EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15.10.2008 
SEC(2008) 2631 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Proposal for a directive of the European  Parliament and of the Council amending 
Directive 2002/15/EC on the organisation of the working time of persons performing 
mobile road transport activities 
{COM(2008)650} 
{SEC(2008)2632} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. I NTRODUCTION  
This executive summary of the impact assessment report describes problems encountered with 
regard to the scope and enforcement of the le gislation concerning pers ons performing mobile 
road transport activities and analyses the various  policy options to deal  with these problems. 
Directive 2002/15/EC1 establishes minimum requirements of  working time of mobile workers 
in road transport in order to improve the health and safety pr otection, to improve road safety 
and to align conditions of competition. The Directive supplements Regulation (EC) No 
561/20062 laying down rules on driving times and rest periods for drivers. 
As part of the conciliation agreement the prov isions of the Directiv e would apply from 23 
March 2009 to self-employed drivers once the Co mmission presents a report and a consequent 
legislative proposal based on the report  (Article 2(1) of  the Directive). 
The Commission report3 addressing potential consequences of the exclusion of self-employed 
drivers and assessing the night time provisions was presented on 23 May 2007. 
The report confirms that the balance of overall disadvantages and advantages of inclusion or 
non-inclusion of self-employed drivers within  the scope of the Directive is mixed and 
indicates the need for an in-depth impact a ssessment of the issue. Additionally, the report 
reveals a problem with effective and equitable enforcement of the rules. 
2. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES  
The impact assessment builds on various st udies and surveys carri ed out during 2003-2008 
including two consultations with stakeholders as well as on regular contacts with Member 
States and social partners. It reflects the stakeholders' comments as well as contributions of 
the Inter-services Steering Group established for the purpose of this impact assessment. 
The majority of stakeholders see negative a nd positive impacts. On one hand working time 
rules are regarded as having positive impacts on health and safety, working conditions and 
conditions of competition, but on the other hand they bring numerous negative side-effects 
such as loss of salary, shortage of drivers and increase in costs. 
Stakeholders highlighted problems related to th e enforcement of the working time rules and 
indicated that the existing weak system of c ontrols does not ensure full compliance and they 
advocate for clarity of the scope of the Direc tive, effectiveness of enforcement, better 
cooperation between national authorities and pr evention of the phenome non of 'false' self-
employed drivers. 
The Impact Assessment Board treated the draft Impact Assessment in its meeting on 16 April 
2008 and gave comments to improve the text in  its opinions of 22 April 2008 and 26 June 
2008 after a resubmitted Impact Assessment. The main comments concerned the lack of 
explanation of the relation of the specific wo rking time directive with other applicable 
                                                 
1 OJ L 80, of 23.3.2002, p.35 
2 OJ L 102, of 11.4.2006, p.1 
3 COM(2007) 266 final 
 
EN 3   EN instruments, the need to streng then the problem definition, the f act that initia lly none of the 
examined options was chosen and afterwards the need to define them more explicitly and the 
incompleteness of the analysis of social impacts. Taking into  account of these comments, the 
relationship between different acts is explaine d, the problem definition has been made more 
precise, the policy options have been revised and the social impacts have been assessed in a 
qualitative manner for each option. 
3. P ROBLEMS IDENTIFIED  
The main problem is the scope of the Directiv e as identified in its Article 2(1), namely 
whether self-employed drivers should be includ ed in it and if yes, under which conditions. 
Usually the working time of self -employed persons is not restricted as this would limit their 
own entrepreneurial freedom. For this main problem the impact assessment is looking the 
economic, social, environmental and administrative impacts of different scenario of excluding 
and including the self-emp loyed drivers in the scope of the directive. 
An accompanying problem is the low level of compliance of a group of mobile workers, the 
so-called "false" self-employe d drivers, which has several underlying causes: delays in 
transposition, unwill ingness of some transport companie s, misinterpretation of certain 
provisions and weak enforcement. 
The Directive does not contain a ny specific provisions on the cont rol of its application. Such 
situation differs from the control of driving times and rest periods, where Directive 2006/22/EC prescribes qualitative ly and quantitatively the checks that Member States must 
undertake both at roadside and in the premises  of undertakings. The Commission originally 
proposed that working time rules would be controlled under Directive 2006/22/EC, but the 
legislator did not a dopt this approach. 
Low compliance and weak enforcement is mainly related to the 'false' self-employed drivers. 
This category is composed of drivers that ar e formally self-employed, but who work regular 
hours for the same undertaking without the freedom to  provide services to other parties. It is 
not explicitly defined in the Directive, but as th ese drivers do not satisfy the criteria of a 'self 
employed driver', they should be  subject to the same obligati ons and benefits as mobile 
workers. However, a number of drivers and co mpanies do not apply corre ctly this distinction. 
Road safety concerns due to driver's fatigue are prevented by strict enforcement of driving 
time and rest period rules that apply to all drivers, regardless thei r employment status. 
Therefore the additional effect of the Working Time Directiv e is not significant for road 
safety. 
All these problems undermine th e Community rules and jeopard ize the achievement of the 
key policy objectives of the Directive. 
4. O
BJECTIVES  
The general objective jus tifying the EU action is the review of the scope of the directive and 
the compliance with the rules. This will be achieved by:  
• clarifying the scope of the Directive with regard to  self-employed drivers, 
 
