ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(80)486
Vol.1980/0164

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
• COM(80)486 final
v
Brussels ,9thSeptember 1980
Ν
SEVENTH REPORT BYTHE COMMISSION TOTHE COUNCIL
ONTHE IMPLEMENTATION OFCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC )No543/69
OF25MARCH 1969 ONTHE HARMONIZATION OFCERTAIN
SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TOROAD TRANSPORT
(1January to31December 1977 )
Λ
COM (80)486final \ :
'1
I

CONTENTS
A.INTRODUCTION
B.COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OFINFORMATION SUPPLIED BYTHE .
MEMBER STATES
I.Organisation ofcontrol
1.Administrative organization ofinspection
2.Authorized inspecting officers and their 1powers
3.Methods of iinspection (place andfrequency )
II.Breaches andpenalties
r
1.Number ofbreaches oftheRegulation
2.Comparative significance ofoffences committed by
nationals and non-nationals
3.Penalties imposed
III .Multilateral mutual assistance between Member States
and notification ofbreaches
IV.Conclusions and suggestions bytheMember States
>
l-ation
L
ividual1.Compliance with theprovisions oftheRegi^ation
2.Difficulties inchecking ontheuse ofindividual
control books ininternational transport operations
3.Proposals forchanges inthe standard form^of report
4.Proposals formeasures toimprove theoperation of
Regulation (EEC)n°543/69
C.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A. INTRODUCTION
1.Under Article 17ofCouncil Regulation (SBC)No543/69of25March
1969 theCommission isrequired todraw upeach year ageneral report
ontheimplementation oftheRegulation byMember States .TheCommission
herewith presents theseventh such report (covering theperiod 1January
to31December 1977).
2.TheCommission feels constrained topoint out that ,yetagain ,the
information received wasoften lacking indetail andsometimes fragmentary .
Though aslight improvement wasdiscernible over theprevious year ,the
Member States continued tobevery slow insending their submissions to
theCommission and inseveral instances only did soafter repeated reminders .
3.Implementing provisions for theapplication oftheCommunity Regulation
todomestic transport operations nothaving been enacted inDenmark until
1February 1977 ,theDanish Government informed theCommission that ithad
been very difficult ,atleast initially ,toinduce transport operators and
drivers tocomply with therules .Again according totheGovernment ,how­
ever ,these difficulties arenowbecoming less acute .
InIreland andtheUnited Kingdom ,theprovisions oftheRegulation were
not applied todomestic traffic during theperiod under review andthe
information provided bythese countries consequently relates only to
international traffic .TheCommission would also point outthat Ireland
failed touse the standard form ofreport drawn upbytheCommission
after consultation with theMember States .Furthermore ,,nostatistical
information whatsoever was provided *
Theposition islittle better asregards Italy .Whilst theItalian report
didkeep broadly tothestandard form ,there wasunfortunately acomplete
absence ofstatistical information .
4.Section Bcontains acomparative analysis oftheinformation supplied
bythe individual !Member States andSection Ctheconclusions drawn from
their reports .

B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OFINFORMATION SUPPLIED BYTHE MEMBER STATES
I#ORGANISATION OFCONTROL '
1.Administrative organization ofinspection
Some ofthenational reports unfortunately fail todistinguish clearly
between :
a)roadside checks ,and
b)checks atoperators' premises .
TheCommission has therefore notattempted toconsider theorganization of
thetwotypes ofinspection separately .
InBelgium ,inspection continued tobeorganized onthesame basis asin
1976 (andindeed since 1973),with theassistance inparticular ofthe
Transport Administration Inspectorate ,which specializes inthedetection
/
ofroad transport offences .
TheFederal Republic ofGermany emphasizes that checks tomonitor compliance
with Regulation (EEC)NO543/79areccirriedoutat .transport operators *
premises ,aswell asontheroad and atborders .Checks atoperators'
premises aretheresponsibility ofthefactory inspectorates (Gewerbeauf -
sichtsSmter ),whilst roadside andborder checks areconducted bypolice ,
theBAG (Bundesanstalt fdrdenGUterverkehr -Federal Office forGoods
Transport )andfactory inspectors .
InFrance ,checks continue tobecarried out both onthe road and at
operators' premises .Since 1976 ,authority tocarry outchecks hasbeen
extended toadditional categories ofofficials and state employees .The
police andthegendarmerie continue toassist with roadside checks .
ttaly
Checks were carried outexclusively atoperators' premises andvehicle
depots during thereport period .Nostatistical data was supplied tothe
Commission .
Luxembourg
Checks were carried outboth atoperators' premises (bythefactory
inspectorate )andontheroad (bytheRoad Transport Inspectorate ).No

m$m
statistics onthesechecksweresupplied totheCommission .
Netherlands
Theinspection systemremainsthesame,withchecksbeingcarriedoutby
theNational Transport Inspectorate ,national andlocalpolice. '
Denmark
Thetwosetsofimplementing provisions onlyenteredintoforceon21
February 1975and1February 1977respectively .^Whilstcheckswerecarried
outandinfringements detected duringtheperiodunderreview,nostatistics
weresuppliedtotheCommission .
Thereisasimilarlackofinformation forIreland ,whereroadside checks
maybecarriedoutbyCustomsandExciseofficers ,membersoftheGarda
Siochana orspecially authorized officers .
AsregardstheUnitedKingdom,therewasnochangeduringthereportperiod
intheadministrative organization ofchecksontheroadandatoperators'
premises ,bothofwhichtherefore remained theresponsibility ofthe
Traffic Commissioners .
2.Authorized inspecting officers andtheirpowers
InBelgium,checkswerecarriedoutby305membersoftheFactoryInspectorate %
(inspectors andassistant inspectors )and50Transport Administration personnel
(trafficexaminers andinspectors )plusmembersofthegendarmerie ,customs
andotherdepartments .Nofurtherinformation wassupplied totheCommission
regarding thepowersof"inspecting officers .
TheFederalRepublic ofGermanyreported .;that,asbefore,some2500officials
(including 250-300factoryinspectorate officials )wereinvolved ,aspartof
theirduties,inmonitoring compliance withtheCommunity rules.Allthese
inspecting officers wereempowered tocarryoutinvestigations andreport
offences tothecompetent authorities withaviewtotheimposition of
penalties .
InFrancecheckswerecarriedoutbothontheroadandatoperators' premises
by42factoryinspectors and260trafficexaminers *Inaddition ,policeand
gendarmerie motorcyclists (some6500in1977)assist -inmonitoring compliance
ontheroad.Offences arereported tothecompetent authorities forfurther

