No C 358/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 31.12.83 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 
3164/76 on the Community quota for the carriage of goods by road between Member 
States 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in the Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 179 of 6 July 1983, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
Om 29 June 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
21 lth plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 October 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 75 thereof, 
Having regard to the Council decision of 29 June 
1983 to ask it for an opinion on the proposal for a 
Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 3164/76 on the Community quota for the car­
riage of goods by road between Member States ('), 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 
3164/76 of 16 December 1976 on the Community 
quota for the carriage of goods by road between 
Member States (2), as last amended by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3515/82 of 21 December 
1982(3), 
Having regard to its previous opinions on the sub­
ject, particularly that of 24 November 1982 (4), 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Com­
mittee Bureau on 5 July 1983 instructing the Section 
for Transport and Communications to draw up an 
opinion on the matter (Article 22 of the Rules of 
Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the said 
Section at its 152nd meeting held on 12 October 
1983, 
(•) OJ No C 179,6.7. 1983, p. 6. 
(2) OJ No L 357, 29. 12. 1976, p. 1. 
O OJ No L 369, 31. 12. 1982, p. 2. 
(«) OJNoC346, 31. 12. 1982, p. 5. Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Bonety (Article 29 of the Rules of Pro­
cedure), 
Having regard to the discussions on 26 October 1983 
during the 211th plenary session held on 26 and 27 
October 1983, 
Whereas the aforementioned Regulation (EEC) No 
3164/76 provides that any increase in the Com­
munity quota and the allocation of the resulting 
additional authorizations to the Member States are 
to be decided by the Council, acting on a proposal 
from the Commission, before 30 November of each 
year; 
Whereas in recent years the proposals made by the 
Commission under this Regulation have met with 
opposition from certain Member States and have 
given rise to controversy within the Council, which 
it has only been possible to resolve within the 
framework of an essentially political compromise; 
Whereas opposing views have also manifested 
themselves within the Economic and Social Com­
mittee, as regards both the increase in the quota and 
the apportionment among the Member States; 
Whereas in its proposal for adjustment of the 1982 
quota (5) the Commission had already tried to 
(s) OJ No C 269, 21. 10. 1981, p. 4. 
31. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/29 
define a method that would serve as a guide for an 
increase in the quota and its apportionment and 
enable due account to be taken of all the interests 
involved; however, owing in particular to the short 
period of time available to the Council, the Euro­
pean Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee, it was not possible to arrive at a funda­
mental decision on these criteria; 
Whereas the Commission considered its proposal 
for an increase in the quota for 1983 (•) to be tem­
porary and valid solely for that year; 
Whereas in its opinion of 24 November 1982 the 
Committee was unable to approve the Commission 
proposal and asked the Council to confine itself to 
extending Regulation (EEC) No 2964/79 concern­
ing short-term quotas, which was due to expire on 
31 December 1982, and to reject the increase in the 
Community quota proposed by the Commission; 
Whereas the Committee reserved the right to revert 
to this subject when the Commission submitted the 
'new method' for the calculation of quotas; 
Whereas the Council acted in accordance with the 
Committee's opinion and only took a decision con­
cerning short-term Community quotas; 
Whereas the present proposal means an automatic 
increase in the Community quota to start with and 
complete liberalization of road haulage at the end of 
a transitional period; road haulage is to be subject 
to quota-free Community authorizations issued by 
the Member State authorities as from 1 January 
1989, or possibly 1 January 1992, onwards; 
Whereas the proposal leaves it to the Member States 
to adjust the number of bilateral quotas during the 
transitional period. 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 72 votes to 38, with two abstentions: 
(') OJ No C 247, 21. 9. 1982, p. 4. 1. Preliminary remarks 
1.1. The Committee considers that, despite efforts 
at greater clarity compared with previous proposals, 
the Commission proposal needs to be considerably 
amended to take account of the specific realities of 
the transport sector. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The idea of a transport market regime that 
allows the market forces to operate as freely as pos­
sible is reaffirmed in the Commission's approach. 
The quota system is rejected on this very principle. 
2.2. It might be asked whether the proposal can be 
said to represent a rational organization of the trans­
port market; the Committee has always considered 
that the principle of free competition should be 
applied with prudence here. 
2.3. Closer examination of the Commission propo­
sal leads to the conclusion that it establishes an 
automatic mechanism operating in one direction 
only, i.e. upwards. Such a mechanism can hardly be 
regarded as a market organization that takes 
account of the specific nature of the transport sector 
recognized by the Treaty of Rome. 