EN 4   EN • making clear distinction between self-employe d drivers and those drivers who should be 
treated as employed mobile workers for the purpose of the Directive, 
• improving effectiveness of enforcement, 
• reinforcing cooperation between Member States in order to ensure common application of 
the rules, 
5. P OLICY OPTIONS  
Four policy options were identified: three of th em deal with the scope of the Directive and 
one with enforcement. 
Option A: "do nothing". This option does not involve any action by the European 
Parliament and by the Council, but it would not mean maintaining the status quo . Only the 
execution of conditions specified in Article 2( 1) of the Directive, namely adoption by the 
Commission of a report and a c onsequent legislative proposal,  would result in automatic 
inclusion of self-employed drivers within th e scope of the Directive as of 23 March 2009. 
Option B:  Extending the scope of the Directiv e by including a ll self-employed 
drivers, except for self-employed drivers that  are only performing national transport.  
This option provides for including only self -employed drivers performing international 
transport in the scope of the Directive. This  option would require re vision of the Directive 
with regard to its scope. All ot her provisions would remain unchanged. 
Option C: Enhanced enforce ment of the Directive with modalities to ensure the 
inclusion of “false self-employed” into the scope while keeping the genuine self-employed 
workers out of the Directive. This option provides for inclusi on of the so-called “false self 
employed” in the scope of the Directive by prov iding for clarification of certain provisions 
and adding control requirements. 
Three sub-options have been considered: C.1: legal clarification within the framework of the Directive. This sub-option envisages 
clarification to the definition of mobile wo rker, which encompasses 'false' self employed 
drivers so that no room for interpretation is le ft. This option could al so involve publishing 
guidance notes in order to ensure ha rmonised interpretation of definitions. 
C.2: administrative measures imposing full enforcement together wi th clarification of 
the categories "self-employed driver" and "mobile worker" . This sub-option envisages 
the introduction of administrative measures to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the 
enforcement. This would require a revision of  the Directive with a view to modify the 
definition of "mobile worker" as in option C.1 and to introducing requirements concerning 
cooperation to ensure equitabl e application of the rules an d full compliance throughout the 
Community. 
C.3: 'phasing-in' for 'false' self-employed. This sub-option envisages modalities for the 
inclusion of the 'false' self-employed workers by clarification of the definition of mobile 
worker in the first phase (years 2009-2011) an d by introducing from 2011 onwards control 
requirements. This would involve a revision of the Directive as in C2 with a timeline for 
implementation. 
 
EN 5   EN Option D: Complete exclusion of self-employed drivers. This policy option provides for 
full exclusion of self-employed from the scope of the Directive. It reflects the existing 
situation, when self-employed drivers are at least temporarily excluded and it does not 
generate any changes in terms of  impacts with relation to the current situation. Hence, this 
option is referred to as the base case scenario  against which the other options have been 
measured. 
It must be remembered that, regardless of th e decision on inclusion or  non-inclusion of self-
employed drivers within the scope  of the Directive, self-emp loyed drivers are subject to 
driving time, break and rest period rule s established by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006. 
The impacts of policy options A, B, C were anal ysed against the current situation in option D. 
Economic, social, environmental and administrative  impacts of four main  policy options have 
been analyzed in respect of policy objectives of competition, social conditions and compliance with the rules. 
6. C
OMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS  
Option D 
This option has not been chosen due to th e problem of low compliance by "false" self-
employed drivers. This problem would remain  and even increase given the weakness of 
enforcement, differences in application of the rules and continuous lack  of clear distinction 
between genuine self-employed excluded from th e rules and 'false' self-employed who fall in 
the scope of the Directive. Th is would further lead to undermining the policy objectives. 
Option A 
This option would provide for level playing fiel d in terms of social rules for all persons 
engaged in mobile road transport activities. Ho wever, this does not translate into enhancing 
fair competition, as due to the reduction of working hours and a consequent decrease of income, the great majority of se lf-employed drivers would not be able to continue with their 
business. This would have disruptive effects on  entrepreneurship development as well as on 
the position of the sector in countries with a high share of self-employed. Large companies 
would gain competitive advantage and take over ma rket shares as they are better suited to 
cope with reduced working hours by economies of scale, while small and medium-sized 
enterprises would lose. Those self-employed who would remain in the business could be 
tempted to take on another job to compensate for the lost income or to try to work more intensively to maintain at leas t a majority of the current turnover. This  would consequently 
result in a higher work-related stress and fatigue. The phenomenon of 'false' self-employed 
would become irrelevant, but th e compliance rate woul d not improve and is likely to decrease, 
given the more numerous group covered by the ru les coupled with weak  enforcement and a 
general low compliance discipline of "false" self-employed drivers. Companies would also 
increase their operating and administrative cost s by having to recruit additional drivers in 
order to maintain the same amount of freight  transport services. Th e increased demand for 
additional drivers may also lead to a shortage of professional drivers an d consequently to an 
unsatisfied market demand for freight transp ort services. The enforcement would become 
more difficult with regard to controlling working time of self-employed drivers as they do not record working hours for salary purposes. 
 
