Statutory guidance

Statutory document 11: Guidance on the format of traffic commissioner decisions

Updated 11 April 2022

The following is an accessible alternative to the original PDF statutory document. Every effort has been made to replicate the original faithfully, but this has not always been possible. There will be instances below where the formatting required to fit within an HTML document has not allowed the original content to be transposed directly. Footnotes have also been incorporated into the body of the text, as have some tables. In case of doubt reference should be made to the original document.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain issues the following Guidance under section 4C(1) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“1981 Act”) and by reference to section 1(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“1995 Act”) to provide information as to the way in which the Senior Traffic Commissioner believes that traffic commissioners should interpret the law in relation to the format of decisions.

1. Guidance

1.1 Basis of Guidance

The Senior Traffic Commissioner recognises the independence of traffic commissioners in reaching judicial decisions (Human Rights Act 1998, see Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions on Case Management). This guidance deals with the administration and practicalities for making decisions available to interested parties. Third parties can request copies of decisions via the Traffic Commissioner Information Access Team at [email protected]. The principles to be employed when reaching decisions are set out elsewhere (see Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions on the Principles of Decision Making). The provisions for a review of decisions are also set out elsewhere (see Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions on Appeals).

A predominant function of traffic commissioners is to act as a single person tribunal, dealing with hearings, interlocutory decisions, and matters ancillary to the judicial process. As such, in common with all tribunals, there is an obligation to issue decisions promptly (Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998, Al-Le Logistics Limited etc [2010] EWHC 134 (Admin), 2000/065 A M Richardson trading as D J Travel Consultants v DETR).

The majority of decisions made by traffic commissioners, following a public inquiry, are therefore delivered orally and on the day of the hearing. A traffic commissioner, however, may decide that the interests of justice require a decision to be explained in writing. The timescales suggested below are subject to the availability of resources and other exceptional circumstances which might impact on the availability of the traffic commissioner or dictate other priorities. Those timescales exclude impounding cases where the legislation provides a specific timetable. Where there is a hearing, the decision should be communicated within 14 days of its conclusion and where there is no hearing within 21 days of receiving the application. (Regulation 12 of the Goods Vehicle (Enforcement Powers Regulations) 2001 as amended, and regulation 13 of the Public Service Vehicle (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2009). Those timescales are subject to extension where the traffic commissioner considers it necessary in the interests of justice and fairness in the particular case (Regulation 23 of the Goods Vehicle (Enforcement Powers Regulations) 2001 as amended, and regulation 25 of the Public Service Vehicle (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2009).

1.2 Case Law

This Guidance may be subject to decisions of the higher courts and to subsequent legislation. The Senior Traffic Commissioner has extracted the following principles and examples from existing case law.

As the Court of Appeal has acknowledged, rights of appeal are afforded because no judge is infallible. It is not possible to provide a set template which covers every type of decision and it may be perfectly acceptable for reasons to be set out briefly but there should be a clear explanation of any order (Peter Andrew English v Emery Reinbold & Strick Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 605).

The interactive nature of a public inquiry, and the traffic commissioner’s duty to engage with an operator in order to test the evidence and to encourage adherence to high standards and the regulatory regime, may mean that some cases can best be dealt with either informally or robustly, depending upon the circumstances. Many operators leave the public inquiry room chastened and resolving never to return, having been given the clearest of reasons for the traffic commissioner’s concerns…” (2013/080 Graham William Smith trading as Smiths Coaches).

The Upper Tribunal goes on to acknowledge that traffic commissioners are well able to exercise judgement and adapt their approach according to the gravity of the case. It is for the traffic commissioner to decide whether or not to give a written decision. Whether or not a decision is oral or in writing, it must be properly structured and provide sufficient intelligible reasons for the conclusion reached. An applicant for a licence, whose application has been refused, is entitled to know which of the statutory criteria have not been met and why.

