Identify non-compliance to individual articles of the applicable delegated act

All reported types of non-compliance should be <b>recorded by the NB</b> so as other data sets or services by the same or a different provider can also be checked against similar non-compliance issues.<br/><br/><b>Non-provision of data</b><br/>The Delegated Regulations enacted under the European ITS Directive define obligations for several stakeholder groups to register data or services on the National Access Point, otherwise make it available and establish other obligations related to services and data (e.g. to provide data in a standardised format). It is possible that the National Body encounters situations in which the stakeholder does not make the data or service available as required by the applicable Delegated Regulation or does not register it to the NAP. In these cases, the stakeholder will most likely not have submitted a self-declaration to the National Body.<br/>The non-compliance treatment procedure described in chapter 8.1 can be applied also in case of non-provision of data. In addition to the articles related to compliance assessment, non-provision of data may violate other articles of the Delegated Regulations. In the Delegated Regulation on MMTIS (2017/1926), article 4 describes obligations to provide static travel and traffic data, and article 5 describes similar obligations for dynamic travel and traffic data. In the Delegated Regulation on RTTI (2017/1926), obligations to provide data are described for different stakeholder groups in articles 4, 5 and 6.<br/><br/><b>Non-provision of self-declaration</b><br/>The task of the National Body to request a self-declaration and the obligation of a service provider, data provider or other stakeholder to submit a self-declaration have been expressed in different ways in the Delegated Regulations on RTTI, SRTI, MMTIS and SSTP. The Delegated Regulations use different wordings regarding compliance assessment, provision of self-declaration and processing the self-declaration. A comparison between the Delegated Regulations is provided in the table below (Table 1).<br/>Table 1. Comparison of wording related to compliance assessment, delivery of self-declaration and random inspections between Delegated Regulations on MMTIS, RTTI, SRTI and SSTP (emphasis made by authors).<br/>The Delegated Regulations on SRTI and SSTP use modal verb "shall" to describe how self-declaration (declaration of compliance, declaration) is provided to the National Body (designated body). In the technical context, the modal verb "shall" is commonly used to indicate a mandatory feature or system behavior. In legal contexts, "shall" is frequently used to indicate action which is mandatory. The Delegated Regulations on SRTI and SSTP can therefore be interpreted to establish a positive obligation to submit a self-declaration when the conditions for submitting a self-declaration defined in the Delegated Regulation are present. Not submitting a self-declaration when it is required according to the Delegated Regulation would therefore be considered as non-compliance to the requirements of the Delegated Regulation.<br/>The Delegated Regulations on MMTIS and RTTI use the modal verb "may" to describe how self-declarations are provided to the National Body. In technical and legal contexts, the modal verb "may" is commonly used to indicate behavior or an activity which is allowed but not mandatory. The Delegated Regulations on RTTI and MMTIS use the wording "competent authorities of Member States may request" which indicates that the National Body is authorised to request self-declarations from stakeholders. The obligation of the stakeholder to answer the request, for example by submitting a self-declaration, has not been codified in the Delegated Regulations on RTTI or MMITS. <br/>The Delegated Regulations do not provide a direct answer to the question whether not answering a request to provide a self-declaration would constitute non-compliance or violation of the requirements expressed in the Delegated Regulation on RTTI or MMTIS. In addition to European law, National Bodies interpreting the Delegated Regulations will likely take into account their national legislation and the legal systems of their own member states. It therefore seems possible that public authorities or courts in different EU Member States may arrive to different conclusions in this question.<br/>In EU law, the public authority has the burden of proof that a violation has occurred when applying administrative sanctions (de Moor van Vugt 2012). In national law, the rules regarding the burden of proof and the standard of proof required in administrative process differ between Member States. <br/>Legal certainty is one of the principles of EU law but its interpretation in practical situations may be complex (Van Meerbeeck 2016). Due to the principle of legal certainty, it can be argued that the obligations of a subject have to be foreseeable. Regarding legal certainty, the European Court of Justice has concluded: "the effect of community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it" (ECJ, 212 to 217/80, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. SRL Meridionale Industria Salumi and Other).<br/><br/>