EN 6   EN Option B 
Inclusion of self-employed driv ers in international transport would ascertain level playing 
field among international hauliers, but woul d not lead to noticeable improvement of 
compliance rate or reduction of the number of  'false' self-employed and does not improve the 
effectiveness in achieving policy objectives with insignificant impacts. 
Option C.1 
By providing for a better distinction between drivers in scope (employed mobile workers and 
'false' self-employed) and out of scope (genui ne self-employed), C.1 would contribute to a 
reduction of the 'false' self-employed phenomen on, but this reduction w ould be limited to the 
number of those drivers who disobey the ru les due to misinterpr etation and would not 
eliminate those 'false' self-employed, who de liberately ignore th e rules counting on low 
effectiveness of controls. The impact on im proving compliance level as well as achieving 
policy objectives is minimal. 
Option C.2 
This option would combine the better distinctio n between drivers as presented in option C.1 
with requirements to enforce the rules in a harm onised way. It involves  some administrative 
costs to be borne by Member St ates related to effective enforcement. These costs would be 
offset by benefits stemming from an increased level of compliance to the rules and better 
achievement of policy objectives. Companies woul d face slightly higher administrative costs 
due to recruiting of additional dr ivers related to elimination of 'false' self-employed drivers. 
Outsourcing by large companies would result in increase of turnov er of genuine self-
employed drivers. This would enhance attracti veness of the profession and stimulate the 
creation of new entrepreneurs. The distortion of competition between those employed drivers 
who comply with the rules and non-salaried driv ers ('false' self-employed) who disobey the 
law would be prevented. The competitive positio n of genuine self-employed would not be put 
at stake by 'false' self-employed, who today be nefit from unlimited working time (with all its 
consequences), but do not bear the responsibil ities and risks relate d to running their own 
business. The effectiveness in reducing th e phenomenon of 'false' self-employed and 
consequently in solving the compliance problem is the highe st of all options. 
Option C.3 
This option combines measures proposed in pr evious sub-options C1 and C2 with a timeline 
and its impacts (positive and nega tive) are very similar to those of C2, with some figures only 
insignificantly higher or lower. The results are exp ected to materialize later than in C2 and the 
problems would be solved  at a later stage. 
Comparison of compliance costs 
The results of cost-benefit analysis show that option A is the most costly imposing the highest 
costs to Member States related to enforcement and to the private sector related to recording 
and reporting of working time. Op tion A is also the most difficult to enforce, as it is almost 
impossible to verify the reliability of worki ng time records done by self-employed drivers as 
working hours are not registered for salary purpo ses. Hence the costs incurred to improve the 
level of compliance may not be proportionate to  the results achieved. The least costly is 
option D as it does not involve any new action.  However, it results in high non-compliance 
 
EN 7   EN costs as it does not solve the problem of co mpliance by "false" self-e mployed drivers. Option 
B is the cheapest in administrative costs for bus inesses and almost as pricy as options C in 
terms of enforcement costs. However, it doe s not significantly improve  the situation with 
regard to the phenomenon of 'false' self-employe d. Option C.2 is less costly than option A and 
slightly more expensive than option B. Ho wever, its effectiveness in reducing the 
phenomenon of 'false' self-employed and improvi ng compliance in the field is the greatest. 
Conclusions  
When assessing impacts of different policy options  as well as their compliance costs, it can be 
concluded that C.2 is optimal. A, B and C1 d ealing with the scope of the Directive do not 
solve the problem of compliance and do not lead  to better achievement of policy objectives, 
whereas C3 leads at the later stage to the results of C2. Option C 2, focusing both on the 
definition and enforcement measures, is the most effective in addressing the problems and achieving policy objectives. 
The proposal directly addresses the underlying causes of the pr oblem of low compliance by 
ensuring the inclusion of 'false self-employed'  and by more effective enforcement. Therefore 
it is concluded that the current working time rules combined with enhanced clarity of the scope of the Directive and accompanied by clear  enforcement rules will reduce distortion of 
competition and enable better social prot ection of workers and assimilated groups.