2.4. It would not be possible with this proposal to 
properly implement a market capacity policy which 
is based on three separate elements, viz. Community 
quotas, bilateral quotas and the liberalizing reper­
cussions of the first Directive of 23 July 1962. The 
Committee is unable to give unconditional approval 
to a method for increasing the proportion of Com­
munity authorizations in transport between Member 
States, with as corollary a reduction or freezing of 
the bilateral quotas, which the Member States will 
be unable to avoid if they wish to ensure regulation 
of the transport market. 
2.5. The Committee also observes that at the end 
of the transitional period it would fall to the Mem­
ber States to issue Community authorizations, sub­
ject of course to the Community provisions on 
access to the market. This would mean assigning to 
the Member States responsibilities for the organ­
ization of the transport market that belong to the 
Community. 
No C 358/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12.83 
2.6. The Committee also thinks that harmonization 
of the conditions of competition should go hand in 
hand with the liberalization of Community authori­
zations planned at the end of the transitional period. 
Unconditional liberalization without simultaneous 
harmonization could have disastrous consequences. 
2.7. Although this question falls within the ambit 
of a much more general study, the Committee would 
draw attention to the fact that any structural change 
is effected more easily when economic activity is 
expanding, which is an argument for getting the 
European economy moving again, as this is bound 
to have an impact on international transport activ­
ity. 
2.8. The consequences of an excessive liberalization 
and a sharpening of competition between road hau­
lage firms or between different transport modes 
should be given serious thought. 
2.9. The existing distortions of competition, 
including those resulting from the application of 
European regulations on social and safety matters, 
are alone sufficient grounds for reservations on the 
part of the Economic and Social Committee. In 
view of the role envisaged by the Commission for 
the Community quota, the question of social, tech­
nical and administrative checks is of prime import­
ance. 
2.10. On top of the problems specific to transport 
concerning the alignment of the conditions of com­
petition (weights and dimensions, social conditions, 
taxes, etc.) there are the differences in inflation 
rates, growth rates and external balance between 
Member States. 
2.11. Failing harmonization in these areas, either 
the transitional period should be extended or the 
temporary regime should be maintained, subject, 
however, to the necessary corrections to the method 
proposed. These authorizations entitle the holders to perform 
transport services only on the bilateral link in ques­
tion (exchange and transit traffic). 
3.2. In addition to these bilateral quotas, there are 
a number of multilateral or Community quotas, 
which, however, account for only a small percentage 
of the total tonnage carried by road between Mem­
ber States. 
3.3. The market organization should also take 
account of the liberalizing effects of the first Direc­
tive of 1962. 
3.4. The Committee would draw attention to the 
advantages of Community authorizations, viz.: 
— coverage of all links between Member States, 
— the administrative simplification as compared 
with bilateral authorizations, 
— the fact that their period of validity, extended to 
three years under the proposal, should give 
holders some degree of certainty in their opera­
tions. 
3.5. The Community authorizations would, how­
ever, be allocated by the national administrations, in 
some cases on the basis of a very rigorous selection 
process; this means that the freezing of bilateral 
quotas (whose allocation is more flexible) inherent 
in the proposal could operate to the disadvantage of 
many small firms that are very active in interna­
tional transport. 
3.6. Furthermore, under the cover of a political 
move, the Commission is relinquishing a basic res­
ponsibility by transferring to the Member States all 
discretionary powers and setting up at Community 
level an automatic mechanism ill-suited to its func­
tion of organizing the market. 
3.7. The Committee therefore suggests a radical 
revision of the Commission's proposal. An increase 
in the Community quota is acceptable only if the 
following precautions are taken: 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. The predominant form of market organization 
at the present time is the system of bilateral quotas 
established by the Member States whereby a limited 
number of authorizations — usually journey author­
izations — are allocated by the Member States. 3.7.1. The quotas should be regulated in such a 
way as to take account of the advantages inherent in 
each of the two types of quota (bilateral and Com­
munity). 
3.7.2. Harmonization of the types and forms of 
authorization would also be desirable with a view to 
possible exchanges. 
31. 12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/31 
3.7.3. The aim should be a capacity policy for the 
various transport modes. 
3.7.4. Account should be taken of the problems 
posed for the other transport modes as well as the 
economic and social consequences of the progres­
sive replacement of the provisions in force in the 
Member States by Community rules. 
3.7.5. The task of organizing the transport market, 
taking into account the distinctive features of trans­
port, assigned to Community policy in the Treaty of 
Rome should be properly discharged; complete lib­
eralization is incompatible with the characteristics 
of this sector. 
3.7.6. The Committee thinks that, as one of the cri­
teria adopted for the apportionment of authoriza­
tions, GDP is too general a factor and non-specific 
to the transport sector. 