action .Both plain-clothes anduniformed police officers areempowered
toimpound vehicles iftheir crews have breached therules ondriving
time andrest periods .
TheItalian Government states that itisimpossible togive figures as
regards either thenumber ofpersons involved inmonitoring compliance
with theCommunity rules orthenumber ofchecks conducted ,since the
task isshared byanumber ofseparate public authorities .
InLuxembourg ,there wasnochange intheorganization ofinspection
during theyear under review andchecks were carried outbyofficers
seconded totheFactory Inspectorate specifically for thepurpose of
monitoring theactivities ofroad andrail transport operators andby
theRoad Transport Inspectorate .Nofurther information hasbeen supplied
totheCommission regarding thepowers ofinspecting officers .
«
IntheNetherlands ,the "Rijksverkeersinspectie "(National Transport
Inspectorate )had148inspectors in1977 andthere were plans to
increase the number .
InDenmark ,thetask ofmonitoring compliance isdivided between some
600police officers (roadside checks ),and180members oftheFactory
Inspectorate (checks atoperators' premises ).
InIreland ,authorized inspecting officers areappointed bytheMinister
forLabour andarefurnished with awarrant ofappointment .They maybe.
either officers ofCustoms and Excise ofmembers :oftheGarda Siochana .
These authorized officers ,whose number theIrish Government hasnot
/
specified ,areempowered tocarry outinspections both onandoff the
road .
IntheUnited Kingdom ,steps were taken during thereport period tofill
30vacancies forTraffic Examiners .Intotal ,there were 217Traffic
Examiners inpost attheendof1977 asagainst 210ayear previously .,
Thepowers ofTraffic Examiners' andpolice remained unchanged .
3.Methods ofinspection (place andfrequency ).
InBelgium ,theposition wasalmost exactly asin1976 -theFactory
Inspectorate conducted 775inspections atoperators' premises (635relating
toroad haulage operations and140topassenger transport )andTransport

-5-
Administration inspectors carriedout8300roadside checks(7200onroad
haulagevehicles and1100onpassenger transport vehicles ).Several .-
thousand checksarecarriedouteachyearbymembersofthegendarmerie ,
customsandotherdepartments involvedinthesurveillance ofroadtraffic,
butnoprecisefiguresareavailable .Itisalsotoberegretted that
monitoring compliance withRegulation (EECNo543/79shouldrepresent such
asmallpartoftheactivities ofFactoryInspectors andthatthelatter
onlyconductchecksincidentally ,inthecourseofotherwork.
IntheFederal Republic ofGermany,thenumberofcheckscarriedouthas
fallenfrom82613in1975to63945in1976andonly53867in1977.
Ofthelatter19710tookplaceatoperators' premises and34157onthe
road.Roadside checksarecarriedoutpartlyinthecourseofgeneral
trafficsurveillance andpartlyintheformofspecialchecksbypolice,
theBAGandFactoryInspectors .Regularinspections atoperators' premises
provideanopportunity tochecksupporting documents (individual control
books,tachograph recordsheets,etc.)coveringafairlylongperiod.
Theinspecting officers alsoconductrandomchecksandinvestigations
following upcomplaints orinformation received .
InFrance,roadside checksconcentrate onensuring thatdocumentary records
(individual controlbooks)andrecording equipment (tachographs )curepro­
perlyusedandmonitoring compliance withstandards directlyaffecting road
safetyduringtheparticular transport operation underway.Checksat
operators' premises involvetheselection andanalysis oftachograph record
sheetscovering theactivities ofindividual driversovertwoconsecutive
weeks.Inthiscase,therecordsarecheckedforcompliance withthewhole
rangeofstandardslaiddowninRegulation (EEC)NO543/79.
Thenumberofcheckscarried ourosesubstantially ascompared withprevious
years:267829crewswerechecked ontheroadand17673attheoperator's
premises .Inaddition ,158153recordsheetswereanalysed inthecourse
ofinspections atoperators' premises .
TheItalian Government statesthatchecksarecarriedoutatoperators'
premises andvehicledepots.Becauseofstaffshortages andthefactthat
thepersonnel available alsohaveotherduties.toperform,thefrequency
ofinspection variesfromregiontoregion.Checkstakeplaceinthecourse
ofstatutory inspections undertheprovisions oflabourlaw-henceinter­
mittently .According totheItalianauthorities ,theyareunabletoprovide
morepreciseinformation .

1-6-
>4-
InLuxembourg ,inspections continue tobecarriedoutatoperators' premises
atleasttwoorthreetimesayearandchecksareconducted regularly onthe
roadandatborders.AsinthecaseofItaly,however,nofigureshavebeen
supplied totheCommission .
IntheNetherlands ,officials oftheNational Transport Inspectorate acting
independently conductroadside spotchecksonaregularbasis.Inaddition ,
eachdistrict oftheInspectorate carriesoutaspecialchecking operation
onceamonth.-Atableisdrawnupquarterly indicating thedateandplace
oftheseoperations andspecifying theservices whichwillbetakingpart.
Mentionshouldalsobemadeofthechecksonheavygoodstransport conducted
regularly incollaboration withthenational policeforce.Thetotalnumber
ofcheckscarriedoutin1977wasatleast150000.Inaddition ,membersof
theNational Transport Inspectorate conducted 145in-depth investigations
intotheactivities ofparticular operators following thedetection of
infringements inthecourseofroadside checks.
According totheDanishGovernment ,thesituation onceagainremained as
outlinedinthefifthreport(1974).Nostatistical information wasprovided.
Asregardstheposition inIreland,theregulations providethatanauthorized
officer mayatallreasonable timesenteranypremises orplaceusedforthe
purposes ofinternational transport operations andinspectanyvehiclethere
whichisusedforsuchoperations .Hemayalsohaltandinspectvehicles on
theroad.Noindication hasbeengivenastothefrequency ofinspection .
IntheUnitedKingdom,vehiclechecksontrunkroadsorganized byDepartment
ofTransport TrafficAreasinconjunction withthepolicewereconducted
twiceeachweekonaverageduringthereportperiod.Checkswerealsocarried
outonabout10-15%ofincomingvehiclesatportsofentryintotheUnited
Kingdom.Finally,"silent"checkswerecarriedoutwherebyvehiclemovements
wereobserved andnoted,thensubsequently checkedagainstdrivers' records
atthepremises oftheundertaking .
Atotalof17906goodsvehicles wereinspected in1977asagainst 13022
in1976and14977in1975.

ThoughalltheMemberStateshave,broadlyspeaking ,madethenecessary
arrangements ,informalterms,fortheconductofchecksbothontheroad
andatoperators' premises ,theorganization andpractice ofinspection
variesverywidelyfromcountrytocountry.Anattempthasnevertheless
beenmadeinthisreporttodrawupacomparative table(p.6b).The
resultswouldsuggestthatthefiguressupplied bytheMemberStatesas
regardsthenumberofofficials actually involved ininspection asyet
present noreadybasisforcomparison .Thus,atleastaccording tothe
information supplied ,thereareonly217officials actually involved in
inspection inalargecountry suchastheUnitedKingdomasagainst 2500
(roughlytentimesasmany)inanothercountryof"comparable size-the
FederalRepublicofGermany-andapproximately 350(orhalfasmanyagain
asintheUK)inasmallcountrysuchasBelgium.
Thefiguresalsoshowthatthescaleofinspection remainsinadequate in
someMemberStates.Inthecaseofroadside checksintheFederalRepublic -
ar*4Belgium,thereisnoindication astowhetherthetotals-34157and
8300respectively -relatetothenumberofinspection operations (each
involving thecheckingofseveralcrews)orthenumberofcrewschecked.
Ifthelatteristhecase,thesetotalswouldseeminadequate andhence
notcomparable with,forinstance,thefiguressuppliedbytheFrenchand
*
DutchGovernments ,whichrelatetothenumberofcrews^checked.Asregards
theUnitedKingdom,theCommission considers thattoofjpwvehicles were
checkedduringtheyearunderreview.
Thedifficulty ofcomparing thenational submissions wasfurther compounded
bythefailureofcertain MemberStatestosupplyanyinformation regarding
thenumberofinspecting officers andthenumberofcheckscarriedout.
IntheCommission 'sopinion,stepsshouldbetakentoincreasesubstantially
thenumberofchecksconducted andensurethatthelattertakeplacebothon
theroadandatoperators' premises .