The operator should have explained why an adverse decision has been reached and the traffic commissioner should show that an appropriate balancing exercise has been carried out (2014/009 Hunterstrong Engineering Ltd trading as Northover Heavy Logistics). The more serious the likely outcome, the greater the requirement for a demonstrably structured and obviously judicious approach. It may be necessary to include additional matters to those suggested in Annex A. Where a traffic commissioner relies on the cumulative effect of a number of factors, it may be necessary to show how one factor adds to another (2012/068 Peter Nicholas Wenzal Priedel trading as Sandwich Statics).

The Upper Tribunal has reminded traffic commissioners that what matters most is “what the traffic commissioner thinks and why he thinks it” and that “they should not feel constrained to include standard paragraphs and phrases in their decisions” (2010/071 Eurofast (Europe) Ltd and Others). Numerous appeal decisions repeat the need for sufficient written reasons in the record of traffic commissioner’s decisions (2008/413 Al-Le Logistics Ltd). Where a finding is made it is important for a traffic commissioner to explain what conclusions have been reached having had the opportunity to assess all the evidence in the round (2012/036 Patrick O’Keefe trading as O’Keefe Building). In constructing a decision:

we do not think that there is any obligation on a judicial decision-maker, in every case, to prove that they know all the applicable cases or to prove that they correctly understand the law. Setting out the legal framework where it is not in dispute, and citing key cases where no specific point turns on them, is not obligatory, although it is not damaging either. What matters is that the traffic commissioner has set out what s/he thinks, and why s/he thinks it, and the description and structure of the approach accords with the applicable legal framework”(2013/046 Shearer Transport Ltd and James Shearer).

A written decision or reasons can be used to subsequently correct a decision (2001/077 Wilton Contracts (London) Ltd). The power to correct a written decision is more limited, but certainly extends to typographical and factual errors such as a numerical correction but requires an explanation. It can happen that a feature of the evidence which had not received much attention at the hearing strikes a traffic commissioner, who has reserved the decision, as being important. It is entirely a matter of discretion and fairness whether the tribunal can rely on that feature without hearing further evidence or argument, and it is difficult to suggest any general rule on the topic (1999/L56 Alison Jones trading as Jones Motors, Shamrock Coaches, and Thomas Motor Services).

Long delays between the hearing of evidence at a public inquiry and the publication (traffic commissioners’ written decisions are now published online) of a written decision should generally be avoided (2005/523 Swallow Coach Company Ltd, 2011/065 Deep Transport Ltd, 2014/076 Transfreeze Ltd and Others, 2016/027 K McDonald trading as River Tay Executive Travel, NT/2017/016 Damien Toner) and traffic commissioners should make efforts to minimise the risk of this happening. This may include working with members of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and the instruction of deputy traffic commissioners. The decisions themselves are directed to operators who will be well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced (South Bucks District Council & Another v. Porter (No.2) [2004] UKHL 33). It may also include giving an oral decision with an indication to provide written reasons (confirmation) for that decision in due course (see the Stay decision in Sally Lyn Thompson). Each case will turn on its own facts, with “the degree of particularity required depending on the nature of the issues falling for decision”.

The reasoning relied upon must be set out in any full written decision. A traffic commissioner has to consider the evidence carefully and then give reasons if he or she is going to reject it. It is rarely enough to refer to evidence and then move straight to a conclusion (2000/057 Yorkshire Rider Ltd & First Bristol Buses Ltd v DETR). In many cases there will be no need to explain the relevance of a particular factor in the decision because it will only need to be stated for its relevance to be apparent, but where there is any doubt as to whether or not a factor is relevant the traffic commissioner should explain why he or she considers it to be relevant (2007/104 S Lloyd trading as London Skips.

A traffic commissioner should make an assessment of the nature, number and gravity of any breaches and the steps taken by the operator to prevent breaches, which should be set out in the decision as well as the weight given, for instance, to the operator’s general record, performance, reputation and enforcement history (2002/001 Bryan Haulage Ltd (No1)). It must be possible to determine from the decision which matters were taken into account by the traffic commissioner, the weight placed upon those matters and whether the appropriate balancing exercise was carried out.

