No C 341/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following amendment, which was based on the Section opinion and tabled in accordance 
with the Rules of Procedure, was rejected by the Committee at the plenary session : 
Page 12, point 4.5 
Add the following to the last paragraph: 
'Account should also be taken of the interests of users and suppliers, particularly as regards 
computer software.' 
Voting 
For: 24, against: 35, abstentions: 11. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the formation of rates for the 
carriage of goods by road between Member States 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 265 of 9 October 1982, page 5. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 October 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic 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 
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 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 decision taken by the Council 
on 5 October 1982 to ask the Committee for an 
opinion on the abovementioned draft Regulation ('), 
(•) OJ No C 265, 9. 10. 1983, p. 5. Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 13 October 1982 to instruct the Section for Trans­
port and Communications to prepare a report and 
an opinion on the matter in accordance with 
Article 22 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Transport and Communications at its 151st 
meeting held on 14 September 1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Bos, 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/39 
Having regard to the discussions on 29 September 
1983 during the 210th plenary session held on 28 
and 29 September 1983, 
Whereas 
1. Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 2831/77 of 12 December 1977 on the forma­
tion of rates and the conditions for the carriage 
of goods by road between Member States (') 
stipulates that the Council shall take a decision on 
the future provisions governing this field by 
31 December 1982 at the latest; Article 21 of the 
abovementioned Regulation also states that the 
Regulation is to expire by 31 December 1983 at 
the latest. 
2. At its meeting on 7 June 1983 the Council took 
a decision 'without prejudice to the opinion of 
the Economic and Social Committee'. Under 
this decision, rates for the carriage of goods 
between Member States shall in future essen­
tially be set out in a system of reference tariffs, 
although bilateral or multilateral bracket tariffs 
may be used. 
3. It has not been officially informed of the 
detailed provisions decided upon by the Coun­
cil and can therefore take a stand only on the 
draft Regulation submitted to it, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 41 votes to 13 with eight abstentions. 
1. Harmonized framework for the formation of 
rates for the carriage of goods 
The Committee welcomes the Commission's endea­
vour to establish a harmonized framework for the 
formation of rates for the carriage of goods by road 
between Member States. 
Such a framework could form an essential part of a 
Community transport policy which should be basi­
cally designed to create a uniform or common inter­
nal transport market. The conditions necessary for 
the establishment of a really effective common 
transport policy do not in all probability exist at the 
present time. The Commission's proposal should 
therefore be regarded only as a step towards the 
achievement of a common transport policy and as 
providing a contribution towards the creation of 
such a policy. 
(') OJ No L 334, 24. 12. 1977, p. 22. It is of course to be expected that the development 
of a common system for the formation of rates for 
the carriage of goods by road will have an effect on 
the integration process and will also stimulate 
efforts to meet the need for reciprocal consultations. 
The Committee would expressly point out that the 
establishment of a common framework for rate for­
mation does not lessen the need or indeed remove 
the need to harmonize conditions of competition in 
road transport. The contrary is the case as such a 
step makes it absolutely necessary to press ahead 
more rapidly with the harmonization of these condi­
tions. 
2. Significance of the Community framework for the 
formation of rates for the carriage of goods 
The very divergent transport policies of the 10 Mem­
ber States at the moment make it very difficult to 
arrive at a common position on the matter. The 
Committee considers that this situation need not, 
however, result in the proposed Regulation having 
ho practical significance. As the proposal consti­
tutes a step towards a Community transport policy 
in one area and provides a frame of reference of rate 
formation, it should have a concrete impact. 
3. Desirability of setting tariffs at least on a 
bilateral basis 
As the aim of the Regulation is to make a significant 
contribution towards the establishment of a com­
mon transport market, tariffs must, at the very least, 
be determined on a bilateral basis between Member 
States. Tariffs fixed on a unilateral basis cannot 
only be used to give an artificial stimulus to 
national exports but they also produce a situation 
whereby no reference rates are available for incom­
ing traffic into a Member State. 
In the case of foreign carriers taking on loads for the 
return journey from a Member State the reference 
tariff of that State does not provide an adequate 
point of reference if it does not accord with the con­
ditions applying in the case of the carrier's own 
business. In this connection the Committee would 
draw attention to Article 78 of the EEC Treaty 
which stipulates that account has to be taken of the 
economic situation of carriers. Inward and outward 
journeys between two Member States constitute a 
single transport market, notwithstanding differences 
of emphasis due to national considerations. The var­
ious cost factors and currency fluctuations play an 
important role in determining the profitability and 
liquidity of enterprises. 