New method 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Federal Republic of 
Germany 
France 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
United Kingdom % 
9,4 
8,1 
19,6 
15,6 
4,1 
4,1 
12,9 
2,9 
13,8 
9,5 
100,0 
The Committee doubts whether such a redistribu­
tion is politically feasible. 
3.7.9. The Committee also considers that one must 
avoid any policy leading to the disappearance of 
small and medium-sized enterprises as a result of an 
excessive concentration of firms due to extreme, 
abrupt liberalization. 
3.7.10. Finally, as regards road safety, the Com­
mittee observes that the Commission lays down 
that, for the purpose of the Regulation, 'a person 3.7.7. Other parameters should be taken into 
account: for example, the trend in the external trade 
of the country in question with, however, adjust­
ments for peripheral countries. Furthermore, deter­
mining the 'economic weight' of each country is not 
very compatible with the principles of an economic 
and social Community. A list of goods that cannot 
be transported by road would also introduce a crite­
rion relating to the specific nature of international 
trade, which should be taken into consideration. 
3.7.8. The new method recommended by the Com­
mission would mean a different apportionment of 
Community authorizations. It would result in an 
appreciable increase in the Community quotas of 
the peripheral countries in particular, at the expense 
of other Member States, as can be seen in the fol­
lowing table: 
Old system 
% 
10,7 
7,7 
18,0 
16,1 
2,3 
2,3 
14,1 
2,7 
15,4 
10,7 
100,0 Difference in % of 
authorizations 
- 1,3 
+ 0,4 
+ 1,6 
-0,5 
+ 1,8 
+ 1,8 
- 1,2 
+ 0,2 
- 1,6 
- 1,2 
0 
shall not satisfy the condition of good repute if he 
has committed a serious infringement of traffic 
regulations or organization of transport within the 
previous three years'. This would therefore mean 
exclusion of the operator from international goods 
transport. The following questions therefore arise in 
connection with the application of this rule: 
— Is assessment of the seriousness of the infringe­
ment committed to fall exclusively within the 
competence of the national courts? This would 
seem logical, since the 'Community' authoriza-Apportionment of future authorizations among Member States according to the 'new method' 
No C 358/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 83 
What steps does the Commission envisage tak­
ing to harmonize the implementation, applica­
tion and observance of Community rules on saf­
ety and social matters? 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fancois CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendment tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure was rejected" by the 
Committee during plenary session discussions: 
Pages 3 to 10 
Replace Chapters 1 to 3 by the following text: 
' 1. Preliminary remarks 
1.1. The Commission proposal aims at a radical change in the existing capacity regime for 
road haulage between Member States. After a transition period of five — or if need be eight 
— years the existing bilateral and Community quota systems would be replaced by a regime 
regulating the access of road hauliers to the market for road transport between Member 
States (see Chapter 4 of the Commission document and Article 2 of the proposed Regula­
tion). 
1.2. In order to pave the way for this new regime, the Community quotas are to be consi­
derably increased during the transition period, whilst — during that same transition period 
— it would be left to the Member States to decide whether or not to increase the bilateral 
quotas, taking into account the criteria laid down in the Council Directive. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee approves the Commission proposal in principle. Such a policy squares 
well with the liberal and more flexible approach to the organization of the road haulage mar­
ket. The Committee has, however, a number of specific comments to make, and these are set 
out in Chapter 3 of this opinion. 
2.2. The Committee considers that the proposed system would enable haulage firms to res­
pond effectively to the requirements of the market and trade between Member States. This 
effect must not be thwarted by a policy or legislation aimed at restricting capacity. An effec­
tive, efficient international road haulage system would facilitate the expansion of trade and 
thereby stimulate demand for transport services. 
2.3. The Committee also notes that the proposed method for calculating Community 
authorizations during the transitional period takes sufficient account of how important it is 
for the transport sector that progressive liberalization should go hand in hand with measures 
to provide adequate protection against cut-throat competition. The proposed method esta­
blishes a direct link between a high quality of transport services on the one hand and tions are to be issued by the Member States. But 
ipso facto there would be differences in assess­
ment from one Member State to another and 
distortions could therefore arise. 
Done at Brussels, 26 October 1983. 
31. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/33 
demand for transport and economic growth on the other. This will prevent any negative 
effects of a completely liberalized system and enable the transport industry to adjust gradu­
ally. 
2.4. An effective Community transport system is one of the Committee's major objectives, 
as recent opinions on the subject also indicate. The present proposal is a worthwhile contri­
bution towards this objective. 
2.5. The Committee agrees with the Commission that quantitative restrictions on road 
transport cannot be considered an adequate instrument for solving the problems of the rail­
ways. Solutions for those serious problems should be found within the railway sector itself. 