-8- ORGANIZATION OFCONTROL
fAuthorized inspecting officersCheckscarriedoutduring1977
Roadside Operators *premises
FederalRepublic
ofGermanyTotal2500(police,BAG,Gewerbeaufsicht ),including 250-300
membersoftheGewerbeaufsichtsämter (factoryinspectorates )
inthevarious Länder.34157 19710
France 42factoryinspectors ,260trafficexaminers andapproximately
6500membersofthepoliceandgendarmerie . 2678291 176731*158153
recordsheets
.analysed
.2Belgium305membersoftheFactoryInspectorate (inspectors andassistant
inspectors),50Transport Administration inspectors andmonitoring
officers ,plusgendarmerie ,customs andotherofficials .8300 775
Italy Noinformation Noinformation
Luxembourg Police,gendarmerie andcustomsofficers plusmembersofthe
FactoryInspectorate andtheRoadTransport Inspectorate . . Idem
Netherlands 148transport inspectors and10factoryinspectors ,plus
national andlocalpolice. 150ooo3•
145in-depth
investigations
UnitedKingdom "217officials undertheauthority oftheTrafficCommissioners ,
thepolice 179064 Noinformation
•Denmark 600policeofficers ,I80factoryinspectors Noinformation
Ireland Officers ofCustoms andExciseandmembersoftheGardaSiochana Idem
(l)Figuresrelateexclusively toroadsidechecksconducted bytheTransportInspectorate andchecksconductedatoperators *
premises bytheFactoryInspectorate .
(2)Nofiguresavailableforchecksconducted bythegendarmerie ,police,etc.butestimatedtototalseveralthousand.
(3)Figureestimated onthebasisofasurvey.
(4)Checksrelatetointernational transportoperations only.

According totheinformation supplied byBelgiumthatthenumberof
infringements detected waslessduringtheperiodunderreviewthaninII.BREACHES ANDPENALTIES
1.Numberofbreaches oftheRegulation
Atotalof654offences weredetected inconnection withgoodstransport
operations ,thebreakdown beingasfollows : *
(a)Distancerestriction (450km)(Art.6) 6
(b)Drivingperiods(Art.7)
-continuous 8
-daily 10
-weekly 5
(c)Breaks(Art.8) 3
(d)Dailyrestperiod(Art.11) 7
(e)Weeklyrestperiod(Art.12)~' 7
(f)Controlbooks(Art.14andAnnexes)
Art.14(l)»Crewmembersnotcarryingcontrolbook 347
Art.14(l):Booksnothandedin 0
Art.14(2):Bookskeptimproperly ornotatall 90
Art.14(4):Notachograph 1
Art.14(7)sRegisters notkept 15
Art.14(7)sRegisters improperly kept 18
Art.14(8):Booksnotretained 16
Annex sWeeklyreportnotsigned 1
(g)Checksonregularservices (Art.15)
1•Noservicetimetable drawnup 1
Nodutyrosterdrawnup 4
2.Extractfromdutyrosterand/orcopyofservice
timetable notcarriedbycrewmember 1
t v
(h)Community tachograph (Art.16)) 3
(1)
(i)Regulation (EEC)NO1463/70) 111
TOTAL 654
(1)h=Vehiclesnotfittedwithrecording equipment
iaVehiclesfittedVithrecording equipment (variousoffences)

itisworth noting that 53%(347)oftheoffences relate toArticle 14(1 )-
"crewmember 3xiox.carrying control boo*sM.
Asfarasregular passenger transport services areconcerned ,atotal of108
inspections were carried out atoperators' premises and thefollowing nine
offences detected :
(a)Register notkept
(b)Noservice ,timetable drawn up
(Art .15)
(c)Noduty roster drawn up
(Art .15)
(d)Control books kept improperly
ornot atall1
2
4
9Itshould beborne inmind
that all the operators
checked were Belgian and all
thevehicles Belgian-registered .
Asregards occasioned passenger transport operations ,32inspections were
carried out atBelgian operators' premises andthefollowing offence was
detected :
;
Art .14(2 ):Control book kept improperly ornotatall :1
Finally ,the -Transport Administration conducted approximately 1000checks
onpassenger transport operations anddetected 148offences .
IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,thenumber ofinfringements ofRegulation
(EEC)No543/69increased inrelation tothenumber ofchecks conducted *A
total ofapproximately 46200offences (goods transport t43800andpassenger
transport -2400)were detected inthecourse of53867checks .Some 24200
oftheoffences concerned therules onworking hours and22000 therules
regarding therecords tobekept .

Articles of
theRegulation .Goods Traaspo*,-' -yS.wjertransport
•tatiaul .w-1 ..,;National <on-national NationalNon-national
Art-.'6
Distance
restriction ,
(450km)/
Art.7(1)/7#
lJ'MaximumpericdfjjArt.7(l)
ofcontinuous /)//;/
driving4Iv*#'9//
(vehicle^---7.referredtoin:■//
Art.6V?'3093,r/
ArtjMz)
Dailydriving
period8hours
(vehicles
referred toin
Art»6) 5865••/
£\m,-f.- V•'~">
.Jv ?•. •
,/f■J/./// / //
# '7-'
#989/f/
if/}f//'/ .a-
-V-///V
256
46416
43
Art.7(4)
Veeklydriving
period48hours
(vehicles
referred toin
Art.6) 157 38
Art.7(0
Maximumperiod
ofcontinuous
driving 4hours
(vehiclesnot
covered by
Art.6) 1259 23150 44
Art..7(3)
Dailydriving
period8hours»
extension to
9hourstwice
aweek(vehicles
notcovered by
Art.6) 1067 52 28 289 65
ν-

-12-
Articles of
theRegulationGoods Transport Passenger transport
National Ncn-national Regularservices Occasionai services
National Non-nati onalNational Non-national
Art.7(4)
Weeklydriving
period48hours
(vehiclesnot
covered by
Art.6) 286
Art.8
Breaks 3035 353 140 31
Art.11(1)
Dailyrest
period(goods)
notlessthan
11hoursin24,
reduced tvice
aweekto9hours
vhenresttaken
atbaseor8hours
vhenresttaken
elsewhere 639
Art.11(2)
Dailyrestperiod
(passengertransport )
10hoursin24or
11hoursin24
reduced twiceaweek
to9hoursandtwice
to10hours 14 14 277 79
Art.12
Weeklyrestperiod
24hoursimmediatedly
preceded orfollowed
byadailyrest
period 138 12 54
I