Traffic commissioners need to ensure sufficient detail to allow a person with experience of the relevant industry to understand the basis upon which the decision was arrived at (2021/004 Christopher Johnson – the use of Latin phrases should be avoided unless absolutely necessary). Even in a ‘bad case’ where the operator could not have failed to understand why the traffic commissioner came to the particular conclusion the absence of a written decision has been criticised (2009/008 William Ball trading as Severn Valley Transport). It is not necessarily the case that whenever an operator’s licence is to be revoked a written decision is required or should accompany or follow any oral decision (2010/013 Malcolm Thomas Berry, 2010/036 Suzanne Stoneman trading as Keith Travel). The Upper Tribunal has made the following observations:

The DTC announced his decision at the end of the inquiry and, at the same time, gave extempore reasons for his decision. Giving adequate extempore reasons is a difficult task calling for no little skill. In our view, the DTC was more than equal to the task. We were impressed by the quality of the DTC’s extempore reasons. The reasons included an explanation as to why the DTC accepted Mr P… evidence and why” (2017/025 K Kapacee trading as Zara Travel).

However it would be normal to provide a written decision where revocation (or other strong regulatory action) follows a lengthy public inquiry (2010/067 Pemberton Transport Ltd and Lynne Walker). Reasons should be given for any conclusion. The intentions of the traffic commissioner and the effect on the party(s) should be equally clear (2008/780 South Lincs Plant Hire & Sales Ltd) and any relevant matters such as the burden of proof should be accurately described but may not be fatal to the validity of a decision (2010/040 Rowlands Telecoms Ltd in contrast to 2009/204 Michael John Verrechia). In more complicated cases this may only be possible by putting that reasoning in writing.

The general rule is that a final decision of a traffic commissioner cannot be re-opened except by way of lawful appeal (see Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions on Appeals), but the rule applies only after the written decision has been drawn up and issued. It is also subject to two exceptions: where there has been a slip in drawing up the decision (and many jurisdictions have a ‘slip rule’ to allow for rectification), and where, for some other reason, it is established that the document does not properly and accurately convey what the traffic commissioner clearly and manifestly intended or indicated that it should say (2011/043 D A Lewis UPVC Installations Ltd and David Andrew Lewis).

Traffic commissioners are aware of the guidance to be drawn from the Practice Direction on the citation of authorities issued by the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales. In summary where a judgment is reported in the Official Law Reports (for example A.C., Q.B., CH., Fam.) then that report should be cited as they contain a summary of the argument. If unavailable then another report or transcript might be relied upon. In the main traffic commissioners rely on the decisions of the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal citations relied upon throughout the Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions are those which accord with the search facility provided on the HM Courts and Tribunal Service web site, so as to ensure accessibility of these decisions.

Here are links to:

• HM Courts and Tribunals decisions from pre-2016
• HM Courts and Tribunals decisions from post-2016

The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 have been amended so as to allow appeals against the decisions of the Competent Authority for Northern Ireland; whilst the decisions of the Competent Authority cannot be considered to be those of a judicial tribunal, the appeal decisions can, nevertheless, be relied upon. ### Oral Decisions

In the majority of cases it is desirable to issue decisions orally at the public inquiry, together with accompanying reasons and reference to the individual sections of the legislation that the traffic commissioner has found are made out. Whilst traffic commissioners should avoid the perception that a decision has been reached in haste or of pre-determination (2010/067 Pemberton Transport Ltd and Lynne Walker) it is envisaged that this practice will continue in the majority of straightforward cases. The actual decision will always be confirmed in writing, which will also explain the right of appeal.

1.3 Written Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner’s Oral Decision

In certain cases, however, following the issue of an oral decision, a traffic commissioner may indicate that he/she will issue a written copy of the decision and accompanying reasons to ensure that all parties and any interested parties understand the reasons for a decision and its implications. This written record may also be of great benefit to any traffic commissioner who deals with the operator (or a linked operator) at a subsequent public inquiry. Traffic commissioners will aim to issue those written reasons within five working days of the public inquiry. As a courtesy any party awaiting a written decision should be kept informed on any actual or anticipated delays.

1.4 Full Written Reasons

Traffic commissioners recognise that there will be certain cases in which a written decision, recording relevant evidence, considerations and findings, will be necessary following a public inquiry or a driver conduct hearing.