Quantitative restrictions which are imposed on road haulage with the aim of protecting the 
railways against competition and which would restrict the choice of the transport user could 
even be seen as being in conflict with the principles underlying the competition rules of Arti­
cles 85 to 90 of the EEC Treaty. 
2.6. The Committee is furthermore of the opinion that quantitative restrictions imposed on 
professional road hauliers are not an adequate means of relieving the pressure on the trans­
port infrastructure and protecting the environment. Transport users who see an advantage in 
having their goods transported by road will change over to own-account transport if faced 
with a shortage of professional road transport services. The total volume of road transport 
will thus not be reduced. If the infrastructure and the environment have to be protected, 
direct measures (such as speed restrictions, fuel quality, technical improvement of vehicles 
and measures to reduce noise nuisance) are more appropriate. 
2.7. The Committee acknowledges that sound development of the road transport market is 
hampered by the present distortions of competition within the road transport sector (social 
conditions, taxes, fuel pricing, weights and dimensions, etc.), but feels that the envisaged 
transition period of five years is sufficiently long to allow remedial measures to eliminate 
these distortions to be taken both at Community and at Member State level. 
2.8. In short, the Committee is of the opinion that in principle the Commission proposal is 
a sound step in the context of the furtherance of Community transport policy and promotion 
of a more efficient and rational use of road transport facilities (both infrastructure and vehi­
cles). 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Alterations in Regulation (EEC) No 3164/76 as per 1 January 1989 — 
final stage 
3.1.1. A rticle 2, paragraph 3 
The criteria for granting licences as set out in the first indent of the proposed new para­
graph 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3164/76 gives rise to doubt about its validity. 
Serious infringements of traffic rules will be prosecuted in the Member States under penal 
law. The nee bis in idem principle would be violated if such infringements were to be taken 
into account again in the granting of a Community road transport licence. Furthermore it 
would not be right for a road haulage enterprise operating, for example, 20 trucks, to be 
excluded with all its vehicles if one driver has committed a serious infringement of traffic 
rules. Finally, criteria which cannot be clearly defined should be avoided. 
As to the proposed new paragraph 6, the Committee thinks that the transport needs of the 
road haulage firms should be taken into account by all Member States as a generally appli­
cable criterion and should not be a purely optional criterion to be applied by some Member 
States only if they whish to do so. 
3.1.2. Article 3 
It is to be hoped that an extension of the transition period beyond 1989 will not be neces­
sary. 
No C 358/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 83 
3.1.3. Article 4 
In view of the importance of the proper enforcement of the definitive road transport regime, 
the Committee would wish to be consulted in due time on the detailed rulings to be pro­
posed. 
3.2. Alterations in Regulation (EEC) No 3164/76 as per 1 January 1984 — 
transition period 
3.2.1. Article 1, paragraph 1 — Increase in total Community quotas 
The conception of a transition period suggests a process of gradual development until the 
final stage is reached. The quota system, both Community and bilateral, should evolve into 
the general licence system without quota restrictions, as envisaged for the final stage. The 
Community quota at the end of the transition period, however, will probably cover only a 
still relatively small proportion (13 %) of the total quota-controlled road traffic between 
Member States. 
Therefore it seems advisable to supplement the proposed Community quota system with 
other measures (increase in bilateral quotas). It is difficult to judge whether the proposed 
new paragraph 3 of Article 3 provides sufficient scope for such supplementary measures. 
3.2.2. Article 1, paragraph 1 — Distribution of Community quotas amongst Member States 
The Committee would have liked to have more specific information and examples concerning 
the rather complex proposal of the Commission in regard to the distribution of the increased 
Community quota, so as to enable a better judgement to be made of the feasibility of the 
proposed mechanism. 
The Committee thinks that the factor GDP (the overall economic importance of a Member 
State) should have less weight. GDP is too general a criterion, non-specific to the road trans­
port sector and basically non-compatible with the principles of the Community. 
Furthermore, the first and the third criteria (effective use of a licence) are liable, in the course 
of the transition period, to undermine the weight of the second criterion (share in the total 
road transport between Member States), which should be the main criterion.' 
Reasons 
The proposers of these amendments think that the opinion should take a positive view of the 
Commission proposal. 
A second objection to the opinion is that it states that the Commission proposal needs to be radi­
cally amended without clearly specifying which changes are considered desirable. This would 
seem to indicate that the Committee wishes to leave the situation as it is. This does not square 
with previous opinions, in which the Committee took the line that one should set about the task 
of establishing a Community transport policy in real earnest and with all due speed. 
Furthermore, the opinion's negative approach stands in the way of constructive comments on the 
details of the proposal for a Regulation as submitted to the Council. 
Voting: 
For: 46, against: 55, abstentions: 9.