-13-
Articles of Goods Transport Passenger transport
theRegulation National Non-national Regularservices Occasional services
National Non-national National Non-national
Art.14(1)
andAnnex
Drivers deemed
nottobein
possession of
control book'8485 234 141 32
Art.14(2)
andAnnex
Individual
control book
notkeptin
accordance
vith
provisions
ofArt.17
Reg.(EEC)
No.1463/70 9646 2438 2 578 322
Art.15(1)
Monitoring of
regularservices -
service timetable
anddutyroster
tobedrawnup
byoperator 17
Art.15(5)
Monitoring of
regularservices-
extract fromduty
rosterandcopy
ofservice
timetable tobe
keptbyeach
crewmember 1047
6 35 7
TOTAL 39252 4552 141 30 1697 585

France supplied figures onthebreaches detected bytheFactory Inspectorate
andfigures deriving from theanalysis oftachograph discs collected from
firms .Inall ,98663offences were detected inthecourse ofroadside
checks ,while checks atoperators' premises revealed 120209 infringement s.
The latter total can bebroken down asfollows s -
96780infringements ofRegulation No543/69and23229infringements of
Regulation No1463/70. •
Excessive driving periods tcontinuous
^daily
l..weekly
fortnightly
Insufficient daily rest
period ornone atall18679
31667
4292
1545
40797
96980Tachograph discs
unsuitable ornot
ofapproved type 4695
Information on
record sheets
incomplète 18534
23229
Though theItalian authorities supplied nofigures ,they didreport the
detection ofinfringements with respect togoods transport operations -
incertain cases where tachographs were notinstalled ,thedocumentary
records contained inaccuracies orhadbeen entered uponthebasis of
false data .Noinfringements were recorded during theyear under review
with respect topassenger transport operations *
1804The situation would appear tohave improved slightly inLuxembourg with
thenumber ofinfringements recorded falling to7488 .Thebreakdown is
asfollows s ;
(a)Distance restriction s450km(Art .6)
(b)Driving periods (Art .7)
-vehicles covered byArt .6
daily driving period s8hours
weekly driving period s48hours
(c)Breaks
(d)Daily rest period (Art.11)sgoods transport
(Art .11)/'passenger transport
(e)Weekly rest period (Art.12)
(f)Control book (Art.14)3356
.162
1138
752
11
•34
231
7488

15
Thefollowing table fortheNetherlands shows that themajority (65%)
ofthe offences detected relate totheuse ofdocumentary records and
recording equipment .Ofthis 65%»11%involve theindividual control
book (Art.14(l )and (2))and54%thetachograph (Art .14(4)).
V
Articles ofthe Goods Passenger transport
Regulation transport Regular
servicesOccasioned
services
6 401
7/1 2592 2 4
7/2 5923 2 19
7/3 213 mm 2
7/4 74 - -
8 8 - -
11/1 5992 - -
H/2 - 4 65
12 14/3
M/1 3152 34 40
M/2 1533 · 58 6
H/4 16507 20 192
15/1 2 - -
IS/5 2 2 -
16 6795 2 105
TOTAL 43.208 124 436

Denmarkreports atotalof712infringements ,Thisfigure,whichrelates
exclusively tooffences 'committed byDanishnationals *breaksdownas
follows *
Art.7sDrivingperiods 22
Art.8:Breaks 2
Art.11:Restperiods ~goodstransport 1 5
Restperiods-passenger transport • 2
Art.14sIndividual controlbook 675!
Art.15iRegularservices 6
712
) *
AsregardsIreland,yet(againnoinformation wassuppliedtotheCommission
IntheUnitedKingdom,17906vehicles wereinspected duringtheperiod
aanderreview.Ofthese,181werefoundtobeinbreachoftheRegulation ,
whichrepresents anincrease of0.50%*Inall,140oftheinfringements
concerned Article14(l)(failuretocarrycontrolbooks)?nd33Article
14(2)(failuretokeepcontrolbooksproperly).(SeeTablev\derpoint2,
p.12).
2.Comparative significance ofoffences committed bynationals and
non-nationals
Unfortunately ,sincesomecountries suchasItalyandIrelandprovided no
information oninfringements andothers(Luxembourg "andDenmark)madeno
distinction betweennationals andnon-nationals ,thefiguressupplied by
theMemberStatesareinadequate foranyreliable comparison .
ThetablessubmittedbxjBelgiumshowoffencesbynon-national ras
constituting only2%ofthetotaldetected ingoodstr^nspcr^t and28%
jlnpassenger transport (seetalliesbelow).

-17-
BELGIUM
i
1.Goodstransport
I
(a)Infringements bynon-nationals
Art.6t
450kmdistance restriction --.--•--o
Art.7:
Drivingperioda-continuous ---- 112
daily -- ■-- 0
weekly - 0
Art.8: |
Breaks L–■ o
/
Art.11:
Dailyrestperiod ------ -0
Art.12
Weeklyrestperiod 0
Art.14(l):
Nocontrol book 224
Art.14(2)
Booksdeptimproperly ornotatall ---1-1
Régulation (EEC)No1463/70 '-5----5
TOTAL . -5.■*-4312
'Ί

b)Itifringenvsn ssyn-?.'cionals
(a)Distance restriction (450km)(Art.6) 6
(b)Driving periods (Art.7)-continuous > ' 6
daily 10
•weekly 5
(c)Breaks . 3
(d)Daily rest period (Art.11) 7
(e)Weekly rest period (Art.12) 7
(f)Control book -Art.14(l )tNocontrol book 343
Art .14(l ):Control book nothanded in 0
Art .14(2 ):Control book kept improperly
ornot atall 89
Art .14(4 ):Notachograph 1
Art .14(7 )sNoregisters kept 15
Art .14(7 ):Registers kept improperly 18
Art .14(8 ):Control books notretained 16
Annex 4-Weekly report not signed 1
(g)Checks onregular services (Art.15)
1.Failure todraw upservice timetable 1
Failure todraw upduty roster 4
2.Copy ofservice timetable and/orextract from duty roster
not carried byallcrew members 1
(h)Community tachorjraph (Art.16) 3
(i)Regulation (EEC)No1463/70 106
TOTAL 642

«19»
2.Passenger transport
Articles NLDIP GB Total Total
non-nationals nationals
Art.6:
Distance restriction
(4501cm) " 0 0
Art.7s
Drivingperiods ----- 0 0
Art.8:
Breaks -----a 0 0
Art.11:
Dailyrestperiod ----- 0 2
Art.12:
Weeklyrestperiod----- 0 0
Art.14(1)î
Control booknothandedin---–- 0 0
Art.14(1)ï
Nocontrol book 1-4 22 9 31
Art.14(2):
Control bookkeptimproperly
ornotatall |i/"."3-- 3 17
Art.14(7):
Register keptimproperly
ornotatall ----- 0 1
Art.14(8)s
Control booksnotretained----- 0 1
Vehicles notfittedwith
controlequipment 1-3-- 4 19
Vehicles fittedwith
controlequipment
1.Discsnotrecorded --3-- 3 6
2.Restperiodsnotrecorded 1 1 1
3.Nokey ----- - .1
4.Equipment outoforder----- - 1
5.Nodisc£t»rperiods
preceding dailydriving
period 11164- 22 26
TOTAL 14 11962 42 106