The principles for dealing with cases justly and expeditiously are set out in the Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions on Case Management. The following examples offer guidance as to when a written decision would be more likely to be required:

• Revocation with disqualification and/or disqualification of a transport manager, where those reasons may be required at the time when the operator/individual attempts to re-enter the industry (2010/029 David Finch trading as David Finch Haulage);
• Where there has been a significant factual argument during the course of the hearing requiring detailed explanation as to the weight attached to the evidence, for instance regarding the credibility of a witness;
• Where a complex area of law or novel legal argument needs to be determined, which may ultimately be considered at appeal;
• Where it is necessary for the understanding of an unrepresented party to the proceedings, representors or statutory objectors;
• Where an important learning point of general application needs to be communicated more widely.

2. Directions

The Senior Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain issues the following Directions to traffic commissioners under section 4C(1) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (as amended) and by reference to section 1(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The Senior Traffic Commissioner recognises that decisions may be the subject of proof reading and other assistance. These Directions are addressed to the traffic commissioners in respect of the approach to be taken by them and staff acting on behalf of individual traffic commissioners in the issuing and publication of decisions.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner endorses the practice that in cases where a decision is reserved, traffic commissioners should endeavour to publish their written reasons no later than 28 days from the date of the final hearing, except in cases where a full transcript or part transcript is required. In the latter case, the target date for publication is 28 days after the transcript becomes available. The Senior Traffic Commissioner recognises that it might be necessary to put conditions in writing to a party after the hearing and to seek comments and/or agreement or to seek further information. In those circumstances the timetable starts with receipt of the response or further information.

Should the relevant decision be delayed for a further period of more than 14 days after the original 28 day period the Senior Traffic Commissioner must be notified accordingly by the relevant Senior Team Leader.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner recognises that these timescales are dependent on available resources. The Senior Traffic Commissioner will therefore endeavour to work with the traffic commissioner concerned to ensure that arrangements are made for the delayed decision to be published as soon as is reasonably practicable. This may include, for example, inviting the traffic commissioner concerned to assign a deputy traffic commissioner to deal with their public inquiries so as to allow them sufficient time for the issue of the full written reasons.

2.1 Format of Traffic Commissioners’ Written Decisions

In respect of standard licences, Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 requires that the name of any person declared to be unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking (as long as the good repute of that person has not been re-established etc.) and any applicable rehabilitation measures, be recorded on the national register. Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) 2016/480 requires inter-connectivity between the various National Registers. The Register must therefore record, where such action is taken by a traffic commissioner, but due to the limitations on the national register the entry will simply refer to the published full written reasons.

A template has been designed to provide a general approach to the format of written decisions, which are published by the traffic commissioners. The attached template at Annex A forms part of these Directions and is to be used as the starting point for the format of all relevant decisions.

2.2 Redaction of All or Part of Published Decisions

Generally traffic commissioners will issue the whole of their decision which will consequently be in the public domain. However this will be subject to the provisions that apply with regard to traffic commissioners having a power to hear the whole or part of any inquiry in private.

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 provides the following:

(2) The traffic commissioner may direct that the whole or any part of an inquiry be held in private if he is satisfied that by reason of:

(a) the likelihood of disclosure of intimate personal or financial circumstances;

(b) the likelihood of disclosure of commercially sensitive information or information obtained in confidence; or

(c) exceptional circumstances not falling within sub-paragraphs (a) or (b),

it is just and reasonable for him to do so.

(2) Where the hearing is in private the traffic commissioner may admit such persons as he considers appropriate.

(3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2), where any question relating to the appropriate financial resources of any persons is to be or is being considered during an inquiry, the traffic commissioner may exclude such persons as he thinks fit from the part of the inquiry during which that question is considered.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, a member of the Council on Tribunals or the Scottish Committee of that Council may be present in his capacity as such notwithstanding that the inquiry or part of an inquiry is not in public and such a person shall not be excluded under sub-paragraph (4).