No C 341/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83 
These problems of cost differences and liquidity 
constraints will not be solved by unilaterally-deter-
mined rates which merely set aside the problems. 
The introduction of bilateral rates would mean that 
these problems would have to be tackled directly 
and a solution found in the foreseeable future. 
4. Reference tariffs and compulsory tariffs: A dual 
system or one point of departure 
In some Member States transport policy still favours 
compulsory tariffs for the time being. Non-binding 
recommended rates are scarcely permitted. 
Although the majority of the members of the Com­
mittee prefer the system of reference tariffs, a minor­
ity of its members is in favour of compulsory tariffs. 
These latter members represent in particular some 
large Member States having a considerable amount 
of transit traffic. 
(a) Intermediate solution 
The Committee would draw attention to the fact 
that there exists an intermediary stage between 
non-binding recommended rates and compulsory 
tariffs. In proposing this middle course, it is recog­
nized that bringing stability to the haulage industry 
is a matter of practical importance for the operation 
of the transport market. The intermediate solution 
would involve setting a market floor. Rates below 
this threshold would have to be notified, either auto­
matically or subject to certain conditions. The car­
rier would have to prove that such rates were econ­
omically justifiable. 
(b) Uniform method of calculation 
The Committee also notes that under the present cir­
cumstances it would not be possible to introduce 
either a system of non-binding recommended rates 
or a system of compulsory tariffs applicable to all 
routes between Member States. In the case of some 
routes between Member States there would even be 
little point in setting out a tariff. There is, however, 
no need for resignation in the face of these struc­
tural conditions. 
The Committee holds the view that, in spite of the 
conflicting nature of the two tariffs systems, it is not 
necessary to work with two wholly different systems. 
Every system of rates has to be based on costs (hav­
ing regard to the continuity of operations) and mar­
ket conditions. This applies both to a system of 
recommended rates and to compulsory tariffs. On 
the basis of these two factors it is therefore possible 
to set out both a reference tariff and a compulsory 
bracket tariff. It is, however, essential in the case of 
all bilaterally determined tariffs, of whatever type they may be, that the same method of calculation be 
used. As a result, one and the same method may 
also serve as the basis for a compulsory minimum, 
median or maximum tariff. 
In this way it will at least be possible substantially 
to avoid the creation of a dual system as regards the 
framework for determining rates for the carriage of 
goods by road between EC Member States. Differ­
ences would then only exist with regard to the form 
of the rates and the procedures for implementing 
them. Such differences would not run counter to the 
pricing system, provided that under given circum­
stances and on particular routes the rates charged 
did not exceed or fall short of the reference tariff by 
more than a given percentage. If the same method 
of calculation is used, however, the bases for deter­
mining the tariffs will be uniform. 
(c) Supervision of tariffs 
The Committee wishes to draw attention to a parti­
cular problem which arises with regard to the super­
vision of compulsory tariffs. This form of tariffs can 
only operate if bilaterally agreed rates are super­
vised by both of the Member States in question. 
This can only happen if the necessary apparatus is 
available. It must also be possible, when certain 
conditions apply, to conclude special contracts or 
agree special rates which are not in conformity with 
the compulsory tariffs, provided that they are econ­
omically justifiable. 
5. Establishment of tariffs 
(a) Reference tariffs 
Reference tariffs should be determined in such a 
way as to promote the continuous availability of 
transport services. Sufficient practical experience 
exists to enable this principle to be implemented. 
Unprofitable haulage operations can thus be 
stopped by suitable means with a view to achieving 
a stable, balanced market. 
Rates should be determined on the basis on the cost 
of providing the transport services. The cost price 
itself should in turn be based on a normal degree of 
utilization of carrying capacity and compliance with 
legal and administrative requirements, in particular 
the regulations governing working conditions. The 
reference tariff should also make provision for a 
margin to cover unforeseen or unquantifiable costs 
which can be determined on the basis of previous 
figures and data supplied by hauliers. 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/41 
The cost price can be published in a generally com­
prehensible form and can be related to the 'normal 
transport services' performed by a vehicle or an 
undertaking. 
(b) Compulsory tariffs 
The Commission's proposal to base the compulsory 
tariffs on variable costs is not practicable. In the 
short term the variable costs consist of costs related 
solely to the number of Kilometres covered; these 
form only an extremely small percentage of total 
costs and thus have no great practical significance 
for hauliers. 