;mgy a».
TheFederal Republic ofGermany supplied very detailed figures .These
show little change over previous years ,however *intheproportion of
offences committed byforeign drivers andoperators (close to11%-
seetables p.Ba„bandc)«
InFrance ,atotal of267829crews (240264French and27565foreign )
were checked ontheroad .These checks led tothe detection of93647
infringements byFrench crews and5016(-5%/)byforeign crews *
TheNetherlands supplied adetailed breakdown (seetable below )which -
shows atotal of42890infringements byDutch crews and878(-2%),
byforeign crews . x .
National and non-national crews
Article Netherlands Iι
Belgium GermanyUnited
Kingdom France .ItalyNon-
member
countries
6 397 3 _ 1 _
7/1 2.484 25 24 - 57 - ' 8
7/2 5280 . 42 34 - 41 - 7
7/3 212 1 2 - - -.-
7/4 74 - - - -
8 8 - - - - -
11/1 5896 41 27 - 21 7
11/2 64 4
f1 - - - -
12 17 - - - - -
M/1 3186 28 8 - --;■ 1 3
14/2 1564 18 9 - . 2 - 4
14/4 16637 57 2 ■- 7 - 16
IS/1 - ■- ■ - - - - -
15/5 - 2 2 - - - -
16 6531 192 66 4 93 12 4
TOTAL 42890 413 177 4 222 1349,
878
TheUnited Kingdom also provided fairly detailed figures -30infringements
byBritish crews asagainst 151byforeign crews «approximately 90%ofthe
latter (132)committed byIrish crews *

as21s
Articles l'EBDDKFIIRLLMLNon-member TOTAL
countries
Art.6s
450km
Art.7:
Drivingperiods 1-1----- -- 2
Art.8i
Breaks - -1 _ 1
Art.11:
Dailyrest
periods ...... .
Art.14s
(i)Nocontrolbook 12- --1118-- 9 140
(ii)Controlbook
notentered up17-- 1114-3 2 38
Art.15s
(i)Roster:driverI
Ί
(ii)Roster:operator---
TOTAL 30-1-22131-311 181
Acleardistinction wasmadeintheinformation supplied byBelgium ,France,
theNetherlands andtheFederaliRepublic ofGermanybetweeninfringements
committed bynationals andthosecommitted bynon-nationals ,thoughthe
FederalRepublic didwarnthatitwasnotpossible tomakesuchadistinction
inthecaseofcertain LHnder.Luxembourg ,theUnitedKingdom andDenmark ,
on.theotherhand,suppliedlessdetailed information ,whilstItalyand
Irelandprovided noinformation whatsoever inthisconnection .Itisalso
interesting tonotethatthereportsforLuxembourg andDenmark ,whilst.
omittingdetailsofthenumberofchecksconducted ,didcontainfigures
regarding thenumberofoffences detected .
TheCommission nevertheless feelsobligedtostatethattherehasbeenno
greatimprovement intheinformation supplied asregardseitherthenumber
ofinfringements orthebreakdown betweennationals andnon-nationals .

-22-«
OFFENCES
Numberofoffences detected
Committed bynationals oftheMemberStateconcerned Committed bynon-nationals
TOTAL
GoodsPassenger
GoodsPassenger
Regular Occasional Regular Occasional
FederalRepublic
ofGermany392521 1411 16791 4552 30 585 46257
........
France936472 120209350162218872
'Belgium 642 106 12 42 802
Italy Nodetailssupplied-
Luxembourg74884 7.488
Netherlands 42346 121 423 862 3 13 437j58
UnitedKingdom 30 151 '181
Denmark 5712 712
Ireland Nodetailssupplied-
(1)Includingnon-nationals wheretheLanderwereunableCoprovideseparatefigures.
(2)Offences ontheroad-nodistinction betweengoodsandpassenger transport operations .
(3)Alloffencesdetectedinthecourseofchecksatoperators' premises-nobreakdown .
(4)Mainlyoffencescommitted byLuxembourg nationals engagedininternational transportoperations .
(5)Figurerelatesexclusively tooffencescommitted byDanishnationals .

«§3m
Byitsvery nature :a.comparative table ofnumbers ofoffences should be
intended toshow the standard ofcompliance with theCommunity ru3.es in
theMember States .The table onp.12a .is,unfortunately ,not areliable
basis for comparison inview ofthe extent towhich the information set
out there isdependent cnthefigures supplied bytheMember States
regax'ding numbers ofchecks conducted ,whose lack ofcomparability has
already been discussed .Moreover -and this isthemost important point
-forsuch acomparative table tobereally useful ,itwould need to
relate the number ofoffences tothe number ofchecks conducted .This
ishowever ,notpossible ,since thefigures supplied regarding checks
arethemselves notcomparable .TheCommission hasconsequently been
obliged tocontent itself with drawing upatable based onabsolute
figures towhich altogether less significance canbeattached .
3.Penalties imposed
The Commission regrets toreport that Italy ,Luxembourg ,Ireland and
Denmark supplied nofigures whatsoever inthis connection .
Furthermore ,only theFederal Republic and theNetherlands actually gave
separate figures for penalties imposed onnationals andnon-nationals .
The information supplied was soheterogeneous astomake precise evaluation
practically impossible .The Member States should make greater efforts to
conform tothestandard form ofreport intheir submissions .
Asfar asBelgium i3concerned ,sufficient hasbeen said inprevious reports
regarding the great disparity between thenumber ofoffences detected and
thenumber ofcases brought toCourt .The same istrue asregards the time
lagbetween theinstitution ofproceedings andthedate ofconviction (if
any).Inthecase ofgoods transport ,thebreakdown ofaction taken onthe
504official reports drawn upisasfollows :10convictions ,84settlements ,
38nofurther action ,372follow-up notknown .Inthecase ofpassenger
transport ,thebreakdown isasfollows >144official reports -9settlements
and 135follow-up notknotm .

Breakdown c£officiai reports andacfciontakenasregardsin.fringemenLslì
respectofgoodstransport eperatIons.
Articles .NumberofNofurther Settlements Acquittals Convictions Follow-
officisi action upun
"reports • i&iknown
7(2) -.4 - 1
7(3) 1 - - 1
7(4) .1 4'·- 1
8(2) 2 1 - 1
12(1)' 3ι-- _ .- 3
14(1) 345 "27 44 - 9. 265
14(2) 35 - 11 - .- 24
14(4) 1 1■- -
14(8) 4 - 1 3
Annex4* 1 mm - '- 1
15(2) 1 - - 1
Reg.1463-106 9 27 - 1 69
TOTAL 504 38 84 - 10 372
*Weeklyreportnotsigned.
Breakdown ofofficial reports andactiontakenasregardsinfringements in
respectofpassenger transport «
Articles Number OfHofurther Settlements Acquittals Convictions Follow-
officiadaction up
reports unknown
7
11(1) 2l'i-■■-
2
14(1) 40 - 5 - - 35
14(2) 20 - L'1 - 19
14(7) 1 - ·· ' " «> 1
14(8) 1 - 1
16no
control
equipment 19 - 1 - 18
16discs
not
recorded 61 - 2 ** ■* 59
TOTAL 144 9 135
sanseæneaeæstøsæaessassæiaiaæiesnstsSKaææssasgSieasaisesueassaassens ausa:sassssiSssssensisaeKeEKsesesjBsasSÍeseiai

