual charge for the use of vehicles\
  \ on the road, as has already been demonstrated by some of the commentators on the\
  \ proposal (socially disadvantaged people, families, people living in higher-lying\
  \ areas, etc.). It would be necessary to carry out an analysis of a different system\
  \ for levying the annual charge, but at the moment there are no financial resources\
  \ to do so.\nWe would like to thank the proposer and the commentators for their\
  \ suggestions and comments on the current system of payment of the annual road user\
  \ charge, which takes into account as criteria most of the elements taken into account\
  \ by the other Member States of the European Community. We believe that future discussions\
  \ should also consider the systemic impact of the weight of the passenger car on\
  \ the overall vehicle levy system, also in the wider European Community.\n "
response date: 2014-06-16
response due date: null
sent date: 2014-04-16
title: Payment of the annual road vehicle circulation levy by weight
upvotes: 16
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/5822