Paragraph 7 of The Public Service Vehicles (Traffic Commissioners: Publication and Inquiries) Regulations 1986 provides the following:

A traffic commissioner may restrict in such manner as he directs attendance of the public at any inquiry so far as that inquiry relates to the financial position of any person, provided that a member of the Council on Tribunals or its Scottish Committee shall be entitled to attend notwithstanding that attendance is restricted.

It therefore follows that where a traffic commissioner has heard all or part of the evidence given at the public inquiry in private, the traffic commissioner must give careful consideration as to whether it is appropriate to redact all or part of the decision. In general terms the traffic commissioner will be likely to redact those parts of the decision that refer to evidence given in private and consequently that should not go into the public domain.

Furthermore, the legislation requires traffic commissioners to process personal data (within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)). The processing of personal data by individual members of staff must comply with GDPR and DPA which also detail the six Data Protection Principles (Article 5 of the GDPR and Chapter 2 of the DPA).

“Processing” is defined, under Article 4 of the GDPR, as “any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction”.

“Personal data” is defined under the GDPR as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person …; an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier … or to one or more factors specific to the … identity of that natural person”.

The categories of personal data that are processed might include “special category data” or information such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, employment activities, convictions, financial details, mental capacity and any other information that may be submitted by applicants, licence holders or candidates, or considered by traffic commissioners, in order to fulfil their statutory duties. Personal data processed for the purposes of regulation is not subject to subject information limiting disclosure (Article 23 of the GDPR). The non-disclosure provisions do not apply where disclosure is required by law or in connection with legal proceedings (Article 23 of the GDPR and Schedule 2 of the DPA). In reaching a decision traffic commissioners should only refer to what is required for their lawful purposes.

Traffic commissioners will be concerned to ensure that arrangements are in place so that relevant personal data is accurate and processed properly. The Senior Traffic Commissioner has therefore adopted a general approach in both goods and passenger cases that sensitive information that is personal financial information shall only be given with only the operator and nominated representative(s) present. There may be occasions, however, where it is necessary to hear some related evidence in public and to refer to a document such as a bank statement where, for instance, it is alleged to have been altered.

In goods cases the traffic commissioner will also have to give careful consideration as to whether it is necessary to redact those parts of the decision that relate to evidence given in private in accordance with paragraphs 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) of Schedule 4 of the 1995 Regulations. The Senior Traffic Commissioner does not consider it appropriate to issue general guidance in this matter as each case will turn upon its facts.

In completing a decision with full written reasons it should not be necessary to complete a second version of the decision. The traffic commissioner should ensure that any sensitive sections which they require to be removed from the publicly available version of the decision should be placed in bold text written between square brackets. Whilst the full decision will of course be made available to the subject(s) of the public inquiry or hearing or anyone requesting a copy, the traffic commissioner should take all reasonable steps to ensure that only the redacted decision is placed into the public domain. The attached template provides suggested wording for the traffic commissioner to adopt.

3. Annex A - Written decision template

The format of any decision may depend largely on the issues under consideration. The following is a prompt to remind the traffic commissioner of the broad headings which he or she might wish to include in a written decision and of the preferred approach to the redaction of written decisions, as referred to above. By way of example a shortened format might be adopted for Written Reasons or Confirmation.

The first page

First, in the top right corner of the page, the written decision should say which traffic area it’s in.

Then, in the centre of the page, there should be an image of the coat of arms of the United Kingdom. After that, the name and licence number of the operator the decision relates to, as well as the names of any other parties concerned. Below that, the traffic commissioner should set out whether this is the decision of the traffic commissioner or deputy traffic commissioner. The traffic commissioner should then set out their decision, including any regulatory action taken.

If the judgement contains confidential information, the decision should set this out as follows:

THIS DECISION CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. THE RELEVANT SECTIONS INDICATED IN BOLD AND BETWEEN SQUARE BRACKETS ARE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER

The judgement should then follow this format:

Background

Type of licence, level of authority, type of entity, previous history and where appropriate transport manager details

The Call to Public Inquiry

Reference to the call up letter – citing the relevant legislation

The Public Inquiry

Where, when, who attended.

The Evidence

Refer to those matters considered particularly any documents not included in the brief.