-25-
IntheFederal Republic ,alargenumberofadsru.nistrativeorderswereissued
imposing penalfinesoncrewmembersforfailingtokeeptheirindividual
controlbooksproperly .Thesizeofthefinetobepaidineachcasewas
calculated inaccordance withastandard scaleforoperators andcrewmembers.
Themajority ofthefinesimposedwerelessthanDM1000-generally between
DM50andDM500.Inanumberofcases,finesofbetween DM1000andDM5000
wereimposed andtherewereisolated instances ofhigherfines-DM5700,
DM6500,DM10000andDM40000.Inthetwocases,courtproceedings were
instituted .According totheinformation supplied bytheFederalRepublic ,
4496Germanoperators and8049Germancrewmembersreceived formalwarnings
andwereorderedtopayacautionary fineofbetween DM10andDM20.A
totalof6681oralwarnings and358writtenwarnings withoutfinewere
issued.Inaddition ,administrative ordersimposing penalityfineswere
issuedto5324Germanoperators and12535Germancrewmembers.The
figuresforforeignoperators andcrewmemberswere1852warnings
withoutfine,16308withcautionary fineand14269administrative orders
imposing penalfine3.
1.Typeandnumberofpenalties imposed onnational crewmembers
Typeofpenalty Number
Oralwarning
(withoutfine) €681)
7039
Written warning
(withoutfine) 358
Warning andcautionary fine
(a)operators
(b)crewmembers4-486
804912535
Administrative orderimposing penaltyfine
(a)operators
(b)crewmembers5324
1253517859
Courtproceedings instituted 2
Numberofchecksconducted
(a)atoperators *pren?ses
(b)ontheroad
(c)atborders(specialchecks).15599
1845819710)
53867

-26-
- \
2.Typeandnumberofpenalties -imposed onnon-national crewmembers
Informal warning ,
nofurther actionFormalwarning
without fineWarningwith
cautionary
fineAdministratifs
orderimposing
penalfine
Goodstransport
Passenger transport
Passenger and
goodstransport925
5
9301824
8
1832.16307,
/
1
1630814217
73
14296
InFrance.9415penalfinesrangingfromlessthanFF40tomorathanFF220
wereimposedduringtheperiodunderreview#
Penalfines
AmountsinFF Number %
LessthanFF40 1784 18,9%
FF41toFF100 3544 37,6%
FF101to160 1888 20,1%,'
FF161to220 1342 14,3%
MorethanFF220 857 9,1%
9415 100%
TheNetherlands supplied averydetailed breakdown ofthefinesimposed
in1977(FL1914695intotal)bothbytypeofoperation (goodsor
passenger)andbycountryoforiginoftheoperators involved *

■87*
Official reports ?ndinspection reports inrespect ofgoods andpassenger
transport operations
Country Official
reportsInspection
reports *Infringements Total
of
fines
inFLOffici eilreports
onwhich no
further action
can betaken
Netherlands 13847 – 42890 1910 915 570
Belgium 99 10 413 . 2005 14
Federal Republic 24 10 .177 1175 5
United Kingdom 1 1 4 1
France 18 3 222 390 6
Italy 1 1 13 - 1
Non-member'
countries 9 1 49 210 6 ■!
TOTAL 13999 26 43768 1914 695 603
*Nopenalties imposed .
The table below gives abreakdown byArticle infringed ofpenalties imposed
onDutch goods transport operators
Article of
the
RegulationNumber ofofficiai
reportsNumber ofinfringements
recorded inthese
reportsTotal of
fines
inFL
6 3 3 55ς-
7(1) 24 75 1835 .-
7(2) 49 119 7215 ,-
7(3) 7 16 675 ,-
11(1 ) 68 88 6380 ,-
14(1 ) 1828 I832 113970 ,-
14(2 ) 357 930 25450–
14(4 ) 6054 8602 771820 ,-
16 1678 3363 153 170 ,-
Other Articles 3522 27287 806 125,-
TOTAL 13599 42315 1.886695,-

Breakdown byA:r-ticle infringe :3.ofpenalties imposed σαDutch .operators
inrespect
/ofregular pass ena ;stservices
Article/
Number of Number ofinfringements•Total offines
ofthe official recorded inthese inFL
Regulation reports reports
11(2 ) 1 - 11 - -
14(1 ) 32 32 ' 1885 .-
14(2 ) 13 57 1080 .-
14(4 ) 9, 15 905 .-
16 2 2 200 .-
Other Articles 5 > 14 345 .-
TOTAL 62 121 4415 .-
Breakdown byArticle infringed ofpenalties imposed onDutch operators
inrespect Of ιoccasional passenger services
Article Number of Number ofinfringements Total offines
ofthe official recorded inthese inFL
Régulation reports reportsi
11(2 ) 6 8 615 .-
14(1 ) 17 17 1075 .-
14(2 ) 3 4 205 .-
14(4 ) 92 122 9565 .-
16 36 46 2570 .-
Other Articles 41 226 5775–
TOTAL 195 423 19805.»

-99-
Thefollowing tablesgiveabreakdown of.penalties imposed onoperators
inrespectoftransport operations conducted invehiclesregistered
outside theNetherlands
1.Belgianundertakings -goodstransport
Article of
the
RegulationOfficial
reportsInspection
reportsNumberofinfringements
recorded inofficial
reports and
inspection reportsTotedof
fines
inFL
6 1 .. . 1
7(2) 3 3 -
14(1) 17 18 430.-
14(2) 6 3 17 -
14(4) 6 - 14 30.-
16 29 4 89 350.-
OtherArticles 34 3 261 .1.195.-
TOTAL 96 10 403 2005.-
Regular passenger services
OtherArticles 1 - 3
Occasional passenger services
OtherArticles 2 7

•30-
2.GermanUndertakings -goodstransport
Article Officiad'
ofthe reports
RegulationInspection
reportsNumberofinfringen ents
recorded inofficial
reports and
inspection reportsTotalof
fines
inFL
14(1) 2 2 4 80.-
14(2) - '2 8 mm
14(4) 1 , 1 -
16 6. 2 14 -
OtherArticles ,14 ■2 146 1.065.-
Total 23 8 173 1.145·-
Occasional passenger services
14(2) - 1 1
16 1 1 -
OtherArticles „1 2
Total 1'
2 4 -
3.Frenchundertakings -goodstransport• .-
Article -Official
ofthe reports
RegulationInspection
reportsNumberofinfringements
recorded inofficial
reports and
inspection reportsTotalof
fines
inFL
14(2) 1-
Μ» 1 25.-
16 3,-■ 20 --
OtherArticles 14 3 201 365.-
Total 18 3 222 390.-

-31■
4.Italianundertakings -goodstransport
Article
ofthe
RégulationOfficiai
reportsInspection Numberofinfringements Totalof
reports recorded inofficial fines
reports and mFL
inspection reports
16 1 -
OtherArticles - 111
2- .
Total 1 1 13 '-
5.UnitedKingdomundertakings -goodstransport
16 1 1 4 -
6»Undertakings fromnon-member countries -goodstransport
i
14(1) 1 -
14(2) 1 -
OtherArticles <7 –1
2
44-30
210
Total 9 - 47 240
Occasional passenger servides
OtherArticles 1 2