If we extend the time horizon, all costs are 'variable 
costs'. Therefore it would be advisable to base the 
bracket(s) for a compulsory tariff on the spread in 
costs resulting from differences in the utilization of 
transport services (market conditions). It would then 
be possible to determine to what extent freight rates 
below a certain percentage of the reference tariff are 
justified economically. Hauliers whose market 
would allow them to operate at below the average 
'market price' level would have scope to do so. Par­
ticularly binding provisions would, however, have to 
be introduced to prevent abuse of compulsory tariffs 
(unfair competition). 
This approach can play an important role in stabiliz­
ing the freight market with the aforementioned sys­
tem of a market floor. In addition, this approach 
would ensure that the same method of calculation 
(tariffs on the basis of continuity of operations and 
market conditions) was used throughout. 
The Committee cannot at this time say how far 
below the published reference tariff the minimum 
tariff or market floor should be. The risks of setting too high a minimum tariff and the resultant disrup­
tive effects on the market must be set against the 
danger that a minimum tariff or market floor 
far below average costs would have the effect of 
reducing the framework for price formation to an 
absurdity. 
6. Procedures for fixing tariffs and deadlines 
As regards the procedures for fixing tariffs, the 
Committee believes that the governments concerned 
must be made responsible for fixing the tariffs on 
the basis of proposal from the hauliers and after 
consultation of transport agents and freight forwar­
ders. Unless it is fixed by state authorities a tariff 
will hardly have any effect and might not even be 
implemented. Furthermore, there would be no guar­
antee that transport users and freight forwarders 
would receive an adequate profit. 
Although there are formal grounds for rejecting the 
participation of road haulage industry employees in 
the fixing of tariffs (employees of transport agents 
and freight forwarders are not involved in the con­
sultation), the Committee has no fundamtenal 
objections to the consultation of workers' represen­
tatives. The detailed provisions of such consulta­
tions should be looked at more closely. The overall 
period leading up to the introduction of the pro­
posed system must not, however, be extended. 
As far as the deadlines in the procedures are con­
cerned, the Committee regards the proposed Regu­
lation as a major improvement on present arrange­
ments. It is implicit in any system of tariffs based on 
costs and market conditions that changes in these 
costs and conditions must be reflected in the tariffs 
within a reasonably short period. 
Done at Brussels, 29 September 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
No C 341/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were defeated by 
the Committee during the discussion: 
Page 5 
'Point (a) Intermediate solution: 
Delete this entire passage. 
Reason 
The main thrust is already made in the previous paragraph: 'the majority of the members of the 
Section prefer the system of reference tariffs'. The 'intermediate solution' recommended in point 
(a) would involve carriers in an unreasonable amount of paperwork if they were required to prove 
that the rates for each consignment were 'economically justifiable'. The effects of this interme­
diate solution would then be more protectionist than for compulsory tariffs. 
Voting 
For: 25, against: 27, abstentions: 2. 
Page 9, 5 (b) 
Insert before Item 6: 
'Commercial costs are included among the "variable costs" mentioned in Article 12. It 
should be stated, in Article 12 or another Article, that: 
"A special tariff will be applied to transport operations involving transport agents. A percen­
tage representing the commercial services provided by the transport agent instead of the hau­
lier is to be deducted from the minimum rate." ' 
Reasons 
In the majority of hauls carried out within the Community, freight forwarders are responsible for 
seeking out customers, acquiring loads, providing commercial administrative services, advancing 
funds and accepting the risk of bad debts. 
The Regulation should therefore specify that hauliers should pay for this important trade func­
tion, which contributes to the coordination of road haulage within the common market. Hauliers 
delegate a part of their responsibilities to freight forwarders. It is logical that the Regulation 
should make provision for the payment by hauliers of part of the tariff to the freight forwarder, 
even if the rate charged is the minimum one laid down. 
De facto and de jure, the transport agent (a term which refers particularly to the road haulage 
freight forwarder) accepts a consignment in his own name and at his own risk, and arranges for 
the consignment to be transported by the haulier. The haulier invoices the transport agent at the 
market or tariff rate, less the commission (remuneration of the freight forwarder). The freight for­
warder, in turn, invoices the client at the normal free-market or regulated rate. 
Voting 
For: 21, against: 26, abstentions: 10.