Refer to the salient parts of the oral evidence of each of the witnesses such as DVSA, the operator and any other witnesses.

Findings of fact

Where necessary describe the weight attached to or why a particular version may be preferred.

Findings regarding breaches of the legislation

Relevant considerations

Include a description of the balancing exercise and the relevant positive and negative factors taken into account. (Traffic commissioners are not required to list all factors as some will be of such limited significance as to be irrelevant.)

Include reference to the consideration of the factors taken into account regarding the effect of any regulatory action taken (such as the effects of an order for suspension or curtailment) and the reasons for the imposition of that regulatory action.

Decision

To include all directions made with regard to the operator and, where appropriate, the transport manger and individual directors or partners.

The judgement should then conclude with:

• the name of the presiding traffic commissioner
• whether the decision was made by a deputy traffic commissioner or a traffic commissioner
• the date

4. Annex B - Retained EU Legislation

Regulation 5 of the Road Transport Operator Regulations 2011 states that a standard licence constitutes an authorisation to engage in the occupation of road transport operator for the purposes of:

Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 establishing common rules concerning conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator repealed Council Directive 96/26 EC and applicable from 4th December 2011.

4.1 Article 15 - Decisions of the competent authorities and appeals

1 - Negative decisions taken by the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to this Regulation, including the rejection of an application, the suspension or withdrawal of an existing authorisation and a declaration of unfitness of a transport manager, shall state the reasons on which they are based.

Such decisions shall take account of available information concerning infringements committed by the undertaking or the transport manager which are such as to detract from the good repute of the undertaking and of any other information at the disposal of the competent authority. They shall specify the rehabilitation measures applicable in the event of the suspension of an authorisation or a declaration of unfitness.

4.2 Article 16 - National electronic registers

1 - For the purposes of the implementation of this Regulation, and in particular Articles 11 to 14 and Article 26 thereof, each Member State shall keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by a competent authority designated by it to engage in the occupation of road transport operator. The data contained in that register shall be processed under the supervision of a public authority designated for that purpose. The relevant data contained in the national electronic register shall be accessible to all the competent authorities of the Member State in question.

2 - National electronic registers shall contain at least the following data:

• the name and legal form of the undertaking;
• the address of its establishment;
• the names of the transport managers designated to meet the conditions as to good repute and professional competence or, as appropriate, the name of a legal representative;
• the type of authorisation, the number of vehicles it covers and, where appropriate, the serial number of the Community licence and of the certified copies;
• the number, category and type of serious infringements, as referred to in Article 6(1)(b), which have resulted in a conviction or penalty during the last 2 years;
• the name of any person declared to be unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, as long as the good repute of that person has not been re-established pursuant to Article 6(3), and the rehabilitation measures applicable.

For the purposes of point (e), Member States may, until 31 December 2015, choose to include in the national electronic register only the most serious infringements set out in Annex IV.

Member States may choose to keep the data referred to in points (e) and (f) of the first subparagraph in separate registers. In such a case, the relevant data shall be available upon request or directly accessible to all the competent authorities of the Member State in question. The requested information shall be provided within 30 working days of receipt of the request. The data referred to in points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph shall be publicly accessible, in accordance with the relevant provisions on personal data protection.

In any case, the data referred to in points (e) and (f) of the first subparagraph shall only be accessible to authorities other than the competent authorities where they are duly endowed with powers relating to supervision and the imposition of penalties in the road transport sector and their officials are sworn to, or otherwise are under a formal obligation of, secrecy.

3 - Data concerning an undertaking whose authorisation has been suspended or withdrawn shall remain in the national electronic register for 2 years from the expiry of the suspension or the withdrawal of the licence, and shall thereafter be immediately removed.

Data concerning any person declared to be unfit for the occupation of road transport operator shall remain in the national electronic register as long as the good repute of that person has not been re-established pursuant to Article 6(3). Where such a rehabilitation measure or any other measure having an equivalent effect is taken, the data shall be immediately removed.

The data referred to in the first and second subparagraphs shall specify the reasons for the suspension or withdrawal of the authorisation or the declaration of unfitness, as appropriate, and the corresponding duration.