-33
Thefollowing tablesprovideabreakdown ofpenalties imposedonDutch
roadtransport undertakings basedincountries otherthantheNetherlands *
Dutchundertakings basedinBelgium
Goodstransport
•
Article Numberof Numberofinfringem ente Totalof
ofthe official recorded inthese fines
Regulation reports reports inFL
.7(1) 1 1 50.-
14(1) 2 2 135.-
14(2) 2 2 40.-
14(4) 44 63 3.100.-
16 10 18 655.-
OtherArticles 24 82 3.035.-
Total 83•
168 7Î015.-
Occasioned passenger services-
Article Numberof Numberofinfringements Totalof
ofthe official recorded inthese fines
Regulation reports reports inFL
14(4) 1 2 150.-

-33-
InthecaseoftheUnitedKingdom,thepercentage oforalandwritten
warningsfellascompared withprevious years,butthenumberof
prohibitions andprosecutions increased .Itisimportant tonfttethat
thefiguresforcasefbroughtbeforetheCourtsbyth<jLicensing
Authorities during1977relateonlytoUnitedKingdomundertakings .
Detailsofthepenalties imposedaregivenbelow.
Articles Oral Written Prohibitions ,Offences Total
ofthe warnings warnings prosecuted fines
"Regulation in£
Art.6-450km - -,m» - -
Art.7
Continuous driving - - - 1 40
Dailydriving 2 - - -
Weeklydriving - - «a» 6 20
Art.8-Breaks•
α» 1 - em -
Art.11-
Dailyrestperiod·» - 1 15
Art.12-
Weeklyrestperiod- - - 6 40
Art.14
Carrying
control books 17 - 117 8 410
Keeping
control booksί
10u- 1 14 43 349
Keepingregister - - em - -
TOTALS * 29 2 131 65 874

-34-
Nofigures were supplied totheCommission regarding penalties imposed in
Italy ,Luxembourg ,Ireland andDenmark .The Italian authorities confined
themselves toreporting theexistence ofadministrative sanctions .In
Luxembourg ,theauthorities issue oral andwritten warnings ,andinthe
case ofsevere orrepeated offences court proceedings areinstituted .
According totheDanish Government ,thesanctions applied during the
report /period consisted ofwarnings insome cases andfines ofupto
Dkr 2000 inothers .Asregards Ireland ,penalties £<8roffences against
theCommunity regulation arelaid down inStatutory Instrument No260 of
1975 andoffenders maybeprosecuted bytheMinister ofLabour .
There continue tobesubstantial disparities between theMember States
asregards both the sanctions available and therigour with which these
areapplied .TheCommission regards harmonization ofthe penalities imposed
onoffenders asessential ifanequal standard ofcompliance with the
Community Regulation istobeachieved inallMember States *
L
Ι'Γ

«35®
III .MULTILATERAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND NOTIFICATION
OFBREACHES
Asregards mutual assistance (Art ,18(2 )and (3)oftheRegulation ),the
BeigianTransport Administration forwarded three official reports byFrench
inspecting officers onBelgian crew members totheappropriate courts *
Inaddition ,lists ofOfficial reports oncrew members ofvehicles registered
inother Member States were sent tothe relevant authorities inthe countries
concerned for their information .Inreturn ,theTransport Admini strati onwas
informed ofoffences commi tted byBelgian nationals inFrance .Nodetails
were received ofpenalties imposed inother Member States .Details ofaction
taken otlofficial reports byFrench inspecting officers were sent tothe
relevant French departments
Asinprevious years ,theFederal Republic maintained contacts with its
neighbours for thepurpose ofdiscussing theimplementation ofRegulation
No543/69oBilateral talks were held with representatives oftheFrench ,
Austrian and Danish Governments .
TheFrench authorities kept other Member States informed onaregular basis
ofinfringements committed bytheir nationals inFrance .
Neither Italy nor Ireland supplied anyinformation totheCommission on
this point .Luxembourg only notified other Member States intheevent of
serious offences .Intwocases ,Denmark received assistance from Belgian
courts (notif ication ofoffences ).TheDanish authorities didnotprovide
any assistance toother Member States .The Neth.erlan.ds both assisted and
was assisted bytheFederal German authorities onanumber ofoccasions .
Atotal of24infringements were reported totheFederal Republic ,whilst
theNetherlands received notification of4943 infringements from the
Federal Republic and84from Belgium .TheFederal Republic also reported
theimposition ofpenalties in4943cases .IntheUnited Kingdom ^offences
byforeign operators continued tobereported tothe authorities ofthe
Member States concerned .Inreturn ,reports were onoccasion received of
offences committed byUnited Kingdom operators inother Member States .
There isnodoubt that theMember States need toadopt amore active
*approach inthis field .There hasadmittedly been substantial progress
asregards thereciprocal notification ofinfringements (prosecutions and
official reports ),buttheMember States still provide each other with far
toolittle information regarding penalties imposed *

Whilst reservations were expressed bysome Member States ,the consensus
would appear tobethat there hasbeen aslight improvement inthe
situation asregards compliance with theCommunity rules .
TheBelgian authorities reported adecrease ofaround 19%inthefrequency
ofoffences ,reflecting afuller acquaintance with theprovisions of -
Regulation (EEC)No543/69onthepart ofthose working inroad transport .
Fortheir part ,theFederal German authorities complain that there isa
high degree ofinconsistency from country tocountry intheapplication of
theRegulation and that thefigures show altogether toomany severe offences
onthepart ofcrew members from South-East European countries .The situation
is,however ,reported tobeimproving asregards compliance with therules
byoperators andcrew members ofvehicles registered intheCommunity .The
effort put into monitoring hasapparently paid dividends and those concerned
nowactively endeavour tocomply both with theprovisions ofRegulations
543/79and1463/70andwith those oftheAETR .Theimposition ofpenal fines
byadministrative order hasinduced operators toplant^eir schedules more
carefully soastoensure that their crews comply with therules .Inaddition ,
Ispecial monitoring operations andinformation campaigns continue tobecon­
ducted .However ,transport operators andtheir associations critize Regulation
No543/69onthegrounds that ,taken asawhole ,itsprovisions arecomplicated
andimpractical .
France andIreland supplied noinformation inthis connection .
According totheItalian Government ,therules aireobserved insubstance
throughout thecountry ,even though nosignificant improvement canbe
discerned intheposition asregards thekeeping ofdocumentary records .
However ,nostatistical !evidence hasbeen supplied insupport ofthis
assertion .
TheLuxembourg Government regards thedecrease inthenumber ofinfringements
asevidence that theprovisions ofRegulation (EEC)No543/69areclosely
observed initsterritory butbelieves that adefinitive assessment will not
bepossible until theGrand Ducal Regulation of23December 1972 imposing
penalties forinfringements ofRegulation No543/69hasbeen inforce for
anumber ofyears#

Asregards theNetherlands ,thefigures available show that 9,3 %ofthe
checks carried out led toofficial reports ,which represents aslight
increase inthe number ofreports .
InDenma rk;theCommunity Regu.ls.tion only became applicable todomestic
transport operations inFebruary 1977 and itwas ,according tothe
Government ,initially difficult toinduce transport operators anddrivers
tocomply with itsprovisions .These diff iculties are ,however ,now said
tobedecreasing .
TheUnited Kingdom reports that ,inthefield ofinternational transport
operations (theRegulation hasyettobeapplied todomestic traffic ),
thestandard ofcompliance with Regulation No543/69byundertakings
from allMember States continues tobehigh .
2.Difficulties inchecking onthe use ofindividual control books in
international transport operations
With theprogressive introduction ofthe tachograph inallMember States
except Ireland and theUnited Kingdom ,this question looses itsimportance
asfar astransport operations within theCommunity areconcerned .Such is
not ,however ,thecase asregards operations involving non-member countries
-here thesituation asregards keeping control books remains unsatisfactory .
Admittedly ,themajority ofoffences detected inconnection with transport
operations within theCommunity also consist offailure either tocarry
individual books ortokeep them properly ,but thenumber ofsuch offences
isdeclining thanks totheprogfessiveintroduction ofthetachograph .

Important dates intheprogramme for implementing the Regulation ontachograph
Theentry inforce ofRegulation (EEC )No1463 /70inthe sixoriginal Member
States :
(a)fornewvehicles andthose carrying dangerous goodsi 1January 1975
(b)other vehicles (except those registered before
1.1.1975 ): 1January 1978
(c)vehicles registered before 1.1.1975 and
i)used within aradius of50km ./•
ii)with atotal weight ofless than 6t 1July 1979 .
Theentry inforce ofRegulation (EEC)No1463 /70inthe
three newMember States (United Kingdom .Ireland andDenmark )
(a) 1January 1976
(b) 1January 1978 .
(c) 1July 1979 .
However ,Ireland andtheUnited Kingdom have been allowed to
work toaprogramme ofdelayed utilization andapplication inrespect of
which theCommission gave afavourable opinion /with anumber ofreservations .
Ireland U.K.
•usecompulsory for interna­
tional carriage 25.6.1979 14.1.1980
•installation compulsory
fornew vehicles 25.6.1979 1.4.1980
.use compulsory fornatio­
naloperations 1.1.1981 31.12.1981
InBelgium ,thenumber ofinfringements continued tofall in1977 .
InItaly ,there wasnodiscernible improvement during theperiod under
review inthesituation asregards thekeeping ofdocumentary records .
TheGovernment hopes that theintroduction ofthetachograph willopen
thewaytothegradual elimination ofthepresent problems .
Nodifficulties were reported byFrance andLuxembourg ,whilst theNetherlands
hadnonewcomments tomake andIreland supplied noinformation whatsoever ,,
T*1®United Kingdom hadnodifficulties toreport inthechecking of
individual control -books ortachograph charts *

as39m
Since 1February 1977 ,theCommunity Regulation has also applied todomestic
transport operations inDenmark and theGovernment reports that both operators
anddrivers had some difficulty atfirst "iticomplying with therules ,but
the situation isapparently now improving .
The Federal German authorities encounter serious difficulties inconnection
with vehicles entering thecountry from non-member States ,The crews of
these vehicles frequently keep norecord oftheir activities ,making it
impossible tocheck driving andrest periods .
3.Proposals for changes inthe standard form ofreport
None oftheMember States made anyparticular suggestions inthis connection ,
which indicates that they are satisfied with the present standard form of
report .
4.Proposals formeasures toimprove theoperation ofRegulation (EEC ) 543/69
The Belgian ,French ,Italian andIrish authorities hadnosuggestions tomake
inthis connection .The Federal German once more called for action from the
Commission toachieve uniformity inthemonitoring ofcompliance with the
social provisions relating toroad transport andharmonization ofthepenalties
forinfringements .TheGerman authorities also stressed theimportance ,in
theinterests ofpreserving uniformity intherules ,ofbringing theprovisions
oftheAETR into line with those ofRegulation (EEC)No543/69.
The Luxembourg Government stated that itdid not consider the time tobe
ripe forproposals forimprovements .
TheDanish Government indicated that itwas awaiting theoutcome ofthe
negotiations currently under way intheCouncil Working Party onTransport
Questions .
TheUnited Kingdom made noproposals for improvements but did point out
that Regulation (EEC ; ."5:3/69became applicable todomestic traffic within
theUnited Kingdom a .heendof1977 .and that thereport for 1978 would
consequent?.?' cc^r rJltransport oo^ratiom' isithu Ifoitecl kingdom .
n../■••

.<*45
C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Itisdifficult asyet todraw anyfirm conclusions regarding uniformity
intheapplication ofRegulation No543/69inthevarious Member States . ,
Tobegin with ,inboth theUnited Kingdom andIreland theGommunity
Regulation wasapplied only tointernational transport :operations during
theperiod under review ,whilst inDenmark theprovisions forthe
application oftheRegulation todomestic traffic were notenacted until
1February 1977 .Aside frim this ,thefact that anumber ofMember States
either failed tosupply sufficiently comparable figures orgave noinfor­
mation whatsoever (asinthecase ofIreland )means that anysuch con­
clusions would beunrealistic .
-y
Theinformation received does ,however ,suggest that toofewchecks are
conducted insome Member States and that the national authorities are
unable incertain cases toprovide even thebasic minimum ofinformation *
There hasbeen nogreat improvement inthedetails supplied regarding .
numbers ofoffences with (theresult that thesituation insome Member
States still cannot beassessed with anycertainty andmeaningful
comparisons remain impossibile .TheMember States should make greater
efforts tobring their submissions into line with thestandard form of
report soastoimprove thetransparency ofthefigures available .
There would also appear tobeaneed forexamination with government experts ,
thepossibility of.approximating tosome extent thedifferent national penalty
systems ,atleast intheir practical effects inorder toavoid themost
flagrant differences inthis field .
Thesituation asregards multilateral mutual assistance between Member
States still leaves much tobedesired intheCommission 'sopinion and
steps should betaken tobring about animprovement assoon aspossible .
TheCommission isunable toescape theimpression that insome Member
States either checks areconfined tonationals ofthecountry concerned
ornopenalties areimposed onforeign nationals found tobebreaking
therules *Itshould be^remembered inthis connection that Regulation
No543/69isaCommunity instrument andmust beapplied equally to
nationals ofallMember States ifitistobefully effective .

c41aa
TheCommission would emphasize that thepenalties imposed arenot always
sufficiently Severe ,particularly in.thecase ofserious offences .
Whilst there isnomention ofthis inthe standard form ofreport ,the
Commission would draw attention totheexistence ofaproblem asregards
liability .Insome Member States liability for aworker 'sactions falls
entirely onhis employer ,inothers liability isshared byemployer and
employee and inyetothers thequestion ofwhether theemployee alone
isliable has yet tobefully clarified .
Tosumup,certain Member States need toadopt afirmer ,more positive
attitude iftheCommunity provisions are tobeapplied properly .The
Commission hopes tosee thenecessary steps taken inallMember States
andwill doeverything initspower toensure that this goal isattained .